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
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“1) The 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory from greenhouse gases (which confuses the cause with the effect and fails to explain the planetary temperatures of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, etc. )
OR
2) The 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal effect, proven by this new paper and the works/papers of at least 36 others (and very accurately predicts the surface and atmospheric temperatures of all rocky planets with an atmosphere in our solar system).”
According to the Standard Atmosphere calculator, the temperature gradient works like this:
Average temperature increases the nearer you get to the surface at the same rate as the variable: ‘pressure divided by density’.
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/tableatmosphere.htm
Example from the table above:
T(0m) / T(11000m) = 1.33~
(P/D(0m)) / (P/D(11000m)) = 1.33~
OR
3) Planets nearer the sun are hotter.
ivan: but Venus is hotter than Mercury and further away from the Sun – so atmosphere matters.
Managed to download the paper from the Hockyschtik blog. This calculates surface temperatures which are due to distance from the sun due to radiation and atmospheric pressure. For Venus, Earth and Titan the temperature at the top of the Troposphere (or the Tropopause) at a pressure of 10-20 kPa is only related to the distance from the sun. That has been Harry Dale Huffman’s findings which he has put on many Blogs. The mentioned paper which is quite thorough based on measurements from the 1970’s to the latest. It predicts a surface temperature Pluto which soon should be available from the recent flyby.
A generalised equation of two variables computes the actual surface temperature of the sphere.
This functional curve fitting without units. There may be other equation. All probably ambiguous.
The general law of temperature proportional to power distance from the emitter is the first and self evident approximation.
This leaves a “simple” function relating surface pressure and first term error.
I’ll ponder on that.
So what the paper is saying is that atmospheric composition is a minor factor in determining temperature… Distance from Sun, i.e. insolation and atmospheric pressure are the primary variables. So after doing the general curve fitting exercise one can sharpen the prediction by taking into account the minor variables such as atmospheric composition for the mean specific heat, albedo, obliquity and rotation.
So the conclusion about earth’s past temperatures? Variable(s) changed. Then is it reasonable to think that during the age of the dinosaurs prior to the advent of the periodic ice ages, the earth’s atmospheric pressure was higher to account for the significantly warmer era?
Why would I say pressure and not insolation? Because an increase in insolation would have higher radiation exposure with it’s expected problems of DNA destruction.
Which begs the question: If one were to use the method suggested by this paper and reverse calculate the earth’s atmospheric pressure according to the geologic record what be the anticipated atmospheric pressure? Now that would be cutting edge science worthy of a Nobel prize.
TC says: ‘A generalised equation of two variables computes the actual surface temperature of the sphere.’
Three variables if you include density [oldbrew says: August 23, 2015 at 10:28 am]
From 0-11000 metres temperature varies by a factor of 1.33, but pressure varies by a factor of 4.477.
That’s where density comes in. From 0-11000 metres it varies by 4.477 / 1.33 – at least according to the 1976 Standard Atmosphere numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Standard_Atmosphere
–dscott says:
August 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm
So what the paper is saying is that atmospheric composition is a minor factor in determining temperature… Distance from Sun, i.e. insolation and atmospheric pressure are the primary variables. So after doing the general curve fitting exercise one can sharpen the prediction by taking into account the minor variables such as atmospheric composition for the mean specific heat, albedo, obliquity and rotation.
So the conclusion about earth’s past temperatures? Variable(s) changed. Then is it reasonable to think that during the age of the dinosaurs prior to the advent of the periodic ice ages, the earth’s atmospheric pressure was higher to account for the significantly warmer era? —
Yes, but there is not evidence which supports this.
I would agree that atmospheric composition- including clouds is minor factor in determining temperature.
And the greenhouse effect theory starts out removing 23 C from Earth’s ideal blackbody temperature,
then adds back 33 C due to greenhouse gas to get from the starting point 5 C to 15 C of Earth average temperature.
If you accept that ideal blackbody is 5.3 C uniform temperature, and understand that perfect blackbody is different that ideal blackbody and that average temperature of coldest and warmest can be
can be higher average temperature than the uniform temperature of ideal blackbody, then one start
with +5 C as average temperature [rather think 5.3 is highest temperature possible- or ideal blackbody is the coolest a perfect blackbody average temperature can be. Or an ideal blackbody is a pretty good refrigerator in the vacuum of space and blackbody bodies in vacuum, could have a higher average temperature.
