## Irradiance-and-surface-pressure-only match of rocky planet surface temperatures

Posted: August 23, 2015 by tchannon in Analysis, Astrophysics, atmosphere, radiative theory

This paper needs discussion.

The Hockey Schtick has an article up on a just published 69 page paper.

The above comparisons indicate that Eq. (10b) rather accurately reproduces the observed variation of mean surface temperatures across a wide range of planetary environments characterized in terms of solar irradiance (from 1.5 W m-2 to 2,602 W m-2), total atmospheric pressure (from near vacuum to 9,300 kPa), and greenhouse-gas concentrations (from 0.0% to over 96% per volume).

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/new-paper-confirms-gravito-thermal.html

Now rip the paper apart. What if anything about it is safe?

I do not understand the maths nor will I be alone, so if any readers want to explain this would be welcomed. I think I understand roughly, keep mouth shut.

Post by Tim

1. tallbloke says:September 3, 2015 at 7:41 pm

“True. The emissivity is likely modelled to be around 0.95 and so thermometer T would be estimated around 10K higher from the brightness temp. For Earth it’s around 277K because most of the planet is water, which is modelled with an emissivity of ~0.987.”

Roger;
Do you have any idea why they use such a fictitious value? Has anyone measured the spectral and angular emissivity of the ocean? I have tried! It cannot be done! For clean water and ice the normal to the surface broadband 3-200 micron emissivity is close to that value. It falls off like a rock at angles above 55o from normal. For any dirty water emissivity is highly dependent on what other junk is floating on the surface in calm seas, with whitecaps the ocean has no surface area. My best guess of emissivity of a non prepared surface is 0.67, just like that of the Sun. Radiometric or brightness temperature is a repeatable measurement for weathered surfaces. Not very good at all for air masses. “Any” resemblance to thermometric or thermodynamic temperature must be physically verified!

2. tallbloke says:

Will J: Yes indeed. Just because the ocean is modelled with an emissivity of 0.987 doesn’t mean that’s what it is! Konrad agrees that for practical real world , it’s around 0.67 as you say. There are some papers out there which claim high emissivities for high angle of incidence in actual measurements though. I recall one was from a Japanese team. There’s a report on the blog somewhere.

3. Trick says Trick says, September 3, 2015 at 7:47 pm: … the paper uses Earth moon ”applicable” data for an “airless” Mars & airless Earth too, and all other “airless” objects actually. Which I have pointed out may not be the case. Some surfaces may be “inapplicable” with moon regolith.

Just because you have “pointed things out” doesn’t make them right. Your ceaseless pot shotting at practically every figure presented is getting very tiresome. It quite obviously reflects your anxiety at the thrust and direction of the paper under consideration.

Surely you understand that the mean airless temperature Tna is a hypothetical reference temperature against which to measure the actual GMAT of a planet, thus creating a dimensionless ratio Ts/Tna. The Moon’s Tna is likely known very accurately now, as the paper describes, despite your attempts to rubbish what apparently is for you its embarrassingly low 197K value. The assumption that the Tna of other rocky planetary objects would be comparable to the Moon (after correction for differing levels of insolation) is quite reasonable for use as a reference calculation since the Moon’s regolith has properties (bone dry micro particles, the result of aeons of meteorite bombardment) that would likely obtain on any other rocky planetary object that was airless and waterless. Likewise, the authors demonstrated in their earlier paper that the various different rotation rates for the planetary objects under consideration would not affect the calculations significantly.

4. Trick says:

David – “what apparently is for you its embarrassingly low 197K value.”

The brightness GMAT of the moon is as good as radiometers can deliver David, I do not think it is embarrassing, I think it is interesting. Just another brick in the wall. The moon’s thermometer GMAT is sparsely measured, indicated somewhat higher. There are test based plausible reasons & theory for a higher thermometer T.

“..the mean airless temperature Tna is a hypothetical reference temperature..”

Tna is Diviner measured at 197K for the moon David. So not hypothetical for moon, nor “embarrassing”. Tna does become hypothetical for other objects where Tna has not been measured like exoplanets, though works really well at Mercury & Mars for brightness T as you mention, compared to that long ago measured from Earth.

Tna should work reasonably well as 1st guess to build opinions on surface water for w/atmosphere exoplanets in long term radiative balance well enough once surface pressure is available (no matter rotation rate). If the paper generates interest in the specialist community, then it might even be improved upon.

Most tested natural materials on Earth have been found with very low reflectivity, negligible diffraction. These properties not found in lunar regolith, so interesting physics to learn about not at all “embarrassing.”

5. gbaikie says: (September 3, 2015 at 6:20 pm)
“A slower rotation- say a 40 hour day- would cause cooler night time temperature in the tropics and therefore would significantly lower Earth’s average temperature- though nights in tropics would probably still not freeze. For tropical nights to freeze would need something like 100 hour [or more] day.”

IMHO increasing the rate of rotation raises global average temperature slightly, particularly for bodies that lack an atmosphere. I would be happy to share my detailed calculations with anyone who is interested but here is a semi-quantitative explanation:

The parts of the Moon that NEVER receive sunlight have a constant temperature of 30 Kelvin instead of 3 Kelvin and this means heat is being received from another source. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that some heat is delivered via conduction from the bedrock that is at a temperature of around 240 Kelvin a few meters below the surface. About 50 mW/sq. meter is being delivered this way. If the Moon was not rotating relative to the sun the entire night side would be at a temperature of 30 Kelvin.

Now let’s look at what happens when the Moon rotates every 29.5 days. The temperature at the Moon’s equator at sunset is 133 K and through the night the temperature falls to 94 K at dawn. Thus, during the lunar night the surface is radiating roughly 6 W/square meter, two orders of magnitude more than the heat contributed by the bedrock. So where is all that heat coming from? Again the answer is not difficult to find…..it is stored in the regolith during the lunar day.

Enough about the “Dark Side”. What is happeneing on the illuminated side? There the temperature is primarily determined by incoming solar radiation that amounts to about 1,361 W/sq. meter, more than two orders of magnitude greater than the stored heat contribution and four orders greater than the heat conducted from the bedrock. Thus the rate of rotation has a tiny effect on the average day time surface temperature whereas night time temperatures are strongly afffected

The temperature of the night side of the Moon is about 80 Kelvin warmer than it would be without rotation, raising the global average by ~40 Kelvin. If the rate of rotation was increased by a factor of 30, so as to match our planet, the night time temperature would rise by about 26 Kelvin and the global average by 13 Kelvin.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

6. tallbloke says:

GC: If the rate of rotation was increased by a factor of 30, so as to match our planet, the night time temperature would rise by about 26 Kelvin and the global average by 13 Kelvin.

That would require the dayside to get as hot in 1 day as it does in 29. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

7. Trick says:

gallopingcamel – Takes a change to energy in and/or energy out of any system to increase (or decrease) the energy within. These are not functions of rotation: heat capacity, insolation, reflectivity (SW,LW), geothermal. If you find your detail calculations show an increase in system Tmean with rotation, I would suggest you have not checked well enough for overall system energy conservation.

8. tallbloke says:

Trick, it’s not as simple as that. A change in rotation could concievably result in energy being conserved, but the location of the energy changing, perhaps from more in the subsurface to more on the surface. Or more/less on dayside/nightside. This would affect average surface temperature due to the T^4 relationship. The question is, does it? The authors of the present paper say not. GC’s model says it does.

9. Trick says:

tallbloke – “This would affect average surface temperature due to the T^4 relationship.”

If and only if the energy in the system is affected up or down. gc’s model can not be balanced with energy conserved if Tmean is increased due rotation change. Sure the rotational energy is changed, but that doesn’t change the thermal energy for long term Tmean change unless a fn(rotation) is found. Only max., min. T is affected.

Think of some physics that is a fn(rotation) that changes the thermal energy in the system then you have a reason for Tmean variance. There may be one, it is not ruled out.

10. tallbloke says:

Trick: You’re repeating your self, but not addressing the point I made. Average surface temperature is not a measure of “the energy in the system”. It is the average temperature of one part of the system. The question is: can a change in rotation rate alter the distribution of energy in the system?

11. tallbloke says: September 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm

(‘GC: If the rate of rotation was increased by a factor of 30, so as to match our planet, the night time temperature would rise by about 26 Kelvin and the global average by 13 Kelvin.’)

“That would require the dayside to get as hot in 1 day as it does in 29. I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

The regolith has low thermal conductivity, which means low thermal inertia to insolation. Absorption from the 68 microsteradian sun and surface emission into PI steradian space quickly equilibrate! Why so much interest in an global average temperature of anything? This is only another bit of CAGW nonsence! Measure a delta in/out composite flux if you can, to indicate the only Solar thermal effects. This has never done for any planet,including this Earth! The rest is just geometry. 🙂

12. tallbloke says, September 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm
“GC: If the rate of rotation was increased by a factor of 30, so as to match our planet, the night time temperature would rise by about 26 Kelvin and the global average by 13 Kelvin.

That would require the dayside to get as hot in 1 day as it does in 29. I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

The day time temperature is insensitive to rotation rate as the contributions from heat stored in the regolith (<10 W/sq. meter) and conduction (~0.05 W/sq. meter) are tiny compared to the incoming solar radiation (1,361 W/ sq. meter).

In sharp contrast the night side is sensitive to rotation rate.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-417-small.png?w=550&h=349

The Moon & Moon1 daytime curves differ very little and the maximum temperatures are the same. This means that the dayside does get as hot in 1 day as it does in 29.

Then look at the Moon & Moon1 nightime curves. Note the difference of ~ 30 Kelvin.

13. Will Janoschka says, September 4, 2015 at 11:56 pm:
“Why so much interest in an global average temperature of anything? This is only another bit of CAGW nonsence!”

Right as usual. For me this started with a bit of CAGW nonsense that says the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) = 33 Kelvin, based on the idea that Earth’s average temperature is 288 K compared to a claimed 255 K “sans atmosphere”.

It seemed likely that the 255 K figure was wrong even though it was based on impeccable mathematics. So I calculated the Moon’s surface temperature using the measured properties of lunar regolith. The result came out at 196 K which suggests that the GHE is ~92 K rather than 33 K.

The CAGW crowd can’t even explain a GHE of 33 K in terms of CO2, so their cause is lost when challenged to explain a more realistic GHE.

14. Trick says:

tallbloke – “The question is: can a change in rotation rate alter the distribution of energy in the system?”

A spinning BBQ turkey is cooked more evenly than one just plopped on the grille. The distribution of T is different but Tmean is unaffected unless I turn up the burner or close the cover.

15. Trick says:

galloping camel: “The result came out at 196 K which suggests that the GHE is ~92 K rather than 33 K.”

Yes, as the paper shows, depends on scenario 1) or 2).

1) The difference in Tmean over “airless” earth scenario Tna is 288K-197K = 91K.

2) The difference in Tmean with optically thin atmosphere in place is 288K-255K=33K.

These Tmeans are not fn(rotation) which is so different; Tmin and Tmax though are fn(rotation).

3) add a sheet of thin LDPE over the oceans, constrain evaporation and conduction, find difference in Tmean with optically thin atmosphere in place 288K – 312K = -24K.

16. gbaikie says:

–IMHO increasing the rate of rotation raises global average temperature slightly, particularly for bodies that lack an atmosphere. I would be happy to share my detailed calculations with anyone who is interested but here is a semi-quantitative explanation:

The parts of the Moon that NEVER receive sunlight have a constant temperature of 30 Kelvin instead of 3 Kelvin and this means heat is being received from another source. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that some heat is delivered via conduction from the bedrock that is at a temperature of around 240 Kelvin a few meters below the surface. About 50 mW/sq. meter is being delivered this way. If the Moon was not rotating relative to the sun the entire night side would be at a temperature of 30 Kelvin.–
Around 30 K, yes.
I would say it’s uncertain that all regions of the permanent shadowed crater regions of the lunar polar region are 30 K. Though parts of some regions have been measured to be about 30 K.
Why these regions are about 30 K, is not clear to me but I would not assign the 30 – 2 K 28 K of warming due solely to interior heat.
Now a small amount of volatiles seemed to be deposited in the dark craters over a long time periods- over tens of million to billions of years, somewhere around 10 billion tonnes of water is thought to have
ended up in the polar regions. And there is other volatiles other than H2O.
A ton of water in terms of latent heat is: Latent heat of melting – 334 kJ/kg
Latent heat of evaporation – 2,270 kJ/kg
So for both around 2500 KJ/kg Or 2,500,000 KJ per ton. Or 2.5 billion joules/watts second.
Now aspect about this is that the 10 billion tonnes of water may not have moved just once and/or the amount deposited and there at the moment may not be total involved. And there is is great uncertainly about total amount of water and other volatiles in polar regions.
[Also possible is some chemical reactions involved, say H2 combining with C, O, or whatever.]
The moon on shorter periods of hundreds of year is pelting with impactors of various kinds and sizes- which bring water and other volatiles, but also cause migration. So they can bring water, and water could deposit in cooler regions, and impactors causing heat cause the water to move elsewhere. And cold dark crater also have impactor hitting them, which move water elsewhere. So dark crater can be final destination in which some of the water may stay in one location for millions of years. But some of the water can moved around to other locations on the Moon, or caused to reach lunar escape velocity.

