The Manabe wrong turning, history

Posted: July 26, 2015 by tchannon in atmosphere, climate, History, radiative theory

Tim writes, someone somewhere reminded me

An anon has reminded me of a critical paper published in the May 1967 issue Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.

As such in the context of the mid 1960s with little knowledge or computing hardware there ought to be no problem. Unfortunately a number of critical fixed assumptions and of ideas in the paper were ignored for what they were and has formed the basis of the nonsense we have today. The continued correction which typifies science guessing seemed to cease.

Given the Talkshop has many new eyes and opinions since the last mention of this paper a look today is a good move, or at least I think so.

Image

Extracted from paper, one of several choices.

Tallbloke’s original Talkshop article dated 21st March 2012 (comments closed by date)

Roy Clark: Where it all went wrong with climate science
(comments closed by date)

 

Image

Image of paper head. Link to paper PDF at NOAA site

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. I think they missed the fact that lapse rates are different in ascending (moist) and descending (dry)columns of air. At any given moment half the entire atmosphere has a rising component to its movement and half a descending component.

    This recent article is relevant:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html

    The fourth diagram is especially pertinent here.

  2. Stephen Wilde says: July 26, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    “I think they missed the fact that lapse rates are different in ascending (moist) and descending (dry)columns of air. At any given moment half the entire atmosphere has a rising component to its movement and half a descending component.”

    What is the significance of this when no work is being done either in ascending or descending?

    In your plug of your own writings I find there the following:
    “So, just as KE was greater than PE throughout the column of ascending air then PE is greater than KE throughout the column of descending air.”

    You never define KE or PE or even the “Height of hydrostatic balance”! You seem to refer to sensible heat as KE, and altitude a some sort of PE, with the third just a line at arbitrary altitude! Why must we guess? They so far are but symbols with no meaning!
    Why do you think any of this has meaning within this semi-compressible composite fluid called atmosphere and how this atmosphere may work?🙂

  3. oldbrew says:

    Can the ‘day atmosphere’ and ‘night atmosphere’ – both continuously varying due to rotation – be treated as the same thing, as in ‘Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere’?

  4. Kristian says:

    From the paper (page 242):

    Radiative convective equilibrium
    a. Description of the model. As we explained in the previous paper and in the introduction, the radiative convective equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity should satisfy the following requirements:

    1) At the top of the atmosphere, the net incoming solar radiation should be equal to the net outgoing long-wave radiation.
    2) No temperature discontinuity should exist.
    3) Free and forced convection, and mixing by the large-scale eddies, prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5 C/km.
    4) Whenever the lapse rate is subcritical, the conditions of local radiative equilibrium is satisfied.
    5) The heat capacity of the earth’s surface is zero.
    6) The atmosphere maintains the given vertical distribution of relative humidity (new requirement).

    In the actual computation, the state of radiative convective equilibrium is computed as an asymptotic state of an initial value problem.”

  5. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 26, 2015 at 8:53 pm:

    “You never define KE or PE or even the “Height of hydrostatic balance”! You seem to refer to sensible heat as KE, and altitude a some sort of PE, with the third just a line at arbitrary altitude! Why must we guess? They so far are but symbols with no meaning!
    Why do you think any of this has meaning within this semi-compressible composite fluid called atmosphere and how this atmosphere may work?”

    Stephen and Doug are just displaying their profound ignorance when promoting their KE to PE conversion theory on what makes the tropospheric temperature gradient.

    And it’s a fairly straightforward exercise to show why and how.

    An N2 molecule is lifted from the surface air layer (0 km) to the tropopause air layer (12 km).

    It will then (hypothetically) gain a total of mgh = 5.47 x 10^-21 J worth of ‘individual gravitational PE’.

    At the same time, with a perfect g/Cp (DALR) temperature gradient, the air layer at the mean global tropopause level would be on average 117 K (9.75 K/km x 12 km) colder than the surface air layer.

    So the mean translational KE (three DOFs) of the N2 molecule in the surface air (at 288K) would be 3/2 kT = 5.96 x 10^-21 J, and in the tropopause air (at 171K) 3.54 x 10^-21 J. If you include its rotational KE (2 DOFs), which does not affect the molecular velocity and hence not the air temperature, the total (trans+rot) KE of the N2 molecule at the surface is 5/2 kT = 9.94 x 10^-21 J, and at the tropopause 5.9 x 10^-21 J. So the individual N2 molecule loses a total of 4.04 x 10^-21 J worth of KE when moving along the g/Cp from the surface air layer (0 km) to the tropopause air layer (12 km).