And the greenhouse effect theory says albedo has large effect upon temperature [accounts for the minus 23 C] which is false. Albedo or reflectivity is related to have much energy is absorbed. A perfect
blackbody absorbs the most but also radiates the most. So a non perfect blackbody would warm slower and cool slower. Or ideal blackbody immediately warms to maximum temperature and immediately cools
to minimum temperature [in seconds rather than hours/days]. An ideal blackbody is a model rather than
resembling anything that actually exists. So if cooling is delayed this warms night.
So rather than some unique amount of greenhouse gases delaying cooling, everything that actually exists cools slower than ideal blackbody [into a vacuum].
So roughly, albedo is more about how quickly something warms up, as compared to temperature.
So instead of albedo causing minus 23 C, it could instead be about minus 5 C +/- 5 K.
Anyhow, I would say greenhouse gases [which includes clouds] might add as much as 15 C to average temperature or about 10 C +/- 5 K.
And CO2 would not be large portion of the 10 C +/- 5 K, nor does CO2 cause a large portion of total greenhouse gas warming- it’s not the control knob. Instead it’s knob controlled by temperature.
Why should planetary composition matter at all?
hunter says: August 24, 2015 at 2:32 am
”Why should planetary composition matter at all?”
Because when it comes to energy absorbed, reflected or radiated, surface and atmospheric properties are critical.
”Now rip the paper apart.”
Gladly!
Hockey Schtick has foolishly seized on this as an explanation for a 33K atmospheric GHE that does not exist.
This paper is just an inane “curve fitting” exercise with no scientific validity. An attempt to describe surface and atmospheric average temperature distribution based solely on solar radiation received and atmospheric pressure. It is of course utter garbage.
The process of atmosphere over a planet cannot be determined by instantaneous linear equation as these fools are attempting. Only iterative computation such as FEA or CFD can yield a valid result. It does not matter they got close to the right answer, because their working was wrong, their answer is wrong, and they should feel bad.
Obviously they are wrong because from empirical experiment we know that the NET effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere over the surface of our planet is surface cooling not warming, and that the temperature of our lower atmosphere is set by surface temperature.
But we also know something else. No planet or moon in our solar system has managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix to cool said atmosphere.
Let’s study the heating of a gas atmosphere in a gravity field using CFD –
(Wow, look at the pretty colours!)
But what does it mean? Column on the left, heating at low altitude and radiative cooling at high altitude. (Just like our atmosphere). Column on the right, heating and cooling at disparate surface locations only. (like an atmosphere without radiative cooling). Now which super heats and boils into space as it is stripped away by the solar wind?
I don’t care that this paper argues against the idea of a net radiative GHE. Because it ignores the critical importance of radiative cooling of atmospheres, it is provably complete dross. The authors should wither in shame, or at least consider some monastic disciplines that encouraged self flagellation.
Konrad says: ‘the temperature of our lower atmosphere is set by surface temperature.’
Temperature is set by temperature – who knew? There’s also the ocean/land split to consider.
Konrad’s rude and offensive assertions are wrong because those two vertical containers do not adequately represent an atmosphere around a rotating sphere illuminated by a point source of light.
For such a scenario there will always be reducing density and reducing temperature with height even without GHGs radiating to space. Konrad’s suggestion to the contrary is bizarre.
The increase in available volume with height is not present for those two containers with their vertical sides. It is that increase of available volume with height that allows the reduction in density with height. At every layer in the vertical column the air that is present has more volume to fill than in the layer beneath so it is obviously spread more thinly.
All one then needs is uneven surface heating (inevitable) and convective overturning will ensue.
The importance of density is that increased density results in more of the insolation passing through being conducted to the gases in contact with the surface and then converted to potential energy by convective overturning.
The greater the weight of the atmosphere the more kinetic energy is required at the surface to support continuing convective overturning and obviously that ‘extra’ energy cannot be radiated to space otherwise convection would cease and the mass of the atmosphere would lose the internal energy (both KE and PE ) needed to maintain the hydrostatic balance.