And solar wind brings H and O to lunar surface, and the billions of stars are hitting the lunar surface with high energy particles, and gamma and X-rays.

-Now let’s look at what happens when the Moon rotates every 29.5 days. The temperature at the Moon’s equator at sunset is 133 K and through the night the temperature falls to 94 K at dawn. Thus, during the lunar night the surface is radiating roughly 6 W/square meter, two orders of magnitude more than the heat contributed by the bedrock. So where is all that heat coming from? Again the answer is not difficult to find…..it is stored in the regolith during the lunar day.-

In terms of watts rather tens or hundreds of milliwatts, certainly.
And it should be noted that with airless worlds we measure the surface, rather than the air temperature.
So not only is sunset quite cool, 3/4 of the lunar day [night and day] is quite cool. Or on earth we get about 6 hours of stronger direct sunlight warming the surface- or 1/4 of the 24 hours. And the same with the Moon.

–Enough about the “Dark Side”. What is happeneing on the illuminated side? There the temperature is primarily determined by incoming solar radiation that amounts to about 1,361 W/sq. meter, more than two orders of magnitude greater than the stored heat contribution and four orders greater than the heat conducted from the bedrock. Thus the rate of rotation has a tiny effect on the average day time surface temperature whereas night time temperatures are strongly afffected–

Well, I figured, that moon with 24 hour day would be 100 K warmer at night- average temperature of 50 K warmer- near equator. Less of increase in average poleward. So about 1/2 as much in or global
average temperature. With this faster rotation it would not be 133 K at sunset, but much warmer.
Less depth of regolith would be warmed per that 24 hour day. But then again we aren’t too certain about how deep each lunar day warms the regolith. But roughly speaking maybe 24 hour day warms to 1/2 or 1/4 of present depth per cycle. Or currently there a contrast between bare rock [or little of fluffy dust] and most surface with somewhere around 2 inches of fluffy dust. And with such a shorter day the contrast could be greater.

–The temperature of the night side of the Moon is about 80 Kelvin warmer than it would be without rotation, raising the global average by ~40 Kelvin. If the rate of rotation was increased by a factor of 30, so as to match our planet, the night time temperature would rise by about 26 Kelvin and the global average by 13 Kelvin.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

I think it would be at least this much, as said above.

gallopingcamel:

You said It seemed likely that the 255 K figure was wrong even though it was based on impeccable mathematics.

According to the authors’ 2014 paper, the 255 K effective emission temperature is a non-physical quantity, because it has been calculated from a mathematically wrong formula for a sphere. Hence, the 33 K GE is physically meaningless. The real thermal effect if Earth’s atmosphere is ~ 90 K. This is all explained mathematically by Holder’s inequality between integrals, see:

On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect
http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723

I found it very helpful reading the 2014 article for understanding their 2015 paper …

18. tallbloke says:

GC: “The Moon & Moon1 daytime curves differ very little and the maximum temperatures are the same. This means that the dayside does get as hot in 1 day as it does in 29.”

Thanks, I stand corrected. It’s a good demonstration of what a poor thermal conductor regolith is.

Will J: “The regolith has low thermal conductivity, which means low thermal inertia to insolation. Absorption from the 68 microsteradian sun and surface emission into PI steradian space quickly equilibrate!”

19. JSadell says, September 5, 2015 at 5:52 am
“http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723

I found it very helpful reading the 2014 article for understanding their 2015 paper …”

Wow! I was not aware of that paper….an impressive piece of work. Yet another approach to calculating the temperature of airless bodies, that will improve our ability to explain the temperatures actually observed on nearby airless bodies.

20. gbaikie says, September 5, 2015 at 5:02 am:

You raise some issues I had not thought of such as condensation of trace gases.

It is helpful to get a feel for the magnitude of the heat transfer processes so that you know when it is safe to ignore a heat source. For example the <100 mW/sq. meter contribution from conduction can be ignored when calculating the Moon's daytime temperature.

Do you have any ideas for quantifying the condensation/sublimation contribution on the Moon? Is it small enough to ignore or does it have a measurable effect on determining the 30 K temperature observed in shady lunar craters?

You are one of the few people here (with some honourable exceptions) who are reading and thinking about the paper rather than just being driven by their preconceptions to summarily reject it.

Your first intervention (26 August 2015 at 12:06am) “How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??” is absolutely key. Only Stephen Wilde gave you a coherent and succinct response (26 August 2015 at 5:19am): Because albedo (reflectivity) is offset by opacity (resistance to energy transmission).

Your second intervention (5 September 2015 at 5:52 am), recommending people to first read the earlier paper (on why the traditional 33K GE is physically meaningless) before reading the current paper, is also absolutely on target. Apologists for the utterly erroneous 33K calculation are desperate to find arguments against the correct method that yields the much cooler 91K GE value. I wonder why…

22. tallbloke says:

GC: Wow! I was not aware of that paper…

I emailed you a link to it two days ago… 😉

23. tallbloke says:

DC: “driven by their preconceptions to summarily reject it.”

It’s getting properly sceptical critical appraisal here. If you want to see summary (misinformed) rejection, go and read the Cowboy Climateer’s frothing on WUWT.

24. TB: Oh yes, I am also monitoring the WUWT piece. What a colossal fiasco!

25. Note that I’m not hung up on the GE being 33K which is why I added in brackets “(or whatever)”.

The GE, whether it is 33K or some other figure is mass induced and not GHG induced.

The most basic, critical point is that the mass of gases above a solid surface acquires energy by conduction and convection from that surface and in doing so creates atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR.

The opacity that matters is the opacity caused by the presence of that mass and the more densely the mass is compressed the more energy it will acquire from whatever insolation is available.

Compressed gases create opacity (resistance) to outgoing IR without needing to have ANY radiative capability.

That is why the degree of surface heating above S-B is proportionate to surface pressure which is itself purely a consequence of mass and gravity.

The AGW theory treats the atmosphere as being transparent to outgoing IR unless there is radiative capability.

That is the fundamental error.

Energy permanently engaged in maintaining constant up and down convection withing an atmosphere is energy originally drawn from outgoing IR and to the extent that such energy was removed from the radiative exchange with space that removal represents the atmosphere’s opacity to outgoing IR.

No GHGs necessary.

For so long as there is both radiative balance with space AND energy in convective ascent equals energy in convective descent then the atmosphere will be retained in hydrostatic balance for as long as insolation continues.

Any permanent imbalance in either the radiative or convective (adiabatic) exchanges will cause the atmosphere to be lost.

The simple presence of the atmosphere is proof that radiative exchanges neutralise convective imbalances and convective changes neutralise radiative imbalances.

Surface temperatures above S-B are a product of ONLY mass, gravity and insolation.

Every weather or climate phenomenon is simply the stabilising process in action..

26. tallbloke says:

Stephen W: Compressed gases create opacity (resistance) to outgoing IR without needing to have ANY radiative capability.

Experimental evidence to support this assertion?

27. Rog,

It is established science that the gases of the atmosphere take energy from the surface via conduction and convection.

That energy so taken cannot simultaneously be radiated to space.

That constitutes opacity to outgoing IR.

That opacity provides the additional surface energy needed to drive the upward pressure gradient force which opposes the downward force of gravity to keep the atmosphere suspended off the surface in hydrostatic balance.

The existence of permanent atmospheres is the experimental evidence.

28. tallbloke says:

Well I think that’s a convoluted and ,forgive me, opaque, way to phrase it which invites misunderstanding and/or derision. Moreover you could say that the convecting gases facilitates OLR as there is less trying to get through the lower troposphere. Instead, the energy gets a free ride on water vapour carried by convection to a place where LR more easily exits the atmosphere before the water vapour releases the latent heat and condenses out.

29. Trick says:

Stephen – “Compressed gases create opacity (resistance) to outgoing IR without needing to have ANY radiative capability.”

Unfortunately not true for Stephen’s imagination as all tested mass (gas, solid, liquid, plasma) both emits and absorbs radiation at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time. Photons would go straight through the pressure otherwise. We would see the core of the sun in action.

If there is an atmosphere (even a tiny one), then invoke the paper’s no longer “airless” situation over and above Tna due partial pressure of absorbing gas is greater than zero resulting in absorbing opacity (top post curve after the straight upward line). That is Stephen’s imagination fundamental error.

“Surface temperatures above S-B..”

Impossible. None in this paper for sure. Brightness temperatures are always equal S-B by test. No surface brightness temperature is ever above S-B (Earth near surface optically thick atm. about 390 W/m^2 is S-B ~ 288K, with optically thin absorbing atm. 235 W/m^2 is S-B ~255K). Earth “airless” ~197K brightness temperature.

If emissivity is known well enough then brightness temperature converts to thermometer temperature just as well enough.

“That energy so taken cannot simultaneously be radiated to space.”

Stephen does get this right, Earth balance ~390 radiated though optically thick atm., ~74+28 simultaneously evaporated and conducted. YMMV with different balances over different observation periods.

30. Opacity is resistance to transmission.

It does not need to be limited to optical wavelengths.

Conduction and convection make an atmosphere opaque to outgoing IR.

Radiative capability within an atmosphere serves to reduce that opacity but offsets the reduction by radiating down as well as up for a zero net effect.

“Noun 1. opacity – the phenomenon of not permitting the passage of electromagnetic radiation ”

So I repeat that in the case of atmospheric mass the processes of conduction and convection restrain the passage of IR electromagnetic wavelengths from surface to space

31. “Here we use a simple, physically
based model to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures
lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows
short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At
higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal
radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and
convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared
opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of
molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause”

http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

Note the words ” opaque to thermal radiation” which is IR and the paper makes it clear that it is the mass and not composition of the atmosphere that is opaque to IR.

Furthermore, the more mass there is (greater pressure) the greater the opacity to IR regardless of atmospheric composition.

Stephen Wilde says:

Compressed gases create opacity (resistance) to outgoing IR without needing to have ANY radiative capability.

If I recall correctly from my physics classes in school, this statement is not far from the truth. The optical depth (or opacity) of an atmosphere depends on both atmospheric density/pressure and the IR absorption capabilities of individual gases per unit mass. So, atmospheric composition also affects the overall atmospheric opacity through radiative properties of gas constituents.

However, the authors of the paper appear to have a different explanation of how the atmosphere causes warming. In section 3.1.3 (p. 26 in the above PDF), they say:

The presence of such qualitatively similar relations in otherwise disparate physical systems can
fundamentally be explained by the fact that pressure as a force per unit area represents a key component of kinetic energy (defined as force applied over a distance), while temperature is merely a physical manifestation of the available kinetic energy. Adding force (such as pressure) to a physical system inevitably boosts the system’s total kinetic energy and raises its temperature. Figs. 4 and 7 suggest that this fundamental thermodynamic principle applies to systems ranging in complexity from a simple isothermal blackbody absorbing a homogeneous flux of electro-magnetic radiation to diverse planetary atmospheres governed by complex non-linear process interactions and cloud-radiative feedbacks.

Later in the Conclusions they say on p. 30:

… the mathematical form of Eq. (10a) suggests that atmospheric pressure amplifies (through force) the energy received from the Sun creating a thermal enhancement responsible for keeping the Earth surface 90.4 K warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

It sounds to me that they point to pressure as a physical force being directly responsible for the thermal effect of the atmosphere without invoking opacity …

33. Trick says:

“Conduction and convection make an atmosphere opaque to outgoing IR….the processes of conduction and convection restrain the passage of IR electromagnetic wavelengths from surface to space.”

How do you imagine that happens in physics Stephen? Refer to top post paper. When I look through wind, images are not distorted, the photons don’t bang into molecules. This ought to be interesting. But would be better to stay on topic Stephen, find something in the paper at hand that supports your imagination.

The passage Stephen quotes 5:41pm concurs with modern science: “A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption” so as I wrote no absorption, no opacity. Surface convection ensues due to a fluid in a gravity field being warmed by the sun from beneath (i.e. the surface). The paper at hand mentions convection twice, once in the abstract even, and not as a source of opacity above Tna Stephen.

34. tallbloke says:

” atmospheric pressure amplifies (through force) the energy received from the Sun ”

This is another woolly statement IMO.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

How the *\$!% is it “amplified”

35. Trick,

Energy is absorbed via conduction and then whisked upward by convection. Expansion with height then causes cooling. No GHGs needed.

That is absorption just as much as is radiative absorption.

The way I read it is that greater pressure causes greater opacity because a greater density of molecules can absorb a greater proportion of the insolation passing through.

36. Rog,

Higher atmospheric pressure creates greater density above the surface which absorbs more of the energy passing through and thereby delays its loss to space for longer than would a less dense atmosphere Slowing the rate of throughput causes the surface temperature to rise.