    There are no more KE DOFs available (at ‘earthly’ temps) for the single N2 molecule. And the g/Cp gradient determines (through the set temperature falloff rate) exactly how much the KE will be reduced.

    The N2 molecular GAIN in PE: 5.47 x 10^-21 J
    The N2 molecular LOSS in KE: 4.04 x 10^-21 J

    No connection.

  6. Kristian,

    You forgot about the PE created when molecules of gases move further apart as they do when they rise upward and away from a centre of gravity. You have only calculated the vertical parameter which is far smaller.

  7. Kristian says:

    Stephen,

    Then include it and show how my calculation is wrong. How it all fits.

    If there’s an even greater change in potential energy from 0 to 12 km, how is that gonna help the two values get any closer?

    Have you done the basic maths?

  8. Kristian says: July 26, 2015 at 9:05 pm
    From the paper (page 242):
    “Radiative convective equilibrium
    a. Description of the model. As we explained in the previous paper and in the introduction, the radiative convective equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity should satisfy the following requirements”

    Hi Kristian,
    You noticed also. Why those following requirements? More Sophistry? Even radiative equilibrium requires much guessing and more “beats the shit outta me”. Why not just, These are the result of my measurement of whatever I was measuring. We will leave it to academics to judge what was measured, or not, and what the results may assist, those that think they rule!

    Kristian says: July 26, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    “The N2 molecular GAIN in PE: 5.47 x 10^-21 J
    The N2 molecular LOSS in KE: 4.04 x 10^-21 J”
    “No connection.”

    Indeed! No need for conservation of energy in an open system, within a gravitational field. Do not even try! But you Kristian please try to consider for this aerosol compressible composite gas/water atmosphere that is completely contained by a single gravitational force on each molecule independent of the location of such molecule.
    My conjecture is that “temperature” of local atmospheric mass represents the thermal molar energy density of that mass at that location (altitude) under a single gravitational attractive force on each molecule, completely replacing all of Newton’s laws of motion. The atmosphere has no weight🙂

  9. Brett Keane says:

    @ Will – ” The atmosphere has no weight :-“: so what causes pressure? Mass and gravity? Do you mean a counter balance to weight by energy capable of forcing the gaseous phase? Thus, a local effect of weightlessness affecting not me, but the gas molecules? You say these are completely contained, but they have no lid, and do come and go randomly as energy and chance dictate. Being constrained but not confined seems to me to be important in understanding why AGW is refuted. Don’t know if it will work, but I’ve been trying to get theoreticians to see that what us oldies know as Mechanics is what really does the job.

  10. tchannon says:

    The point can be argued on the head of a pin Brett, ah, point is other end. A jellyfish has.no weight but has mass. The sharp end is that exact context matters.

    Out of it’s home, without a supporting cast, a jellyfish has weight.

    This problem, out of context is common in discussion, easy to do by accident.

    What though if support is at this moment improper, weight might appear.

    An instance might be the confusion over thermal back radiation, getting signs and contexts spot on in relation to the whole is tricky. As I have pointed out the thermal static field, akin to the water pressure on a jellyfish is included as though it is real, whereas it is in balance. Now what *exactly* is being meant?

  11. Oldbrew says: July 26, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Can the ‘day atmosphere’ and ‘night atmosphere’ – both continuously varying due to rotation – be treated as the same thing, as in ‘Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere’?

    No never, that can be considered “static” in Earth rotational time from an inertial (non moving or rotating) reference located at the solar system barycenter. Insolation entropy to earth is vast from the Sun. Then dissipated to space via EMR and projective geometry in every other direction, via local temperature and the unknown emissivity at each frequency by this buoyant 3D atmosphere.🙂

  12. tchannon says: July 27, 2015 at 12:58 am

    “The point can be argued on the head of a pin Brett, ah, point is other end. A jellyfish has.no weight but has mass. The sharp end is that exact context matters.”