“Konrad says:
”Now rip the paper apart.”
Gladly!
Hockey Schtick has foolishly seized on this as an explanation for a 33K atmospheric GHE that does not exist.
This paper is just an inane “curve fitting” exercise with no scientific validity. An attempt to describe surface and atmospheric average temperature distribution based solely on solar radiation received and atmospheric pressure. It is of course utter garbage.”
Hockey Schtick is irrelevant, I pointed at the paper, nothing to do with his opinion. SW is pointing out unnecessary rudeness. It takes away your own gravity. Same with certain others.
Something to consider: I would not have been aware of the paper without HS.
I agree the paper looks like a function fitting exercise, not quite the same thing but I am not familiar with the methodology. Are you?
An objective in attempting to discover laws is finding the simplest which fits. Part of that is finding which independent items are necessary. The minimal solution.
The claim seems to be just that equation is minimal but also that it is incomplete. Others are invited to go from there.
Science is the discovery of law, nothing else.
The minimum solution to the question as to the amount of energy (both KE and PE) that can be held by an atmosphere if it is to neither freeze to the surface below nor be lost to space above is determined by mass, gravity and insolation.
However, other complications are always involved due to the variable physical characteristics of the constituent gases and particulates.
If it were possible for those other complications to destabilise atmospheres then atmospheres would be very rare but atmospheres seem to exist on a wide variety of planets regardless of atmospheric composition.
So we are driven to the obvious conclusion that convective changes negate radiative imbalances and that has been known for a very long time though current climate science ignores it:
Click to access mae578_lecture_06.pdf
–I agree the paper looks like a function fitting exercise, not quite the same thing but I am not familiar with the methodology. Are you?–
Well it seems in the beginning it starts with trying to determine the temperature on some planet.
It seems we have a vague idea that Earth average temperature is about 15 C. The Soviets successful landed a couple probes to surface of Venus and it was very hot.
And considering that Venus has twice as much sunlight as Earth, it’s air temperature is quite similar to Earth’s air temperature at the same atmospheric pressure.
Mars has a thin atmosphere, which has air pressure similar to Earth’s at 100,000 feet elevation. Earth at 100,000 feet has very lower air temperature, and Mars atmosphere is low temperature.
It seems that were the air temperature to increase at Venus that one would not increase the amount atmosphere and it’s pressure. With Mars were it’s air temperature to increase, it atmosphere should increase, and were it’s temperature to decrease one would get less atmosphere. In comparatively minor way the same could said about Earth. With Mars it’s atmosphere is frozen out at it’s poles, were Mars to get warmer, that ice could be added to atmosphere, there also probably more than out gassing at the poles, which could occur with Mars. one could also say the with Mars thin atmosphere of a mass of about 25 trillion tonnes, it does not require much to double it’s atmosphere. Whereas the far more massive atmosphere of Earth or Venus require a heck of a lot atmosphere added to double it’s mass.
Or in terms of Earth’s carbon cycle, it’s constantly inhaling and exhaling about 1/2 trillion tonnes of CO2 per year, and in terms of Earth’s water cycle, it evaporate and rains about 2.5 cm globally which amount to somewhere around the mass of mars atmosphere each year.
But as said Mars has small atmosphere:
Mars: “Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg”
Earth: “Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg”
Venus: “Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg”
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
So one could say Mars atmospheric mass is more sensitive to temperature changes.
One could say Venus and Mars are somewhat explored, or explore more than other planets-
though Titan had probe sent to it’s surface, but it does not seem like we bothered to precisely
measure Earth’s temperature, as of yet, and all other planetary bodies have been measured less.
Oh, my mistake 2.5 cm how much in atmosphere, it rains about 5.1 × 10^14 tonnes or
5.1 × 10^17 kg:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2008/VernonWu.shtml
Which is about 20 times Mars atmospheric mass. Or about 1/10th Earth’s atmospheric mass.
Over a year period of time.
Sigh, do I have to do the stuff?
” Dimensional analysis: the process of removing extraneous information from a problem by forming dimensionless groups.”
Which is something I expect we have all done informally.