The surface temperature is then ‘amplified’ above the S-B expectation. Nothing is created or destroyed.

37. Trick says:

JSadell – “It sounds to me that they point to pressure as a physical force being directly responsible for the thermal effect of the atmosphere without invoking opacity …”

Ideally yes, the opacity of Earth atm. is not all that large, since if you do the math up to (or down from) tropopause using the eqn. (known since 1888) in Fig. 10a, then you will calculate within about 10% of the thermometer measured ambient T for midlatitudes.

However the paper developed eqn. 10a to overcome the last 10% (much larger for Venus). As they write: “This is because Eq. (10a) describes an emergent macro-level property of planetary atmospheres representing the net result of myriad process interactions and feedbacks in the real climate system that are not readily estimable using a ‘bottom-up’ mechanistic approach or fully reproducible in a laboratory environment.”

I would disagree any macro-level property of planetary atmospheres “emerged” as all their (myriad) fundamentals are well known. All this paper added was some unique curve fitting that could prove somewhat useful for 1st guessing exoplanets. At very least, existing methods could be compared and decisions made as to which is better.

——

Stephen: ”The way I read it is that greater pressure causes greater opacity because a greater density of molecules can absorb a greater proportion of the insolation passing through.”

Yes. Extinction coefficient of each gas species times its partial pressure (or density) as shown in the Catling paper you linked.

”Energy is absorbed via conduction and then whisked upward by convection. Expansion with height then causes cooling. No GHGs needed.”

For S-B to line up with Earth surface at 235 W/m^2 (255K), yes, very little radiation absorbed in atm., BUT to get to 390 (288K) balance, need more atm. absorption even at the same pressures.

”The surface temperature is then ‘amplified’ above the S-B expectation.”

Impossible, the surface radiation is always at S-B temperature & vice versa.

tallbloke:

The authors talk about the ‘atmospheric thermal enhancement‘ on Earth being 90.4 K. If an atmosphere raises the surface temperature of a planet above that of an equivalent airless body with the same insolation, then the air close to the surface must contain more energy than received from the Sun. That’s because the temperature of a gas is proportional to the amount of kinetic energy in the gas, i.e. PV = nRT. Also, the gas law defines the kinetic energy of a gas mixture (measured in J) as PV, which suggest that energy changes with pressure.

Looking at their Fig. 4, I noticed that what they call a ‘Relative Atmospheric Enhancement’ or RATE (Ts/Tna ratio) increases from 1 for the Moon to about 3.2 for Venus as pressure goes from 0 to 9300 kPa. This implies an increase of the atmospheric kinetic energy with pressure.

39. Trick says:

“That is absorption just as much as is radiative absorption.”

Not accurate enough, closer would be in addition to. This paper accounts for that. The thermals release their excess energy when the packet T is higher than surroundings both by radiative means (independent of the 390) and by conductive means.

The difference is ALL the excess energy in thermals is dumped (radiated, conducted) within the atm. until they are hydrostatic, no thermal gets to space. Some of the 390 is dumped in atm., the rest directly to space.

40. Trick said:

“The difference is ALL the excess energy in thermals is dumped (radiated, conducted) within the atm. until they are hydrostatic, no thermal gets to space”

You are forgetting the energy store in PE throughout the vertical column.

That accounts for the ‘missing’ energy that you refer to in your earlier post.

It also inhibits convection beneath descending columns so that the surface temperature can rise above S-B.

“Impossible, the surface radiation is always at S-B temperature & vice versa.”

Only in the absence of an atmosphere. The S-B temperature is not intended to apply beneath an atmosphere.

41. tallbloke says:

Stephen W: The surface temperature is then ‘amplified’

You of all people know well that energy and temperature are not interchangeable terms. Lawyerly sophistry doesn’t cut it in the court of scientific opinion. 😉

JSadell: the air close to the surface must contain more energy than received from the Sun.

Yes, solar shortwave breezes pretty much straight through the troposphere without leaving much energy behind on the way. And yes, the relatively high density of molecules in the higher pressure near surface air is a place where energy exiting from the Earth tends to get concentrated.

The bit I’m struggling with is that you might think that the relative warmth of the surface compared to Tna would be equally and oppositely balanced by a region that much cooler than Tna at some altitude so that energy is conserved. Now, if the ATE on Earth is 90K above Tna, then where is is 90K below Tna? Not at the tropopause, that’s still Tna+30K. You have to go higher, above the stratosphere, where pressure is getting very low. But it only gets down to 180K at the Mesopause, which is still well above Tna-ATE.

However, you have to be careful with temps at that altitude, because they are of molecules, not bulk gases.
Maybe we need to be looking at energy densities, not temperatures.

42. Trick says:

Stephen “Only in the absence of an atmosphere. The S-B temperature is not intended to apply beneath an atmosphere.”

Not at all, where do you get this from Stephen? All I can see is imagination. On Earth with Tmean = 288K, the avg. W/m^2 measured is 390, and as tallbloke is trying to tell you , the 390 S-B converts to 288K through measured, known emissivity. WITH optically thick atm. in place.

“You are forgetting the energy store in PE throughout the vertical column.”

You are forgetting the vertical column is mostly hydrostatic. The PE within is mostly not available for conversion to KE. You miss this all the time & everywhere Stephen. It is just basic, BASIC meteorology known since Margules 1903 paper. Look it up!

43. Rog said:

“You of all people know well that energy and temperature are not interchangeable terms”

I’m not sure what you mean by that since I can’t see that I did use them interchangeably.

Slowing energy transmission through a system does cause a rise in temperature does it not ?

44. Trick:

The Earth plus atmosphere does indeed obey S-B because one is viewing it from a vacuum. There is no requirement for the surface beneath an atmosphere to be at that same temperature.

Trick said:

“You are forgetting the vertical column is mostly hydrostatic. The PE within is mostly not available for conversion to KE”

Conversion to KE occurs in descending air which comprises 50% of the atmosphere at any given moment.

Averaging it all out here are two vertical columns,one rising and one falling. Both are out of hydrostatic balance and both require energy to maintain their movement. That energy cannot be radiated to space and that energy comprises the observed surface temperature enhancement.

45. gbaikie says:

–Do you have any ideas for quantifying the condensation/sublimation contribution on the Moon? Is it small enough to ignore or does it have a measurable effect on determining the 30 K temperature observed in shady lunar craters?–
Precise temperature measurement of the lunar cold trap before and after a seasonal cometary meteor shower?
“A meteor shower is a celestial event in which a number of meteors are observed to radiate, or originate, from one point in the night sky. These meteors are caused by streams of cosmic debris called meteoroids entering Earth’s atmosphere at extremely high speeds on parallel trajectories. Most meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, so almost all of them disintegrate and never hit the Earth’s surface. Intense or unusual meteor showers are known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which may produce greater than 1,000 meteors an hour.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower

This of course also occurs on the Moon.
And they would also very very slightly warm Earth, but the dark craters with there very cold temperatures would provide [perhaps] a better way to measure it.
Though come to think of it, the very hot Venus might provide another place to measure it- as Venus doesn’t lose much heat. Venus would also have a higher impact velocity for these showers as compared to Earth or the Moon.
But one would a precise way to measure temperature in either case. With the Moon most of this energy will radiate directly back into space and with Venus most of it will not immediate radiate back into space.

46. tallbloke says:

Stephen W: Slowing energy transmission through a system does cause a rise in temperature does it not ?

Sure. It’s the paper’s authors I’m castigating for their woolly ‘energy amplification’ line.

47. Rog,

Ok, I wouldn’t have used that word but part of my job requires looking behind the words used for the real meaning intended.

48. Trick says:

Stepehn – “There is no requirement for the surface beneath an atmosphere to be at that same temperature.”

Again, Stephen irritatingly wanders off topic seeking an education. Yes, there is such a requirement, it’s the law Stephen, innumerable tests on surface of earth, in labs at 1bar and vacuum, show such a requirement. This is a fun critical discussion of the top post paper Stephen, use that to help earn your education.

“Conversion to KE occurs in descending air which comprises 50% of the atmosphere at any given moment.”

Only in the 50% of the 1% of atmosphere that is not hydrostatic. 99% of the whole atmosphere PE is not available in that case. Consider in the hydrostatic atm. density stratification is everywhere horizontal. Total PE is plentiful, none at all is available for conversion to KE: Margules 1903.

49. wayne says:

Stephen W: The surface temperature is then ‘amplified’

tallbloke: You of all people know well that energy and temperature are not interchangeable terms. Lawyerly sophistry doesn’t cut it in the court of scientific opinion. 😉

On defense of Stephen (can’t believe I am saying this), yes, energy and temperature are not interchangeable terms directly, but temperature is directly proportional to the temperature through the IGL. JSadell just stated it as PV=nRT (R universal) which is not the same form I prefer but PV is in joules and is proportional. I would say P/ρ=RT and also P/ρ is joules, so is RT (R being specific here). So Stephen is correct except not including the proportional constants in either case. Best stated T = P / (V n Ru) or T = P / (Rs ρ).

What everyone seems to miss is lower tropospheres have linear temperature profiles as everyone realizes, but no one so far ties that to the equations that make it linear! It is all because density is forced to have a specific relationship to pressure at each and every level.
P = P0(T/T0)^(k)
ρ = ρ0(T/T0)^(k-1)
It is the “minus one” that everyone seems to miss, for to have a linear relation P/ρ then those two exponents, k and k-1, MUST, absolutely mathematically must, differ by exactly one or it is no longer linear !!!

So, since on all thick lower tropospheres where radiation has not little impact from, you will have pressure monotonically increasing with depth and density is likewise dictated to be the same by the above polytropic relation. I have shown this before on various threads in detail but no one seems to “get it”.

JSadell seems to be on the right track, it is the energy density that must be and stay resident at any given level. Any deviance of any of the relations and spontaneous action to restore as quickly as possible that deviance forcing it to always stay close to linear.

50. Trick,

As far as I understand it 255K comes in from space and 255K goes out as per S-B yet the surface temperature is higher and for planets with denser atmospheres it is higher still relative to S-B even after taking account of different distances from the sun.

As regards the huydrostatic atmosphere no individual portion of it is in hydrostaic balance at any given moment. It is all in constant motion. Only in the whole is it in hydrostatic balance so your 50% of 1% is utter nonsense.

If one were to switch off the sun the whole atmosphere would immediately drop to the ground converting all the PE to KE in the process thus allowing the surface to radiate it all to space.

51. wayne said:

” it is the energy density that must be and stay resident at any given level. Any deviance of any of the relations and spontaneous action to restore as quickly as possible that deviance forcing it to always stay close to linear.”

That is a good approximation to what I’ve been saying all along is it not ?

The energy density (KE + PE at any given height) at any given level of insolation is proportionate to mass density and was initially derived from conduction at the surface.

The ‘spontaneous action to restore’ is the conversion of KE to PE or PE to KE as necessary in ascending or descending parcles of air.

Density differentials in the horizontal plane are all that is necessary for those spontaneous adjustments.

52. gbaikie says:

“But one would a precise way to measure temperature in either case.”
I meant: But one would need a precise way to measure temperature in either case.

Now, I suppose that NASA’s LRO might have such a record for the Moon if one can get access to it and crunch the numbers in relation to past shower events.

53. Trick says:

Stephen – “As far as I understand it 255K comes in from space and 255K goes out as per S-B..”

According to this paper curve fit & fundamentals, avg. 390 goes out from Earth surface per S-B Stephen. They get it right, you do not.

“As regards the hydrostatic atmosphere no individual portion of it is in hydrostaic balance at any given moment.”

Poor meteorology since Margules 1903, Stephen. By far and large the atm. is everywhere mostly hydrostatic. How many storms do you see on the surface at any given time? Few and far between. Some storms get big for a short time but do not last long.

Switching off the sun, the heat capacity of the atm. would last awhile Stephen, please, try to learn with most of us simply by discussing the top post paper. Put something OT in suggestions to discuss elsewhere.

54. wayne says:

No Stephen, that is kinetic energy only, no potential involved, and it is a proportion to that energy, there is a constant involved, two. Look it up in a good td book.

55. tallbloke says:

Wayne: ” it is the energy density that must be and stay resident at any given level”

Right, and the key point is that the magnitude of radiation at any given level is dictated by the pressure-density-temperature relation. I.e. radiation is the outcome of the pressure-density-temperature relation for a given energy throughput, not the cause of that temperature.

The reason mainstream climate science got hung up on radiative modelling is because radiation is more easily accurately measured than pressure and density and energy throughput. They’ve mistaken the measured quantity for the prime mover.

56. tallbloke says:

Trick: “390 goes out from Earth surface”

No. Most of the 390 just buzzes around near the surface. Well, maybe 40 or so of it goes directly out through the ‘atmospheric window’.
Most of the radiation to space ‘goes out from’ the upper troposphere, at an average 255K, not from the surface.

We did all this yonks ago with David Cosserat, remember?

57. Trick says:

tallbloke – “They’ve mistaken the measured quantity for the prime mover.”