    Thank you Tim,
    This is the difference in context the head of the pin is where young Eötvös dances with fetching Corolis,
    the pointy end is where “any” electrical charge can develop, with that diminishing radius can develop a field strength high enough to kill your young ass, not by discharge of energy, just by the huge stress on some heart insulator! Consider potential difference, force, not the transfer of power (work)

    The context here is not what some mass with some density, weight, kinetic/potential energy does while travelling through the atmosphere, but instead what the atmosphere itself does! Observe the weather (the atmosphere) then sunbathe, or run for your life!

    “Out of it’s home, without a supporting cast, a jellyfish has weight.
    This problem, out of context is common in discussion, easy to do by accident.”🙂 -will-

  13. Brett Keane says:

    Thankyou all, the above points re context, how the whole works in a rotating illuminated sphere, potential difference, operative mechanics etc, all endlessly ongoing. Various descriptions of snapshots are slagged by other describers of snapshots, but any may or may not be correct or partly so in their context.

    Too much head and point of pin stuff, old story, eh? Lovely metaphor about Eotvos and Coriolis, a true classic! Who knew. And part of a good description too. Poetry does the best describing, pity most poets have no science. When just starting this research, about ten years ago, for an article I wrote a description of how weather linkages exist diagonally around the world, Caribbean through arctic, west pacific to caribbean again. The mind can do it when pushed, green as I was, and still am. What about we think in the larger context, we have the science between us (more or less) to fill in the details once the big picture is agreed. Should that ever happen…Or as the poet wrote: “This is the difference in context the head of the pin is where young Eötvös dances with fetching Coriolis, the pointy end is where “any” electrical charge can develop, with that diminishing radius can develop a field strength high enough to kill your young ass, not by discharge of energy, just by the huge stress on some heart insulator! Consider potential difference, force, not the transfer of power (work).” That seems to me to say quite a bit.

  14. Brett Keane says: July 27, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Thankyou all, the above points re context, how the whole works in a rotating illuminated sphere, potential difference, operative mechanics etc, all endlessly ongoing. Various descriptions of snapshots are slagged by other describers of snapshots, but any may or may not be correct or partly so in their context.

    Brett,
    You may want to drop by:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-3/#comment-104194
    And scan the comments to see how bad it can get!🙂 all the best -will-

  15. Konrad says:

    The authors of this unfortunate paper appear to have totally missed Sir George Simpson’s comments –
    “..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”

    Sir George Simpson wrote this in 1939 in response to Callendar claiming additional atmospheric CO2 could, against all logic, could cause near surface warming. Evidently science has not advanced in 76 years. Oh good lord, the sobulent bitchosityy of it all!

  16. Trick says:

    Konrad 11:24am – Callendar 1938 was about surface global mean T as opposed your Simpson clip the “temperature distribution in the atmosphere” and this paper is also talking about temperature distribution in the atmosphere as in the chart top post & notes p. 251: “In order to obtain the complete picture, it is also necessary to consider the effect of convection.” After doing so, with Simpson’s windiness (“free and forced convection, and mixing by large-scale eddies”) included, the paper presents Table 4 agreeing with Callendar 1938 results.

  17. Konrad says:

    And speaking of sobulent bitchosity ….

    Say Trick, what was that question you always tried to avoid answering? Could it have been –

    “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on the oceans warming or cooling?”

    Multiple choice with only two choices. How hard could it be Trick? Come on, I’m a hard sceptic working in engineering. There’s no possibility that I could be better at radiative physics and fluid dynamics than any climastrologist on the planet now is there?

    Give it your best shot Trick. Warming or cooling. Only one answer can win!

  18. Trick says:

    Konrad 11:26am – I already know the answer to your question from test, measurement and supporting analysis & posted it. If you want to find out based on test, then I suggest your engineering background will enable a critical read of Callendar 1938 and understanding of the experiments backing his findings, followed by a critical read of Manabe 1967 and cites which add G. Simpson’s windiness suggestions for your answer based on & backed by actual L&O, atm. observations, measurements and tests supported by the authors analyses.

  19. oldbrew says:

    impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation‘. – Sir George Simpson

    ‘In 1920 he was appointed Director of the Meteorological Office, London. He went on to be its longest serving Director, retiring in 1938’ – Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Simpson_(meteorologist)

    Shame he’s not still the director, he could knock a few heads together:/

  20. Trick says:

    oldbrew – Again, note Simpson wrote “temperature distribution” not global median surface T which Callendar 1938 mainly discussed. For temperature distribution, Manabe 1967 added Simpson’s “free and forced convection, and mixing by large-scale eddies”.