Lets go further, the computations, the mathematics, are mechanical even if we find them hard or beyond our expertise, no matter literally because all problems have a hard part of thinking on the problem, what is to be done?
An example familiar to older Talkshop regulars is the work I did on the lunar surface temperature and then others using different mathematical forms from other fields all reaching the same answer (two results have not for professional anonymity reasons been reported in public). This example illustrates how common laws ignore the units and combinations used in a particular field of work, they do not matter. Perhaps for ease different mathematical techniques are used in different fields, makes no difference the answer is always the same.
A useful primer follows, although I am in no position to judge the correctness. Almost immediately it raises a flag on the validity of the paper under consideration. “Temperature is an anomaly; there has been a debate about whether or not it should be
included as a primary quantity independent of mass, length, and time (Huntley, 1967).”
Dimensional Analysis, Scale Analysis, and Similarity Theories
David Randall
Dimensions and units
So far as we know, nature can be described using the four “dimensions” or “primary
quantities” of length, time, mass, and electric charge. Here the word “dimension” is used to refer
to aspects of nature that are independent in the sense that they are not inter-convertible. Length
cannot be re-scaled somehow as a mass. Time cannot be re-scaled as an electric charge.
All physical quantities can be measured as combinations of these four dimensions. For
example, velocity is length divided by time, and energy can be expressed as mass times length
squared divided by time squared.
Temperature is an anomaly; there has been a debate about whether or not it should be
included as a primary quantity independent of mass, length, and time (Huntley, 1967). It is a
statistic of the molecular motions, which can be defined in terms of of energy per unit mass. In
atmospheric science, temperature is usually treated as a fifth primary quantity.
Units are different from dimensions. The various primary quantities are measured using
units, which can be defined in very arbitrary ways. For example, length can be measured using
meters, feet, furlongs, or the size of Henry VIII’s foot. Today, scientists almost always use the
metric or “International” system of units.
His copyright so read the rest in the pdf (small, 16 pages)
The part about Henry VIII is cobblers.
Click to access Dimensional_Analysis.pdf
Tim C.: “the paper looks like a function fitting exercise”
It sure does. They even take pains to put Mars Ts/Tna dot precisely on the fitted curve. That curve fit is too good to be true, nature isn’t ever that clean even on simple lab experiments.
1) They had to lower Mars GMAT (Ts) about 25K or more below every other published estimate (as they explain). They hand wave away all the other papers on the subject as simply “wrong” (copied Konrad tactic less the rudeness). Move up Mars GMAT (Ts) to published papers and it falls way above their curve (at about 1.35 Ts/Tna) and may even result in another “model” than 12 being statistically selected as best fit.
2) Their Poisson relation model T/To = fn(P/Po) is nothing new having been published in 1888 by Prof. Helmholtz. It makes perfect sense as the surface pressure is different then so is surface T for each body based on IGL & optical depth considerations. They even show their curve similar shape as Prof. Helmholtz found. Then try to explain it away as their having something new. Not so. Not at all.
3) The paper compares brightness temperature to thermometer temperature as if they were the same. They are not; do not ever confuse the ordinary (or thermodynamic) temperature with brightness temperature*. The GMAT 197K brightness temperature of airless moon is not known to compare to its ordinary thermometer temperature as no extensive HCN type lunar thermometer field exists. They even try to explain away Apollo higher thermometer readings as if they are no matter. Then on other assumed airless bodies (Earth, Titan, Mars) they use the curve fit/parametric eqn. 4c from the airless moon without comment.
4) The paper even admits an increase in Earth GMAT (Ts) (about 0.2K over something like recent 10 years inside CI, so in line with AGW unknowns) without explaining why their paper misses that possibility. Was Earth TOA insolation increased to compensate, was surface pressure increased? What?
5) Why is Venus Tna (curve fit from moon data) higher than its radiating Te when every other body is opposite? No explanation; think I can guess why though.
——
*Even if the radiation measured (for example by Diviner radiometers) is mostly or entirely emitted (as opposed to reflected, diffracted) by a body, its brightness temperature is not the same as its thermodynamic temperature unless the radiometer designers happen to choose a frequency range over which the emissivity of the body is almost 1.