Any evidence of this in top post paper? Tna includes radiative balance properties. Compute Tna from insolation, some input for surface pressure, then find Ts with and without atm. Albeit curve fit, the conclusions & Fig. 4 seem useful.

58. wayne says:

Perfectly agree Rog.

It is not that radiation does not pass through and interact with the atmosphere but in the lower tropospheres that radiation doesn’t even come close to being able to overpowering the convection and thermodynamics in action. They all show that linear property (or very close), water or not.

59. Trick says:

tallbloke – ”No. Most of the 390 just buzzes around near the surface.”

Yes, b/c it plots on Fig. 4 so well. The 390 goes out from surface, absorbed, emitted and absorbed immediately again & again must be what you mean by buzzing. Some of the 390 goes straight thru the window to space though. Unlike on Venus (which plots ok too) where there are no true IR windows greater than 3 microns. More buzzing there.

60. tallbloke says:

tallbloke – “They’ve mistaken the measured quantity for the prime mover.”

Trick: Any evidence of this in top post paper?

That’s my own personal conclusion. The mainstream climate scientists are so fixated on the properties of radiative gases being the prime movers of climate change because they use radiation as the primary variable in their models.

They actually need to be taking Svensmark seriously and looking at cloud variation for short term climate change. They need to be looking at planetary-solar theorists work seriously for cyclic change in the mid term. And they need to be looking at these authors work seriously for explanations of long term change on Earth and elsewhere, notably, Mars.

I agree with wayne’s statement from September 5, 2015 at 8:26 pm.

Temperature and kinetic energy are interchangeable in the sense that are proportional (linearly related) to each other. This is in contrast to the relationship between temperature and energy flux, which are not interchangeable, since they are not linearly related,

I would add that P/ρ does not have units of Joule (as stated by wayne), but J/kg. Only PV has the units of Joule.

62. Trick says:

tallbloke – Yeah. Fun discussion, this paper though.

“We did all this yonks ago with David Cosserat, remember?”

I remember yonks ago as a different anagram, David Socrates. LOL, the monikers don’t matter, only the substance being tied to scientific method as per Feynman (former moniker from CalTech).

63. wayne says:

Oh excuse me, JSadell is correct, that is J/kg as I have stated here so many times, energy mass density…. my hurrily slip.

64. wayne,

Only the kinetic energy registers on sensors but the potential energy is still present and that is what holds up the atmosphere.

65. “avg. 390 goes out from Earth surface per S-B Stephen”

S-B says 255K from Earth to space as observed. Surface is at 288K.

“By far and large the atm. is everywhere mostly hydrostatic. How many storms do you see on the surface at any given time? Few and far between. Some storms get big for a short time but do not last long.”

Nonsense.

All air is either rising or falling at any given moment. Storms are just local extremes.

66. “They actually need to be taking Svensmark seriously and looking at cloud variation for short term climate change”

Cloud variation, certainly.

Svensmark, possibly not.

67. “radiation is the outcome of the pressure-density-temperature relation for a given energy throughput, not the cause of that temperature.”

Yes, exactly.

And you need transformations betweeen KE and PE to regulate it all.

68. Trick says:

Stephen: “S-B says 255K from Earth to space as observed. Surface is at 288K.”

Yes, surface at 288K = 390 W/m^2 with surface emissivity per S-B. What’s in between Stephen? An atm. mostly in hydrostatic equilibrium.

“All air is rising or falling at any given moment.”

Not observed in nature only imagined. Here Stephen shows an extreme lack of realist meteorological skills, demonstrates not understanding hydrostatic equilibrium is the predominate observation in the atm. – is OT, post it up in suggestions to discuss.

Same for all atm.s observed. Apparently when Stephen takes off in an airplane he expects a rough ride up to the stratosphere. But the ride is generally smooth Stephen unless 1% stormy or in clouds. Read Margules 1903 start at the beginning, build a good meteorological foundation Stephen. Scamper off to suggestions, get an education not at this interesting paper thread expense.

69. tallbloke says:

Stephen W: the potential energy is still present and that is what holds up the atmosphere.

No. Potential energy is just that – potential. It’s not doing anything.

Potential energy does not show up in thermometer readings until converted into kinetic energy …

Question to the group:

The authors of the paper seem to show through their empirical (dimensional) analysis that pressure alone is responsible for the thermal effect of planetary atmospheres across the solar system (according to their Fig. 4 and Eq. 10).

I’m wondering, is such a direct effect of pressure on surface temperatures a part of the current greenhouse theory? I do not recall the mention of pressure in textbook definitions of the greenhouse effect …

72. Trick says:

JSadell – Your question can be answered by looking into the paper Stephen posted at 9/5 5:41pm.

See Sec. S.2 eqn. S12 p. 8 for a good discussion of atm. layer opacity fundamentals.

Summing density * mass extinction coefficient for each species transformed by hydrostatic equilibrium into total pressure * mass mixing ratio * mass extinction coefficient * dp/g is what counts for atm. layer opacity. Stephen can learn a lot by reading his own link, but demonstrates not accomplished enough to even understand the summation sign let alone the differential calculus and, especially, of course, for an atm. “In hydrostatic equilibrium, we have..”

73. Blob says:

Stephen Wilde at September 5, 2015 at 10:07 pm:
“S-B says 255K from Earth to space as observed.”

Can you link to the paper you are referring to that reports 255K observed temperature? I could not easily find that.

74. gbaikie says: September 5, 2015 at 5:02 am

“Why these regions are about 30 K, is not clear to me but I would not assign the 30 – 2 K 28 K of warming due solely to interior heat.”

Radiance and radiative flux are not linearly proportional to temperature ever!!! 240K – 30K = 210k inversely proportional to thermal conductivity of Lunar regolith = flux W/m^2 = flux to space at 7K approximately, not 2-3K of selective CMB. (30^4 – 7^4) = (810000-2400) is proportional to that ‘same’ flux to space, as per the real S-B equation, not the nuevo science nonsense version of the S-B equation. Now split in half, and going in opposite directions, in complete contradiction to anything observed anywhere in this universe!

“I think it would be at least this much, as said above.”

OK. Why the concern about average global temperature (AGT),with no meaning whatsoever? Earth AGT is easily manipulated by CAGW Clowns, with few serfs the wiser. The Clowns could nor get away with such crap fot local temperature.

David Cosserat says: September 5, 2015 at 2:59 pm

“Only Stephen Wilde gave you a coherent and succinct response (26 August 2015 at 5:19am): Because albedo (reflectivity) is offset by opacity (resistance to energy transmission).”

Can you give reason for considering the relation reflection to opacity, under any circumstances?
BTW: Earth’s atmospheric opacity (optical depth) is never a resistance to energy transmission. It is only an attenuation of rapid changes to such flux.

tallbloke says: September 5, 2015 at 3:33 pm

“DC: “driven by their preconceptions to summarily reject it.”

I reject it because it clearly promotes the CAGW nonsense of “average global temperature”, that has no meaning whatsoever!

Stephen Wilde says: September 5, 2015 at 4:41 pm

“Rog, It is established science that the gases of the atmosphere take energy from the surface via conduction and convection.”

Only via convection, gravity suppresses atmospheric thermal conduction.

“That energy so taken cannot simultaneously be radiated to space.”That constitutes opacity to outgoing IR.”

Can you please show any physical evidence to support such nonsense? Every molecule in this atmosphere is simultaneously exiting via EMR all that it can to space, at every altitude.

“The existence of permanent atmospheres is the experimental evidence.”

Are you now making the ridiculous assertion that atmosphere would not exist without convection?
Have you anything/other but Stephen Wilde that make such assertion?

Stephen Wilde says: September 5, 2015 at 5:28 pm

“Opacity is resistance to transmission.”

Of what? Earth’s atmosphere is opaque to some wavelengths of EMR That is never an attinuation (resistance) to EMR exit flux!

“It does not need to be limited to optical wavelengths.”

For EMR what else is there

“Conduction and convection make an atmosphere opaque to outgoing IR.”

Can you show ‘any’ evidence of such making?

“Radiative capability within an atmosphere serves to reduce that opacity but offsets the reduction by radiating down as well as up for a zero net effect.”

Can you show ‘any’ evidence of such downward flux?

“Noun 1. opacity – the phenomenon of not permitting the passage of electromagnetic radiation ”

Mass opacity, because of sensible heat capacity is always a attenuator of higher frequency amplitude modulation of EMR. This is the way mass opacity, is always measured at each frequency. This is the physical confirmation of the HiTran data base. Attenuation absorption) of thermal EMR flux itself, is always limited by Dr. G Kirchhoff’s law, that states that mass at radiative equilibrium, no matter how opaque, is transparent to thermal radiative flux. Please show any physical violation to this law. Willis’ steel greenhouse is actually again the confirmation, not repudiation of this law!!
Earth’s atmosphere would restrict passage (power absorption) of exit flux only if the atmosphere were not at or above a radiative equilibrium temperature. Lapse rate 14-17k/km. Atmospheric convection enhances total radiative exitance, by keeping all atmospheric temperatures above that.
All the best! -will-

75. tallbloke says: September 5, 2015 at 6:43 pm

(” atmospheric pressure amplifies (through force) the energy received from the Sun ”)

“This is another woolly statement IMO. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
How the *\$!% is it “amplified”

Another gross attempt to deceive by deliberately confounding energy and temperature!
The temperature at the surface is not higher because of more heat energy, but because of more pressure energy, PV energy. This is part of the scam about atmosphere. Work was done as the atmosphere developed by compressing the lower atmosphere bazillizions of years ago. Gravity now only spontaneously maintains that pressure gradient which means that the gas pressure also is a part of internal energy of the atmosphere.
The PV that meteorology and now nuevo physics falsely claim as work is part of the so called ‘kinetic’ of the atmosphere. Kinetic does not mean velocity only, it means rate of change in momentum, not just linear momentum. In the case of atmosphere the increased pressure/density
at lower altitudes decrease the atmospheric mean free path, for random motion,increasing the rate of molecular intercepts per second, thus rate of change in momentum that is proportional to temperature. In an atmosphere (only) temperature can be considered not power, but power density! This for mass that accumulates power as energy,this is considered not energy, but energy density. For incompressible mass there is no difference so no change in any physics, except for atmospheric physics. Aeronautical engineering has been teaching this kind of atmosphere since WWII!!
All the best! -will-

76. wayne says: September 5, 2015 at 8:26 pm

“On defense of Stephen (can’t believe I am saying this), yes, energy and temperature are not interchangeable terms directly, but temperature is directly proportional to the temperature through the IGL”

Did you read what you wrote? Is this something like the highest security classification forn anything written ((DESTROY BEFORE READING))

” JSadell just stated it as PV=nRT (R universal) which is not the same form I prefer but PV is in joules and is proportional.”

Wayne, If you that rip that IGL that apart:
(R universal) is (equals) Boltzmann’s constant x Avogadro’s number SO:
PV (Joules/molecule) = kT (Joules) This is precisely true for any atomic gas, or for anything made up of only of aggregates (numbers) of the same atom. Without mass everything still works,even gravity. Aggregates attract aggregates proportional to the product of then aggregates divided by the distance^2 between the two aggregates, as long as that distance is large compared to the size of the atom. What doesn’t happen is energy, as there is no mass to accumulate power.

“I would say P/ρ=RT and also P/ρ is joules, so is RT (R being specific here). So Stephen is correct except not including the proportional constants in either case. Best stated T = P / (V n Ru) or T = P / (Rs ρ).”

The proportionality constant P/ρ called gamma or isentropic exponent is:
5/3 1.66 for monatomic gases
7/5 1.40 for diatomic and linear triatomic gases
8/6 1.33 for triatomic and more gases with dipole moment.
Mix and match to your hearts continent.
All the best! -will-

77. tallbloke said:

” Potential energy is just that – potential. It’s not doing anything.”

It most certainly does do something when movement in the vertical plane occurs.

During uplift it represents kinetic energy that has been expended in opposing the downward force of gravity.

It then converts back to KE during descent and provides the KE needed for the surface temperature enhancement.

So potential energy is indeed ‘doing something’ during both ascent and descent.

Trick said:

“Apparently when Stephen takes off in an airplane he expects a rough ride up to the stratosphere. But the ride is generally smooth ”

Most upward and downward movement of air is gentle enough not to affect flight. Look at isobars. The prevailing winds flow at an angle to them and so far as they flow from low pressure to high pressure there is constant ascent and as winds flow from high pressure to low pressure there is constant descent. Storms are merely extremes where the pressure gradiant is unusually steep.

Trick pretends meteorological knowledge but has none at all.

Will’s confused ramblimgs are not worth addressing.

78. tallbloke says:

tallbloke said: ” Potential energy is just that – potential. It’s not doing anything.”

Stephen W: During uplift it represents kinetic energy that has been expended in opposing the downward force of gravity.

That’s not the PE doing anything. That’s you accounting for it in a roundabout way.