  21. oldbrew says:

    ‘Why the man-made global warming climate models are a “fudge,” according to Hansen himself’

    Hockeyshtick says: ‘In Kimoto’s new work below (and in prior papers), he addresses the multiple unphysical assumptions made by Manabe & Wetherald, Hansen/GISS, and IPCC modelers et al, including a “fudged,” arbitrary, and fixed tropospheric lapse rate of 6.5K/km, which does not adjust to perturbations in the atmosphere. This false assumption artificially limits negative lapse rate feedback convection. Using physically correct assumptions, Kimoto finds the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 to be a negligible 0.1-0.2C.’

    The Lapse Rate Fudge in 1-D Climate Models – Kyoji Kimoto
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/why-man-made-global-warming-climate.html

  22. Trick says:

    Kimoto: “..utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Wetherald, 1967…Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis..”

    Manabe&Wetherald, 1967: “Therefore a series of radiative convective equilibrium computations were performed…150, 300, 600ppm CO2…” Resulting in Fig. 16 showing sensitivity in 3 different lapse rates in the troposphere. It appears M&W67 did do the sensitivity analysis, did not hold 6.5K/km constant.

    Appears Kimoto is wrong about that, what do you see oldbrew 10:21pm?

  23. Trick says: August 4, 2015 at 3:11 am

    Kimoto: “..utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Wetherald, 1967…Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis..”
    Manabe&Wetherald, 1967: “Therefore a series of radiative convective equilibrium computations were performed…150, 300, 600ppm CO2…” Resulting in Fig. 16 showing sensitivity in 3 different lapse rates in the troposphere. It appears M&W67 did do the sensitivity analysis, did not hold 6.5K/km constant.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    “Appears Kimoto is wrong about that, what do you see oldbrew 10:21pm?”

    They did three constant lapse rates. Any time you hold lapse rate constant you entirely remove the effect of insolation on airborne water condensate evaporation/condensation. This one thing is likely the dominant temperature regulator in this atmosphere! From early morning to early afternoon insolation is adding energy to the atmosphere at the rate of 2400 J/gm condensate evaporated, with no change in temperature. After sunset the WV continues to elevate air temperature until WV is returned to airborne water condensate. Precipitation to the surface is not involved.

  24. oldbrew says: August 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    ‘impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation‘. – Sir George Simpson

    This is true the distribution is set by the lapse rate not radiation. Radiative exitance from the atmosphere is very significant on actual temperature of the lapse rate.

    ‘In 1920 he was appointed Director of the Meteorological Office, London. He went on to be its longest serving Director, retiring in 1938′ – Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Simpson_(meteorologist)

    Shame he’s not still the director, he could knock a few heads together:/

    Indeed Some folk need to figure out how radiative exitance is actually produced by this atmosphere! All they currently have is very bad Sophistry, no science at all!

  25. Konrad says: July 28, 2015 at 11:24 am

    ‘Sir George Simpson wrote this in 1939 in response to Callendar claiming additional atmospheric CO2 could, against all logic, could cause near surface warming. Evidently science has not advanced in 76 years. Oh good lord, the sobulent bitchosityy of it all!’

    Meteorology, is not science, The predictive value has advanced with better instrumentation. It is the wording of explanations of how and why the atmosphere works that are pure Sophistry! This part has not advanced at all in 400 years because of the way it is taught. It is a cult religion with no challenge to the written word ever allowed! It even has different levels of priesthood!

  26. Trick says:

    Will 3:59am: “They did three constant lapse rates.”

    That is known as a sensitivity study to different CO2 concentrations which Kimoto directly writes is required & was performed by M&W67.

  27. Trick says: August 4, 2015 at 2:20 pm
    Will 3:59am: (“They did three constant lapse rates.”)

    “That is known as a sensitivity study to different CO2 concentrations which Kimoto directly writes is required & was performed by M&W67.”

    Maybe to you! Read Kimoto again he complained of any constant lapse rate which appear nowhere in this atmosphere. But always in M&W67. That sensitivity analysis never applies to this atmosphere. Where is a proper SA?