What’s more should consider the brightness temperature depends on frequency interval, and possibly direction (unless the source is isotropic & the moon is certainly not), and if the instrument is equipped with a rotating polarizing filter, the brightness temperature might change (unless the source is unpolarized where the moon is reflecting/diffracting polarized).
gbaikie says: ‘And considering that Venus has twice as much sunlight as Earth’
But the fourth root law means Venus only gets 1.176 times the insolation of Earth (or radiating temperature).
‘Venus is 1.38 times CLOSER to the Sun than Earth. The intensity of the Sun’s radiation increases, of course, the closer the planet is, by a factor of the distance squared, which means Venus gets 1.38-squared (or 1.91) MORE solar radiation than Earth. The RADIATING TEMPERATURE of Venus, then, is the fourth root of 1.91, or 1.176 greater than the radiating temperature of Earth.’
http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Fire-From-Heaven-Climate-Science-And-The-Element-Of-Life-Part-Two-The-Cloud-By-Night
Harry Huffmann pointed this out a few years ago too.
oldbrew says:
August 23, 2015 at 10:28 am
According to the Standard Atmosphere calculator, the temperature gradient works like this:
Average temperature increases the nearer you get to the surface at the same rate as the variable: ‘pressure divided by density’.
You seem to suggest the table proves a real, physical relationship between T, pressure and density in the atmosphere.
The values of density are calculated from the gas law, using the value of pressure and temperature actually measured. Density is not directly measure. No one collects a sample and measures the density
The density is what you expect from the gas law because it is calculated from the gas law.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 24, 2015 at 12:17 pm
The greater the weight of the atmosphere the more kinetic energy is required at the surface to support continuing convective overturning and obviously that ‘extra’ energy cannot be radiated to space otherwise convection would cease and the mass of the atmosphere would lose the internal energy (both KE and PE ) needed to maintain the hydrostatic balance.
You use the word weight and then later mass in this sentence.
It is always safe to say mass and not weight when talking of the atmosphere.
oldbrew says, August 24, 2015 at 7:38 pm:
“‘Venus is 1.38 times CLOSER to the Sun than Earth. The intensity of the Sun’s radiation increases, of course, the closer the planet is, by a factor of the distance squared, which means Venus gets 1.38-squared (or 1.91) MORE solar radiation than Earth. The RADIATING TEMPERATURE of Venus, then, is the fourth root of 1.91, or 1.176 greater than the radiating temperature of Earth.’”
But it isn’t. The “radiating temperature” of Earth is 255K. This is based on the average (annual/global mean) ToA OLR flux of 239 W/m^2 which is equal to the average ToA solar flux AFTER global albedo (~0.3) has been accounted for. The similar “radiating temperature” of Venus is about 232K, based on the average ToA OLR flux of 163 W/m^2, equal to the average ToA solar flux AFTER global albedo (~0.75) has been accounted for.
So the radiating temperature of Venus is a fair bit lower than Earth’s. Thanks to its much higher global albedo, which means that a much smaller portion of the incoming solar flux is actually ABSORBED by the planet.
Roger C: I’m just saying how that Standard Atmosphere table works. There isn’t a direct correlation between temperature and pressure. One falls off by 1.33 times from 0-11000 metres altitude, the other by 4.477 times (per the SA).
oldbrew: “Venus only gets 1.176 times the insolation of Earth..”
A good thing this paper does is bring together a lot of disparate planetary data accurately for ref.
Look at table 2: Avg. insolation S = solar irradiance for Venus: 2,601.3 vs. Earth 1,360.9 W/m^2. You have to match similar words with similar data.
Harry took the NASA measured atm. density at certain p(z)’s from radio occultation data he linked to (carries the info. for composition, albedo, insolation into IGL), then proved the IGL works the same at Venus as on Earth. For same P, he took measured density & adjusted T for net radiation at orbits find p=density*R*T works both places very closely. Some small differences from extreme windiness, radio drift, etc. This should not be news.
——
Roger: “No one collects a sample and measures the density”
NASA did. Then used p(z) to compute Venus T profile T(z) from IGL in form P=density*R*T. Once you measure P( z) and measure density( z) you have T( z) pretty close. Which is pretty much what this paper does meaning: uses IGL but in form of T/To = fn(P/Po).