“It then converts back to KE during descent and provides the KE needed for the surface temperature enhancement.
So potential energy is indeed ‘doing something’ during both ascent and descent.”

No. The force of gravity acts on mass causing the KE to increase and the PE to decrease. The PE doesn’t ‘do’ anything.
Least of all “Hold the atmosphere up”, which was the claim I took exception to 3 comments ago.

79. Ben Wouters says:

Trick says: September 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm

“Perhaps Ben can put up a ref. that supports his imagination.”
I did expect this to be well understood.
Here we go again:
Tsi 1364 W/m^2 reflected 11% emissivity 1.0

Total amount of energy thermalized is 0,89 x 1364 W/m^2 times the area of a disk with the same radius as the moon.
A sphere has 4 times the area of a disk, so 0,89 x 1364 W/m^2 / 4 = ~ 303 W/m^2
SB => ~270K (incoming solar evenly distributed over the entire sphere)

More realistic is to distribute incoming over half the sphere:
0,89 x 1364 W/m^2 /2 = ~607 W/m^2
SB => ~322K (NOT 2 x 270K = 540K !)
Dark side 0K (or 2,77K if you insist) average temperature (322K + 0K)/2 = 161K
So with the same solar energy we now have a much more realistic temperature estimate.
Assuming 30K geothermal for the dark side gives ~ 176K already.

Rotation does increase the average temperature in the same way: the more evenly you spread the incoming solar around, the higher the radiative balance temperature will be, with 270K as max in this case.

80. Ben Wouters says:

tallbloke says: September 3, 2015 at 7:31 pm

” Temperature is less tangible than clouds and the phase changes of water. And in this conversation, we’re more interested in convection and latent heat inside the troposphere than in temperature change above it.”
Then you should talk about the boundary layer, since that is where most of the action is.
Most convection doesn’t rise above max 3km., and often no convection is happening at all. The few cumulonimbus clouds that actually make it all the way to the troposphere are few and far between.

81. Ben Wouters says:

gbaikie says: September 3, 2015 at 6:20 pm

“A slower rotation- say a 40 hour day- would cause cooler night time temperature in the tropics and therefore would significantly lower Earth’s average temperature-”
I don’t think so. A full day of sunshine in the tropics warms the upper 10 m of ocean half a degree or so, and this gain is lost again during the night.
Deserts are a different story, but earth is ~70% oceans.

82. wayne says:

Stephen Wilde says: September 6, 2015 at 12:00 pm

tallbloke said:
” Potential energy is just that – potential. It’s not doing anything.”

It most certainly does do something when movement in the vertical plane occurs.

During uplift it represents kinetic energy that has been expended in opposing the downward force of gravity.

It then converts back to KE during descent and provides the KE needed for the surface temperature enhancement.

So potential energy is indeed ‘doing something’ during both ascent and descent.

My, this is getting comical !!! Deserves a comical response.

No Stephen, NO, are you really continuing this? Your comment is your mistake. Potential energy is a fiction, a conceptual math construct only, it has no physical existence, you will never see it or feel it nor detect it with an instrument. It is but a position, an h, a x, y, or z, a certain position within a field and is arbitrary.

From an old physics book on gravitational potential energy, p. 132:
“The quantity mgy, the product of the weight mg of the body and the height y of its center of gravity above the reference level, it is called its gravitational potential energy.”

The reference level is usually picked to be at infinity, but it is up to you Stephen, pick it.

You can set the potential energy to anything you like, large, zero, or somewhere in between, it is up to you Stephen to just pick the reference, any reference you like! You can manufacture “potential energy” with your mind because that is all it is, in your imagination!

What does really, physically, exist is a potential acceleration if and only if a force is acting upon and is not balanced by yet another force or forces to be zero, or that no forces exist at all at some point in space. That is what is happening to your “packet” as it stops rising high above…. nothing…. all forces are cancelled there. Think forces and fields.

Comprehend? Please show us you have the ability to comprehend and stop this mindless babble.

Your entire problem is that you imagine that your PE always causes acceleration, no, it is the field that has the ability to cause acceleration, not PE, PE is for bookkeeping. This time I am going to bookmark this comment, check on your progress every now and then, and in a relapse I can just point you back to this without having to re-write this damn response over and over yet again.

Read, Stephen, learn before writing. You keep speaking as if energy is everywhere, either in form of KE or PE giving you plenty of energy at all moments to do whatever your mind wants to conjure up. Wait, since you have said before that you are not good at math, don’t really understand it, best to wipe potential energy from your mind completely since that is the only place it is necessary.

tallbloke:

He listens to you, well, sometimes, please help here…. seems we have a gentleman stuck in a physics symmetrical groundhog day energy loop, KE to PE to KE to PE to KE to PE to KE to PE to ………. 😉 Call in the Ghostbusters?

83. Trick says:

Stephen – “Most upward and downward movement of air is gentle enough not to affect flight.”

I see Stephen hasn’t read his Margules 1903 yet. His imagination contradicts a very famous paper. Gentle means observed to be zero, exceptions are clouds & storms.

This is OT Stephen, your lack of physics and meteorological study is telling here. The isobars are at a given height Stephen, they are by and large hydrostatic, the geostrophic winds largely flow at same height as they start perpendicular to isobars and are then deflected by coriolis effect. Any basic text will inform, the Margules paper is still famous. As hydrostatic (statically stable) density stratification is normally horizontal, by and large, in the whole of the atmosphere, the available PE is far and away small. 50% of the whole atm. falling is only in Stephen’s imagination not in observed nature.

——

Ben – Doesn’t put up a ref. to show a rotation can add energy test either. His imagination at work also, not observed nature as in this paper.

“Rotation does increase the average temperature in the same way..”

Not according to this paper and 1LOT. Rotation is not a factor herein Ben, one planet is even retrograde! The increase in energy does not come from the sun (insolation LT constant) or geothermal (LT constant also). Where does this energy come from Ben?

Ben is trying to explain the difference 270K to 197K is due rotation, this paper explains it is radiative balance, so we have one ref. against Ben. Ben needs to show a ref. with tests supporting his imagination and against this paper.

84. Trick says:

Better with tag improved:

Ben – Doesn’t put up a ref. to show a rotation can add energy test either. His imagination at work also, not observed nature as in this paper.

“Rotation does increase the average temperature in the same way..”

Not according to this paper and 1LOT. Rotation is not a factor Ben, one planet is even retrograde! The increase in energy does not come from the sun (insolation LT constant) or geothermal (LT constant also). Where does this energy come from Ben?

Ben is trying to explain the difference 270K to 197K is due rotation, this paper explains it is radiative balance, so we have one ref. against Ben. Ben needs to show a ref. with tests supporting his imagination and against this paper.

85. Ben Wouters says:

Trick says: September 6, 2015 at 2:19 pm

“Ben – Doesn’t put up a ref. to show a rotation can add energy test either.”
Because I can’t. Rotation does not ADD energy, it distributes energy.

I did assume it to be clear that a body that continuously faces the sun receives all solar energy on one half of the sphere only. If the body rotates once every second, the 300.000 km stream of sunlight that ‘hits’ the body every second will now be distributed evenly around every latitude of the entire sphere, but still not evenly around the ENTIRE sphere as is assumed in the calculation of the 270K for the moon.

86. Trick says:

“Because I can’t. Rotation does not ADD energy, it distributes energy.”

Correct now Ben yes, rotation does not ADD energy to raise temperature. Thus rotation cannot raise (or lower) Tmean; this paper agrees rotation differences merely distribute fixed amount LT net energy differently for effect on Tmax, Tmin.

87. Trick says:

wayne – Stephen is long term set in his opinions from his imagination & not from observed test. The only way for Stephen to improve is actually read about the testing that developed today’s realist meteorological knowledge as in this paper (and Margules 1903, Lorenz 1954). Stephen never has shown any interest whatsoever in reading, testing, his imagining is easier. Lewis Carroll imagined going thru the looking glass; tests show this is not natural.

So Stephen avoids testing. Airplane takeoffs enter smooth hydrostatic air nearly all the time, so Stephen imagines “gentle”. Does not get out an observation to observe the 0 for himself. The takeaway is know Stephen often doesn’t get it right as does this paper based on observation, so take the paper conclusions instead of Stephen’s. Though it is fruitful test one’s own understanding by showing Stephen is often just imagining unobserved, untested physics.

88. wayne & Tallbloke,

I know perfectly well that PE is a convenient construct.

That does not mean that one can simply ignore it. In a conceptual description of what goes on in the real world it is reasonable to treat it as a discrete entity.

Rog said this:

“The force of gravity acts on mass causing the KE to increase and the PE to decrease. The PE doesn’t ‘do’ anything.”

On which basis the KE doesn’t ‘do’ anything either.

Either they both do nothing or they both do something.

We all know that, at the heart of it, it is indeed a matter of how the force of gravity acts on mass. The terms KE and PE are simply shorthand terms for the way gravity acts on mass as it moves with or against gravity in the vertical plane.

” KE to PE to KE to PE to KE to PE to KE to PE to ………. 😉 Call in the Ghostbusters?”

Isn’t that exactly what happens when gravity acts on mass in constant convective overturning once hydrostatic balance has been achieved ?

This site favours the graviti-thermal theory of the greenhouse effect yet some here appear to refuse to acknowledge the obvious physical processes that create it.

89. “Any atmospheric circulation
system, whether it be a small-scale convection
cell, a cyclone, or a large-scale zonal-wind
system, is marked by a supply of kinetic
energy, and the development of such a system
requires either a transformation of some
other form of energy into kinetic energy, or a
conversion of the kinetic energy of some other
system into that of the developing system.
The classical paper adopting this method is
that of MARGULE(1S9 03)”

So what is Trick trying to say exactly ?

That summary appears to match my contentions in that it covers not just storms but also large scale zonal wind systems.

The other form of energy is of course potential energy which is treated as a discrete entity which wayne and tallbloke seem to be objecting to.

“Since the study of energy transformations and the numerical integration of simplifiied equations
are sometimes used as alternative approaches to the same physical problem, it is often
desirable that the simplified equations conserve total energy under reversible adiabatic processes.
Preferably, the equations should also conserve the sum of kinetic energy and available
potential energy, and they should describe the tendency for static stability to increase as kinetic
energy is released.”

90. Trick says:

Stephen – Did you read Margules or Lorenz 1954? They both say in hydrostatic atm. PE is rarely available to convert to KE though the supply of PE is abundant. I’m trying to say agreeing with their observations of nature is preferable to your imagined nature. Read the papers, you are incorrect 50% of whole atm. is falling at any time.

91. Trick,

Quote what you re relying on.

Every low pressure cell (pressure below 1004mb) contains rising air and every high pressure cell (pressure above 1004mb) contains falling air.

It is not rising or falling vertically but rather circulates around the centre of high or low pressure gradually falling or rising in the process.

I am not aware of that being a contentious issue anywhere other than in your mind.

92. Trick says:

Stephen – So now you imagine air is not rising and falling vertically but still is somehow rising and falling at same time. Vivid imagination. Geostrophic winds are observed largely hydrostatic at same height. Did you not notice my use of observed? Except near equator, they get more confused as coriolis changes sign. Read the papers.

93. Observed fact inherent in the existence of high and low pressure cells with air flowing between them.

I think you are confused by the Margules/ Lorenz comment that the amount of conversion of PE to KE or KE to PE can be ignored in very large systems because the amount of energy transformation is very small compared to the total amount of energy involved in a large scale system.

That in no way derogates from the basic points made by me here and just illustrates your lack of meteorological experience.

94. Trick says:

Stephen – No confusion. You everywhere and always say 50% of the whole atm. is falling, these papers and all of hydrostatics observe nature demonstrates the opposite. Read the papers.

Airplanes take off mostly thru hydrostatic atm., the ride is smooth not just “gentle”.

95. 50% 0f the whole atmosphere has a descending vector at any given moment.

Established meteorology and not contradicted by the papers.

96. I’ve been waiting for the SW-trick trollathon. 🙂

97. gbaikie says:

–“I think it would be at least this much, as said above.”

OK. Why the concern about average global temperature (AGT),with no meaning whatsoever? Earth AGT is easily manipulated by CAGW Clowns, with few serfs the wiser. The Clowns could nor get away with such crap fot local temperature.–

The Greenhouse Effect theory is based upon premise that only greenhouse gases can warm a planet and these gases do a total of 33 K of warming or increases the average temperature by 33 K.
Though the Greenhouse Effect theory does not say with any precision how much each greenhouse gas, adds to reach this total of 33 K, but it does indicate that H2O gas causes the most compared to all other greenhouse gases that exist on Earth- or the theory claims that H2O has highest minimum and maximum range which considered possible.

The paper which topic of this post, says there are other effects which increase the average temperature, Ie the sun warms lunar regolith and the warmed lunar regolith keeps regolith from reaching about 30 K at the Moon’s night side. Or if Moon’s rotation were slower, the heated regolith would have more time to cool to a lower temperature. Or if Moon’s rotation were faster, the lunar regolith
would have less time to cool.
And if the Moon were to have as faster the rotation rate of the Earth [or faster] I think the lunar average temperature would be quite a bit warmer [or “I think it would be at least this much, as said above.”]

So the Moon warming effect in terms of it’s average temperature and this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Hence in this universe there are other mechanisms that increase a planetary bodies average temperature other than greenhouse gases.
And this could be useful if you are not already completely convinced that the greenhouse effect theory is not merely pile cow manure of pseudo-science. Though I doubt it will do much for the believers
of AGW. Or clouds are not greenhouse gases, and clouds do cause warming, that should be simple enough to do it, if they were they not crazy/brainwashed. Or UHI is not greenhouse gases, UHI increase the average temperature. Etc..

98. tallbloke says:

Wayne: “He listens to you”

That’s because I always address his arguments respectfully, especially when I disagree with them or the way they’ve been expressed.

Stephen: ” (tallbloke)“The force of gravity acts on mass causing the KE to increase and the PE to decrease. The PE doesn’t ‘do’ anything.”
On which basis the KE doesn’t ‘do’ anything either.”

That’s right, it doesn’t. KE is a quantity possessed by a mass, not a force or ‘active agent’ in itself. 🙂

99. tallbloke says:

Gbaikie: Or if Moon’s rotation were faster, the lunar regolith would have less time to cool.

And less time to heat.

“And if the Moon were to have as faster the rotation rate of the Earth [or faster] I think the lunar average temperature would be quite a bit warmer”

Well, some say it would, and some say it wouldn’t. The authors of this paper say in their previous paper that it wouldn’t. It’s an ongoing area of study on this blog.

100. wayne says:

Stephen, here is a proper trick you can use to help straighten out your mislaid concept.

I am going to pick the potential energy reference point and I choose 11 kilometers high at the tropopause. I say that the air I am addressing is basically still and quiet, little KE for there is no bulk movement (wind) and well, let us say 0.1 m/s downward velocity due to mass conservation you are aware of, very gentle like you say. Up there, one kilogram of that air has 0.1 joules of vertical kinetic energy moving downward and 0 joules of PE for it is at the reference level. In 110,000 seconds (30.5 hours) that kilogram of air will have made its way down to the surface and there it will have 0.1 joules of bulk KE and -11,000 joules (note minus) of PE. See that negative energy, that is your PE that you say is somehow heating the Earth 33°C, no, absolutely not, it is the amount of KE it is going to take for some convecting storm to get that kilogram back up to 11,000 meters high where KE+PE will once again be near zero. A kilogram of air does not fall like a rock or a baseball. In those cases neglecting air resistance and friction loss a kilogram of rock or baseball would have +11,000 joules of KE and -11,000 joules of PE at the surface and energy will have been conserved, the sum KE+PE is zero at all times during that fall.

This is 101 mechanics and is near the first page on that subject in any physics book. Do you comprehend the concepts you are speaking, do you see your mistake, you said you well realize PE is not real and just a conceptual construct, right?

So in air’s case the energy at first thought does not seem to have conserved the energy… where did all of that KE to balance the large negative PE go to as it made its way slowly down to the surface while always at the same local temperature as the surroundings? (hint: don’t forget the 30½ hours it was able to radiate)

101. wayne,

Start with PE = 0 but KE = 100 at the surface and KE at 0 but PE + 100 at the tropopause and then set up convective overturning throughout the entire atmosphere so that it remains in hydrostatic balance. KE and PE would both be 50 at that point of hydrostatic balance.

Then arrange for KE to become PE as the air rises in one column with PE becoming KE as the air descends in another column.

Quite different from your scenario is it not ?

The situation for gases is unlike that for solids and liquids due to the magnitudes greater compressibility. Most of the KE to PE and back conversion arises from the compression and decompression. That is implicit in the Gas Laws.

As gases rise up against gravity they move further apart and cool but as they descend with the aid of gravity they move closer together and warm.

That is all established science.

102. wayne says:

Yes Rog but there is a point where you literally have the lack of respect backwards and it is not just myself, countless others have tried and tried to explain to him his simple mistake and twisting their words. I’ll just step over his advertisements for his “New Climate Theory”. Best to just give up I suppose.

103. Trick says:

Trollathon indeed. Stephen is so irritatingly incorrect, cover your ears, he can’t even read established meteorology papers to find where/why he is incorrect when shown. Available PE to convert to KE in the atm. is tiny & not equal to 50% of whole atm. according to long established meteorology. PE is abundant, little is available to convert to KE.

Stephen is simply wrong & incorrigible as I wrote agreeing w/wayne & long established meteorology is correct by test/observation. Read the papers Stephen. Fix yourself. Get meteorology right to discuss top post paper accurately. I agree with the papers. As they agree with observation & not Stephen’s vivid imagination.

104. Well I’ve presented plenty of third party evidence but I guess some are more emotionally committed to incorrect science than they should be 🙂

105. Roger Clague says:

Stephen Wilde says:
September 6, 2015 at 3:51 pm

We all know that, at the heart of it, it is indeed a matter of how the force of gravity acts on mass. and
This site favours the graviti-thermal theory of the greenhouse effect yet some here appear to refuse to acknowledge the obvious physical processes that create it.

Hockeyschtick lists 40 gravity thermal theories of the GHE. The physical process by which the gravity field of the Earth causes the T/h profile of the atmosphere is an open question.

KE/PE changes are energy concepts not a physical process.
I don’t think the physical processes are like the way gravity causes pressure in a liquid, as weight, the hydrostatic balance. Gravity does not cause weight in air because the molecules are moving.

Gravity changes the velocity of molecules. Gravity changes the velocity of objects in our world. It is a physical process we all can see.

As there are 10^19 molecules/cm^3, we use statistical mechanics to calculate physical quantities we recognise, such as path length and time between collisions.

106. tallbloke says:

Well I for one don’t discourage people from visualizing, conceptualizing and imagining, since that’s how many strides in science have been made. The puzzle with gravito-thermal ideas has always been the question of how it works, and there’s always still room for new interpretations of old problems, as the paper we’re discussing amply demonstrates. Now we’ve had a good interlude, we can return to discussing it.

107. Ben Wouters says:

Trick says: September 6, 2015 at 3:19 pm

“Correct now Ben yes, rotation does not ADD energy to raise temperature. Thus rotation cannot raise (or lower) Tmean; this paper agrees rotation differences merely distribute fixed amount LT net energy differently for effect on Tmax, Tmin.”
Are you really incapable of seeing the effect of the fourth power in SB when you distribute the same amount of solar energy evenly over a larger surface???
I would hope the difference between 161K for half the sphere and 270K for the entire sphere is clear enough.
Only problem is that the even distribution over the entire sphere can’t be realized with rotation only (once per second), unless the body is a cylinder or something similar.

108. Trick says:

Good, thx, the paper is fun to discuss. It is always possible Stephen can learn from his mistakes and begin to agree with long established meteorology reading this paper.

Stephen – Does your imagination agree with the top post paper?

109. Trick says:

Ben – Do you agree with the top post paper that moon Tmean = Ts = GMAT = 197K?

That if moon rotation were 0, Tmean = 197K, or if rotation were as today, Tmean = 197K. That is what the paper is telling us, Tmean is not fn(rotation). The word is not even mentioned in the paper for any of the 6or7objects. Rotation doesn’t matter to this paper because it is developing GMAT= Ts fn(Tna, surface pressure) not max. min. which ARE fn(rotation),.

110. Roger Clague says: September 6, 2015 at 8:19 pm

Stephen Wilde says: September 6, 2015 at 3:51 pm
(“We all know that, at the heart of it, it is indeed a matter of how the force of gravity acts on mass.”)
(“This site favours the graviti-thermal theory of the greenhouse effect yet some here appear to refuse to acknowledge the obvious physical processes that create it.”)

Roger C. These are two unconnected spoutings of SW Most of your post seems not a response to SW at all. Perhaps to all? It is timely in this thread. I agree with most of what you write. However a glaring error:

“Gravity changes the velocity of molecules. Gravity changes the velocity of objects in our world. It is a physical process we all can see.”

We cannot see or measure such. This is again another convenient fantasy (assumption) that is a glaring error in the current interpretation of the kinetic theory of gas!!!
Application of heat energy increases molecular velocity of a gas, as has been demonstrated. Compression (work) increases pressure thus decreasing path length and also increases temperature of the gas with no increase in velocity, also as demonstrated. That work done “on” the gas must become part of the internal energy of that gas

“As there are 10^19 molecules/cm^3, we use statistical mechanics to calculate physical quantities we recognise, such as path length and time between collisions.”

This is close, and correct only near earth’s surface! Some think only velocity for temperature. This atmosphere itself changes path length and time between collisions as a function of radial distance in the Earth’s gravitational field. This also changes the temperature of the gas, with no work, completely isentropic. Heat energy adjusts velocity, gravitational position (pressure) also changes temperature.

tallbloke says: September 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

“Well I for one don’t discourage people from visualizing, conceptualizing and imagining, since that’s how many strides in science have been made. The puzzle with gravito-thermal ideas has always been the question of how it works, and there’s always still room for new interpretations of old problems, as the paper we’re discussing amply demonstrates. Now we’ve had a good interlude, we can return to discussing it.”

Indeed! As almost all here write of mass in a gravitational field with no atmosphere. Can we please start with a definition of atmosphere?
I propose “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”. Adjust as you will but avoid the use of the word “mass” as in Archimedes time. The concept of mass is very recent and has never been understood. Folk are writing of stuff in the toilet that they refuse to look at!

From measurement (without any meaning to the value measured)
Atmosphere: (troposphere)
Measures logarithmically decreasing “pressure” with altitude.
Measures logarithmically decreasing “density” with altitude.
Measures linearly decreasing “temperature” with altitude.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless movement of itself, within itself.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless retention of all the above measurements with altitude movement.

If you wish to discuss your fantasy say so!
If you wish to discuss ‘atmosphere’, correct the above definition and measurable/observable properties, for some agreement on ATMOSPHERE!! Then later spout your fantasy of something else!
All the best! -will-

111. gbaikie says:

–tallbloke says:
September 6, 2015 at 7:32 pm

Gbaikie: Or if Moon’s rotation were faster, the lunar regolith would have less time to cool.

And less time to heat.–
Yes, but the greater the difference of temperature the faster the rate of conduction of heat.

–“And if the Moon were to have as faster the rotation rate of the Earth [or faster] I think the lunar average temperature would be quite a bit warmer”

Well, some say it would, and some say it wouldn’t. The authors of this paper say in their previous paper that it wouldn’t. It’s an ongoing area of study on this blog.–

Well if that is the point, it’s wrong.

The lunar surface does not heat up very well because it’s surface is a very good insulator, of course it doesn’t cool very quickly also, but the power of sunlight creates a greater difference as compared to the cooling difference.
If you divide the lunar day as it it were earth hours, the Moon starts to cool around 3 to 4 pm, if shorten the time of 3 to 4 pm there is less time to cool. Or on Earth were the 3 to 4 pm a longer period of time, one would also get more cooling before sunset.

112. gbaikie says:

–tallbloke says:
September 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

Well I for one don’t discourage people from visualizing, conceptualizing and imagining, since that’s how many strides in science have been made. The puzzle with gravito-thermal ideas has always been the question of how it works, and there’s always still room for new interpretations of old problems, as the paper we’re discussing amply demonstrates. Now we’ve had a good interlude, we can return to discussing it.–

I would say generally the “gravito-thermal ideas” are wrong is similar sense as the greenhouse effect Theory is wrong.
And I would say the “gravito-thermal ideas” is closer to being correct in regards to Venus.
And in regards to Earth, I think the oceans are more significant in terms of “global warming”.
So if the puzzle is why can a planet be a lot warmer than “it should” your answer in connected to the
gravito-thermal ideas- and Greenhouse Effect theory has nearly nothing to do with it.
And generally I am a lukewarmer, in that maybe greenhouse gases cause some amount of warming, though I think the clouds of earth may cause as much warming as all the radiant effects of greenhouse gases.
Or I think greenhouse gases and cloud cause increase in global average temperature of somewhere around 15 K or less. And not sure about how much less and I think it’s might be possible if it’s close to zero or couple of degrees. Or I have far more certainly that clouds cause warming as compared to radiant effect of greenhouse gases.
So like GHE, “gravito-thermal ideas” saying all warming is due to this effect on Earth, IMO. is as wrong.
A significant part, yes, all, no.

113. wayne says: September 6, 2015 at 7:52 pm

“Stephen, here is a proper trick you can use to help straighten out your mislaid concept.”

Wayne, SW seems to have waylaid “you” with his incessant trolling! He has no point except to get some response from those that think they can somehow fix the trolling into understanding! That is certainly not the intent of SW! 🙂

“So in air’s case the energy at first thought does not seem to have conserved the energy… where did all of that KE to balance the large negative PE go to as it made its way slowly down to the surface while always at the same local temperature as the surroundings? (hint: don’t forget the 30½ hours it was able to radiate)”

Please stop feeding the trolls!! If you like, there are very good articles on Kepler’s laws of planetary motion concerning PE, KE and how those relate. (along with the concept of conservation of energy). Such never apply to any troposphere and are not ever linear, nor logarithmic, they are elliptical. Try the Clausius virial theorem (1870), to see that the “orbital” average kinetic energy of a complex system, always equals half of the average negative potential energy of that system.
Such never applies to any atmosphere. Chemistry has its own “virial formula” to understand how gases react with other forces including gravitational force.
The Earth’s tropospheric volume is isopotential, just as Maxwell and Boltzmann showed. This mean that there are no potential differences in a lower atmosphere. There are no temperature potential differences inducing spontaneous conductive heat transfer. There are no pressure potential differences inducing spontaneous atmospheric transfer. Mostly there are no gravitational potential differences inducing spontaneous accelerations of atmosphere! (weight)! The atmosphere, itself, is likely the most inert thingie about!
All the best! -will-

114. wayne says:

Seems you misunderstood my thrust in that example but I agree on your top paragraph.

115. gbaikie says: September 7, 2015 at 2:54 am

“I would say generally the “gravito-thermal ideas” are wrong is similar sense as the greenhouse effect Theory is wrong.”

Indeed, both are wrong because “they” deliberately,intentionally, interchange concepts like power, energy, mass, heat, warming, cooling, and temperature in order to confuse. You do also, perhaps unintentionally!

“And I would say the “gravito-thermal ideas” is closer to being correct in regards to Venus. And in regards to Earth, I think the oceans are more significant in terms of “global warming”.”

Likely yes! Oceans greatly moderate so all is just right for baby bear. This includes Moma’s milk at just the right temperature. And winds and clouds are not so bad. She has lotsa time for smiling and tickling my tummy!

“Or I have far more certainly that clouds cause warming as compared to radiant effect of greenhouse gases. So like GHE, “gravito-thermal ideas” saying all warming is due to this effect on Earth, IMO. is as wrong. A significant part, yes, all, no.”

Atmospheric clouds play a sizeable role in temperatures at each location on this planet! How? No one knows! No group of learned academic scientists know any more about this earth than you! If they claim they do, watch your wallet, leave checks and credit cards at home!!
All the best! -will_

116. Roger Clague says:

wayne says:
September 6, 2015 at 7:52 pm

See that negative energy, that is your [Steven Wilde] PE that you say is somehow heating the Earth 33°C

I agree your challenge is reasonable. Is it possible to use the KE/PE concept to calculate the GHE?
Your analysis is not a refutation. You start by considering a large mass, 1kg, of air. A better analysis starts with the velocity of a single molecule by Statistical Mechanics(SM)

If gravity were acting on air in the same way it acts on 1kg of a solid or liquid it would accelerate at 10m/s^2 over 10 000m and reach a velocity of 100 000m/s. This does not happen. Let me suggest another way to apply laws of motion to matter in the atmosphere.

Consider velocities of a N2 molecule.
At the surface T = 290K v= 520m/s
At 20 000m T = 220K v= 520 x sqrt 220/290 = 450m/s
v(surface) – v(20km) = 70m/s the Greenhouse Effect
g(surface) – g(20km) = 0.006m/s^2
N2 molecules, on average, are slowed down or accelerated at 0.006m/s^2
v^2 = 2gs
= 2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m
V = 49m/s

SM and KE/PE explains the GHE.

117. tallbloke says:

Gbaikie: but the power of sunlight creates a greater difference as compared to the cooling difference. – And if the Moon were to have as faster the rotation rate of the Earth [or faster] I think the lunar average temperature would be quite a bit warmer.

OK, I’m going to attack this rotation question from a logical angle to see if people can refute my logic.

According to 1st law of thermodynamics, energy must be conserved. Faster spin
does not of itself generate extra heat at the surface. Therefore if the
surface temperature rises with spin rate, the additional energy derived from
constant insolation required to raise surface temperature is being
redistributed from somewhere else. That somewhere else cannot be above the
surface of an airless body. Therefore it must be from below the surface.
Therefore a useful sanity test for any model finding that surface temperature is
higher at higher spin rates is to do a diagnostic test on the subsurface
temperature, which must be lower at higher spin rates in order to satisfy the
1st law of thermodynamics.

118. tallbloke says:

Will J:
I propose “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”. Adjust as you will but avoid the use of the word “mass” as in Archimedes time. The concept of mass is very recent and has never been understood. Folk are writing of stuff in the toilet that they refuse to look at!

From measurement (without any meaning to the value measured)
Atmosphere: (troposphere)
Measures logarithmically decreasing “pressure” with altitude.
Measures logarithmically decreasing “density” with altitude.
Measures linearly decreasing “temperature” with altitude.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless movement of itself, within itself.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless retention of all the above measurements with altitude movement.

If you wish to discuss your fantasy say so!
If you wish to discuss ‘atmosphere’, correct the above definition and measurable/observable properties, for some agreement on ATMOSPHERE!! Then later spout your fantasy of something else!
All the best! -will-

I think your outline so far is correct. But somewhere else I think you said that the molecules in the atmosphere were according to Miscolzci “in orbit”?
I may have misread or misinterpreted, but I have a problem with that.

If the atmosphere was “in orbit” around Earth, then air pressure would not rise as much as it does as altitude decreases (temperature also affects pressure), because nothing would be ‘pressing down’ on the near surface atmosphere from above. Gas has mass, and mass is acted on by gravity.

119. tallbloke says: September 7, 2015 at 11:02 am

I propose “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”. Adjust as you will but avoid the use of the word “mass” as in Archimedes time. The concept of mass is very recent and has never been understood. Folk are writing of stuff in the toilet that they refuse to look at!“)
From measurement (without any meaning to the value measured)
Atmosphere: (troposphere)
Measures logarithmically decreasing “pressure” with altitude.
Measures logarithmically decreasing “density” with altitude.
Measures linearly decreasing “temperature” with altitude.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless movement of itself, within itself.
Demonstrates seemingly effortless retention of all the above measurements with altitude movement.

———————————————————————————-
“I think your outline so far is correct. But somewhere else I think you said that the molecules in the atmosphere were according to Miscolzci “in orbit”? I may have misread or misinterpreted, but I have a problem with that.”

Roger,
That’s close! I mentioned that according to Miscolzci, the molecules in the stratosphere are “in orbit”?
That is what starts to happen at pressures below 20kPa.
In the troposphere the degrees of freedom of the molecules, N2 =5, are constrained by the local mean free path. However in the low pressure stratosphere, and because of molecular clumping at low pressure, multi-mers, the only constraint is gravity i.e. the clumps remain in elliptical orbit about centre of mass of Earth, until they return to the troposphere. Damned hard to get to velocity for circular orbit, perhaps in the high meso/thermosphere. 🙂
“If the atmosphere was “in orbit” around Earth, then air pressure would not rise as much as it does as altitude decreases (temperature also affects pressure), because nothing would be ‘pressing down’ on the near surface atmosphere from above. Gas has mass, and mass is acted on by gravity.”

In chemistry the atmosphere can be completely characterized using no defined mass (only moles) and no energy to be conserved (only kT/t power) for each molecule! If you want to store power in mass for some reason, like accelerations, and momentum, that can be added after some understanding of the most simple atmosphere. A single species gas of N moles surrounding a incompressable liquid of the same species with N^60 moles. Why does it have a lapse rate? This puppy doesn’t need a Sun, doesn’t need to rotate, doesn’t need to radiate, does need some liquid temperature to start from. It is only an atmosphere as defined. Much more later perhaps. I need lotsa help from everyone, please.
All the best! -will-

120. tallbloke says:

Will J: It is only an atmosphere as defined.

OK, but don’t forget you started with a definition “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”
So in the interests of relevance to this thread, can we fast forward to “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a solar system planetary body.” so that we get a Sun and rotation alternating a day and night side?

Or is there loads of other stuff you want to enlarge on before we get that far?

121. Roger Clague says: September 7, 2015 at 9:38 am

wayne says:September 6, 2015 at 7:52 pm

(‘See that negative energy, that is your [SW] PE that you say is somehow heating the Earth 33°C’)

“I agree your challenge is reasonable. Is it possible to use the KE/PE concept to calculate the GHE?”
” Let me suggest another way to apply laws of motion to matter in the atmosphere.”
———————————————————————————-
Consider velocities of a N2 molecule.
At the surface T = 290K v= 520m/s
At 20 000m T = 220K v= 520 x sqrt 220/290 = 450m/s
v(surface) – v(20km) = 70m/s the Greenhouse Effect
g(surface) – g(20km) = 0.006m/s^2
N2 molecules, on average, are slowed down or accelerated at 0.006m/s^2
v^2 = 2gs
= 2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m
V = 49m/s

SM and KE/PE explains the GHE.
————————————————————————————————————–
Let me suggest another way to correctly apply laws of vertical location to matter in the atmosphere.

Consider apparent thermal velocities of a N2 dimer molecule. DOF 5!
At the surface T = 290K Apparent v= 520m/s
At 20 000m T = 220K True starting cold, low pressure v= 520 x sqrt 220/290 = 450m/s
v(surface) – v(20km) = 70m/s Apparent delta velocity, instead of isentropic Lapse rate.
-g/C(surface) + g/C(20km) = 0.006m/s^2, -6 degree/km isentropic lapse rate!!!
molecules, Appear slowed down or accelerated at 0.006m/s^2, but no energy was added or subtracted.
v^2 = 2gs = 2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m
Apparent delta V = 49m/s. That atmosphere descending and increasing temperature should be expanding! Instead it is spontaneously growing more dense. as atmospheres must do….
Gamma or insentropic exponent is always (dof+2)/dof = 7/5 = (Apparent 70m/s)/(Apparent49m/s)
At the surface the thermal velocity remains 450 m/s plus Apparent 70 m/s PV energy gain!!! Pressure is as much internal energy as sensible heat is. Combined = temperature 290K.

Correct application of IGL and SM, explains the lapse rate. There is no such thing as GHE!
The way to look at atmosphere can be understandable or meteorological! The troposphere is isopotential. No work to move some in any direction. No weight either!
All the best! -will-

122. Trick says:

Will – It is Poisson relation for potential temperature (from Helmholtz 1888 paper) lapse that is isentropic not a constant -6degree/km; Poisson off only about 10-20% from including real radiative effects in nature surface to Eath tropopause with natural atm. opacity. If ideal Poisson relation held in nature there would still be GHE from that opacity.

Also you missed mgh is energy. Helmholtz potential temperature is conserved quantity & isentropic.

And you will not be able to demonstrate a test proving “No work to move some in any direction.” or “No weight” since the atm. is largely hydrostatic, air must have weight because air is not largely in free fall. If you did make a proper test come out the way you write, both would be big news.

123. Trick says:

Will – btw, see Fig.7a in the top post paper for correct Helmholtz potential temperature isentropic lapse. On any object with atmosphere warmed from below including Earth.

124. Trick says: September 7, 2015 at 2:46 pm

-Nothing-

I wish to prove nothing! Go back to trolling SW! You two are getting rave reviews!! 🙂

125. Trick says:

Will – I agree, nothing you can understand, but Helmholtz and the authors of this paper understood nature very well, because physical observations of nature closely agree. If you did some testing Will, especially in the atm. you could improve a response above “nothing”. You know, employ the science method. Post by assertion doesn’t cut it.

126. tallbloke says: September 7, 2015 at 12:28 pm

(‘Will J: It is only an atmosphere as defined.’)

“OK, but don’t forget you started with a definition “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”
So in the interests of relevance to this thread, can we fast forward to “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a solar system planetary body.”

We are already there if the simplified definition is accepted! No need for packets, parcels, hydrostatic equilibrium, PE, KE, convection, advection, or revection! 🙂

“so that we get a Sun and rotation alternating a day and night side?”

Doesn’t matter! Input power flux from 68 microsteradians (at 1AU). Output power flux into 4PI steradians. Output temperature automagically, somewhere within the range of lapse. From there to lapse surface higher, pressure,density, temperature! Done. The more surface pressure the less variance ‘tween day and night. Some curve fitting for that already done on the moon!
Why, oh, why does anyone want average global surface temperature? Lots more fun selling sets of knives that never get dull at the state fair!

“Or is there loads of other stuff you want to enlarge on before we get that far?”

Loads of other stuff, for anyone that wishes to investigate how an atmosphere may work, complete with column water, column insects, column aircraft, and column politicians! 🙂 Perhaps later!
All the best! -will-

127. gbaikie says:

–According to 1st law of thermodynamics, energy must be conserved. Faster spin
does not of itself generate extra heat at the surface. Therefore if the
surface temperature rises with spin rate, the additional energy derived from
constant insolation required to raise surface temperature is being
redistributed from somewhere else.–

If you put hot coffee in a thermos in the morning, you will have hot coffee in the the afternoon,
but in a week, the coffee with be cold.
Put ice coffee in a thermos in the morning, put it on the moon in sunlight and what time of day do you have coffee which is boiling hot?

Let’s talk about something is highly conductive of heat- blocks of solid copper. Three cubes of different sizes, 1 meter, 10 meter and 100 meter cube. Put them on lunar surface spaced 1 mile from each other. Place them on the Moon in the morning and have have average temperature of 0 C.
Check their temperature at lunar high noon.
The 1 meter block will be about 120 C, and the 100 meter cube will be cooler than 1 meter cube.
Next lunar morning, the 1 meter cube will be much cooler than the 100 meter cube.
Have the moon have faster rotation, and the 1 meter block will be warmer in the morning than it was with slower rotation.
With the Moon’s rotation speed, the 100 meter cube will have a higher average temperature than Earth, the 10 meter cube will be about same as Earth, and 1 meter cube will have lower average temperature than Earth. Increase the rotational speed and the average temperature of the blocks has less of a difference.
None of blocks become warmer than noon time temperature of lunar regolith [regardless of spin] the 100 meter cube is cooler, but it has highest average temperature.

128. tallbloke says:

Gbaikie: the 100 meter cube is cooler, but it has highest average temperature.

I don’t think so. It might well have the highest total energy content of the blocks, but that’s a matter of scale.

But the key point is that models which have been done here at the talkshop show the same peak daytime temperature for the Moon regardless of spin rate between 1 and 30 days. This shows just how effective the regolith is as an insulator, it has very low thermal conductivity. So how would a short lunar daytime (fast spin rate) build up extra energy in the subsurface to keep its surface warmer at night?

Earth’s length of day varies seasonally, with big changes in the diurnal swings, and yet the average annual temperature of deep well water which hardly varies is practically the same as the annual average temperature of the near surface air.

It’s a good puzzle, this one will run for a while yet.

129. Roger Clague says:

Will Janoschka says:
September 7, 2015 at 1:12 am

Compression (work) increases pressure thus decreasing path length and also increases temperature of the gas with no increase in velocity, also as demonstrated.

Compression, increased p and reduced v does not change T.

I propose “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.”

The atmosphere, is gas. Gas is not well understood if treated as a compressible fluids.Fluids are composed of packets/parcels/blobs that do not have molecular properties.
Gas behavior is best understood using statistical mechanics

Earth’s gravity does not cause the atmosphere to have weight, mg. Gravity causes the GHE , atmospheric thermal enhancement, via mv^2.

130. Roger Clague says: September 7, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Will Janoschka says: September 7, 2015 at 1:12 am

(“Compression (work) increases pressure thus decreasing path length and also increases temperature of the gas with no increase in velocity, also as demonstrated.”)

“Compression, increased p and reduced v does not change T.”

If that is true, adiabatic compression and Diesel engines cannot exist! 😦

I propose “a compressible fluid surrounding an incompressible surface of a planetary body.””)

“The atmosphere, is gas. Gas is not well understood if treated as a compressible fluids.Fluids are composed of packets/parcels/blobs that do not have molecular properties.”

This Earth’s atmosphere contains column water, column insects, column aircraft, and column politicians! 🙂 As long as it remains compressible, it remain an atmosphere as defined.

“Gas behavior is best understood using statistical mechanics”

Atmospheric behavior cannot be understood using the current interpretation of statistical mechanics. One must introduce the concept of energy/power density into both SM and Kinetic theory. This has implications for the bastard neuvo science “internal energy”! 😦

“Earth’s gravity does not cause the atmosphere to have weight, mg.”

W = mg is a formula with no meaning! An atmosphere exhibits no heaviness (weight).

“Gravity causes the GHE , atmospheric thermal enhancement, via mv^2.”

GHE is but a CAGW fantasy, deliberate deception. Such does not exist anywhere. Lapse rate is measurable in all sufficient atmospheres, with or without earthlings.
All the best! -will-

131. tallbloke says: September 7, 2015 at 6:55 pm

(“Gbaikie: the 100 meter cube is cooler, but it has highest average temperature.”)

“I don’t think so. It might well have the highest total energy content of the blocks, but that’s a matter of scale.”

Cu with high thermal mass, density and conductivity, Would most nearly represent an isotherm, with the highest efficacy for EMR to space Independent of surface emissivity.

“But the key point is that models which have been done here at the talkshop show the same peak daytime temperature for the Moon regardless of spin rate between 1 and 30 days. This shows just how effective the regolith is as an insulator, it has very low thermal conductivity. So how would a short lunar daytime (fast spin rate) build up extra energy in the subsurface to keep its surface warmer at night?”

A spherical blob of Styrofoam at 1AU with a highly reflective surface (polished gold) except for a small circular spot of Lockheed w7, (paint with high visible absorptivity/emissivity), Would have almost 7K average temperature EXCEPT, that small black spot, would vaporize the Styrofoam if allowed insolation for more than 3 seconds.

“Earth’s length of day varies seasonally, with big changes in the diurnal swings, and yet the average annual temperature of deep well water which hardly varies is practically the same as the annual average temperature of the near surface air. It’s a good puzzle, this one will run for a while yet.”

Yes let us all drone on endlessly about the meaningless annual average temperature of the near surface, very much promoting the CAGW rhetoric! 😦

132. gbaikie says:

–tallbloke says:
September 7, 2015 at 6:55 pm

Gbaikie: the 100 meter cube is cooler, but it has highest average temperature.

I don’t think so. It might well have the highest total energy content of the blocks, but that’s a matter of scale.–

Yes, scale, or total thermal mass vs surface area.
A 100 meter cube of copper weighs on Earth, 8.96 times 1 million tonnes. Were it water it would
weigh 1 million metric tons. Water would have slightly more thermal mass than the copper.
Copper has specific heat of 0.39 KJ per kg. Since it’s 8.96 times denser, compared to same volume
of water it’s 0.39 times 8.96. Or 3.4844 KJ per vs Water per liter [kg] if 4.18 KJ at 25 C.
So a cubic meter of water at 25 C requires 4.180 million joules to warm by 1 K, or needs to lose 4.18
million joules to lower it’s temperature by 1 K. Whereas a cubic meter of copper requires 3.48 million joules to warm by 1 K.
And 100 meter cube of copper requires 3.48 million million joules [3.48 x 10^12 joules] to warm by 1 K.

1 meter cube has 6 sides, one would be facing the ground [and heating/insulated by the ground] and 4 sides mostly facing the lunar terrain and one facing outer space.
1 meter cube has 1 square meter facing outer space, and 100 meter cube has 10,000 square meters facing outer space and has 1 million times more thermal mass than the 1 cubic meter cube of copper.

If you bury the cubes so just the top is in sunlight, one more or less increases the time it requires to cool them. If have have them on top of the surface and have millions of of them scatter across the equatorial region- they will increase the average temperature of the lunar surface in the regions where they are. The cubes will have higher average as will the lunar surface in their vicinity. Though millions of scatter spheres work better than a boxes.

“But the key point is that models which have been done here at the talkshop show the same peak daytime temperature for the Moon regardless of spin rate between 1 and 30 days. This shows just how effective the regolith is as an insulator, it has very low thermal conductivity. So how would a short lunar daytime (fast spin rate) build up extra energy in the subsurface to keep its surface warmer at night?”

Copper vs stone [don’t have fluffy lunar dust which much better insulator]
Copper 401
Granite 1.7 – 4.0
Oh, and:
Insulation materials 0.035 – 0.16
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
fluffy lunar dust better than any of the “Insulation materials” because it’s in a near perfect vacuum and it’s fluffy. [if it was fluffy copper in a nearly perfect vacuum it still would be pretty good].
It should noted the under a few inches one one has compacted material which is a better conductor of heat. And were one to compact the fluffy material it would conduct heat better. like dry sand:
Sand, dry 0.15 – 0.25 .

As said [and I believe the paper says] before sunset the top of of lunar ground is quite cool. Someone mentioned 135 K as I recall, and so over period of 2 weeks of darkness it further cools another say 40 K- because there is warmer ground underneath it. Or according to Apollo a meter under the surface is about -35 C [238 K]. [[Or so I have heard- and they had some problems digging and measuring it.]]
So anyhow there are days of cooling before sunset. And if one had only one day of cooling, it cools less. It does heat up less during the shorter day from faster rotation, but the top surface will heat to the same temperature whether it’s 28 day, day or a 24 hour, day. So the daytime high at the equator will be the same. Underneath the surface one should have shallower zone which warms and cools with the shorter day, but meters under the surface [which is a constant unchanging temperature, it should also be warmer with shorter day.

133. tallbloke says:

Gbaikie: but meters under the surface [which is a constant unchanging temperature, it should also be warmer with shorter day.

That’s the conclusion that is unsupported in your argument, and is also the one critical to the rotation question. My contention is that to satisfy the 1st law of thermodynamics, the incident solar energy doesn’t change, and at equilibrium, the total emitted doesn’t change either. So if the surface has a higher average temperature on a faster rotating Moon, then it can only be because the subsurface has a lower temperature, otherwise the 1st law is violated, because energy is not conserved.

134. tallbloke says:

Will J: Yes let us all drone on endlessly about the meaningless annual average temperature of the near surface, very much promoting the CAGW rhetoric!

Unfortunately, in order to diagnose systems you need to calculate totals and averages. They don’t mean anything in the real world, but for experimental/theoretical purposes, it’s hard to escape them.

135. tallbloke says:September 8, 2015 at 10:45 am

(“Will J: Yes let us all drone on endlessly about the meaningless annual average temperature of the near surface, very much promoting the CAGW rhetoric!”)

“Unfortunately, in order to diagnose systems you need to calculate totals and averages. They don’t mean anything in the real world, but for experimental/theoretical purposes, it’s hard to escape them.”

Roge
That is precisely true!! For this sum radiative flux in = sum radiative flux out. The “average” is not an average temperature for a somewhat constant emissivity it is average (t^4) Take the individual area temperatures Add together the fourth power of each mesurement to get to an average. Or just average the radiance measurements never converting to temperaturen. This kind of value can (with study) have meaning. Average temperature “itself” can have no meaning!
All the best! -will-

136. gbaikie says:

–tallbloke says:
September 8, 2015 at 10:40 am

Gbaikie: but meters under the surface [which is a constant unchanging temperature, it should also be warmer with shorter day.

That’s the conclusion that is unsupported in your argument, and is also the one critical to the rotation question. —

If one were to examine a 10 meter depth on the Moon at some point in that depth the temperature will not vary by say 1 K over a year of time, though this point might vary by 1 K over a 1000 year time period or it might not. And at some depth it will vary by about 1 K over 1 year period, and if one changes rotation so it is slower, the depth in which temperature varies by 1 K will become deeper and it becomes shallower if rotational speed increases.

–My contention is that to satisfy the 1st law of thermodynamics, the incident solar energy doesn’t change, and at equilibrium, the total emitted doesn’t change either. So if the surface has a higher average temperature on a faster rotating Moon, then it can only be because the subsurface has a lower temperature, otherwise the 1st law is violated, because energy is not conserved.–

Well with my example of 100 meter cube of copper, it has a lower temperature at noon than the lunar regolith has in sunlight, and instead of radiating at 120 C, it’s absorbing and conducting the heat to large thermal mass of copper. So at the equator instead of being 120 C the huge block could reach maximum surface temperature of say 40 C.
Now a smaller block of 1 meter cube of copper has less thermal mass and prior to noon could reach around same temperature as the typical lunar surface- 120 C.

The large block of copper functions similarly to ideal blackbody. What is significant about the fantasy of the ideal blackbody is not that it’s black, but that it is a perfect conductor of heat. Or the block of copper is a much worse conductor of heat than compared to the fictional ideal blackbody. But with the block of copper the heat only has to be conducted for distance of about 100 meter fairly quickly rather than thousands of km instantaneously.
So if the Moon was an ideal blackbody, it’s temperature at zenith would be about 5 C rather than about 40 C with the large block of copper.

Now as far as depth the entire 100 meter block will vary it’s temperature in a lunar day by more the 1 K, or more than 5 K. Whereas the 1 meter cube of copper will vary it’s temperature by say 100 K [or more] though it varies it’s temperature less the the first couple of inches of lunar regolith- as far as the regolith under the block “knows” the block of copper is essentially the first couple inches of the surface- and beneath it’s average temperature will be warmer.

137. Irradiance can lead to estimation of input flux. To match that flux for output into 4PI steradians and radiative equilibrium. Use an optical depth emissivity of 0.67 (by definition), to get to some theoretical temperature. For a planet with substantial atmosphere, that temperature must be within the range of surface to space temperatures. Using the “proper” calculation for gas mixture, and planetary mass to get to lapse rate, and altitude for that theoretical temperature. Surface delta temperature and surface delta pressure from that theoretical can be calculated. Working that backward, you “calculate” a surface temperature, easy! You then have to get your kid brother to go touch that surface to see if you are correct! Not so easy!! If kid brother is approx 2 years old, he has spent 100% of his time observing parents and you! This is the smartest he will ever get and that is way smarter than you ancient brainwashed fools!
All the best! -will-