Kristian: “The similar “radiating temperature” of Venus is about 232K”
You are behind in your reading, see table 4, Venus radiating T (their Te) is now around 185K based on recent updated Venus bond albedo=0.9 research they cite. NASA has updated some sites but not all.
Kristian says:
“So the radiating temperature of Venus is a fair bit lower than Earth’s. Thanks to its much higher global albedo, which means that a much smaller portion of the incoming solar flux is actually ABSORBED by the planet.”
What important is where most of this “much smaller portion solar energy” is absorbed.
And what temperature which results from most of the energy of this “much smaller portion of solar energy” being absorbed.
With our Moon, we know that most of the sun’s total energy is absorbed within about the first 1 inch
of lunar surface material. With Earth it’s within first few meters of ocean surface.
With Venus it’s absorbed by the clouds- within tens of meters of various levels of clouds.
So it’s commonly stated that Venus clouds reflect about 70% of the sunlight. This might not be correct
maybe it’s 60% or less. But in any case it indicates the clouds are having a large portion of sunlight
reaching them. And Venus clouds are described as dense, meaning not much sunlight passes thru
them. So if say 20% of the total sunlight is absorb, the temperature of the cloud will depend upon there
elevation. or roughly a cloud absorbing the sunlight at 10 km higher would be almost 100 K warmer.
If the clouds are higher and with lower pressure and are heated, then they could evaporate at some temperature. And if a cloud is evaporating, than the air will be the same temperature that it evaporates
at. And it’s known that the clouds evaporate, and condensate, and rain, and rain is evaporated, never reaching the ground. And the acid boils at 300 C or more at around 1 atm pressure [and would evaporate at lower temperature {as water evaporates at lower temperature than 100 C at 1 atm}]
And Clouds are about 30 to 70 km above the Venusian surface. And the rocky Venusian surface
receives an insignificant amount of the total solar energy from the Sun.
“Thanks to its much higher global albedo, which means that a much smaller portion of the incoming solar flux is actually ABSORBED by the planet.”
Much, MUCH smaller Kristian.
Kristian, I’ll have to agree with Trick here, the bond albedo of Venus is not 0.75, it is closer to 0.90 by best measurements. You are using bond albedo for Earth and then turning right around it seems and using the visual geometric albedo for Venus which used to be listed by NASA as 0.75 but now is stated as 0.67 last time I looked. But you are not alone, I have noticed many other using this same flaw. Just read gbaikie’s response to you, same mistake. Best not to mix the albedos!
I too get 184K using climaticy-sunless-and-evenly-illuminated-planet-“physics”.
Trick: I quoted…
‘Venus is 1.38 times CLOSER to the Sun than Earth. The intensity of the Sun’s radiation increases, of course, the closer the planet is, by a factor of the distance squared, which means Venus gets 1.38-squared (or 1.91) MORE solar radiation than Earth. The RADIATING TEMPERATURE of Venus, then, is the fourth root of 1.91, or 1.176 greater than the radiating temperature of Earth.’
You said: ‘Look at table 2: Avg. insolation S = solar irradiance for Venus: 2,601.3 vs. Earth 1,360.9 W/m^2. You have to match similar words with similar data.’
Yes, that’s the 1.911 figure of the Venus:Earth comparison.
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2613.9 (V) 1367.6 (E) 1.911 Ratio (V/E)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
But Harry Huffmann confirms my quote above:
‘Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth.’
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
That’s what the data shows.
oldbrew – Just look & use carefully the wording. Be specific. Harry has different terms defining his meaning for 1.176 than the ones you used. The 1.176 is different than the 2601.3/1360.9 incoming sunlight ratio. Words are easy to misuse, formulae less easy. The NASA data & his math simply show IGL P=density*R*T works within reason for the macro. atm.s of Venus and Earth which is not news.
Thanks Trick.
Ignoring details and dealing with details, consistent is us, there is a fitting but no good enough detail in the pictures.
The obvious is inverse square law on irradiation and that accounts well for the basic rule. The rest is down to other things.
I’ll add something else. Wearing a metrology hat, we do not know any planet temperature well enough to figure out much. One percent is considered the start of precision, for earth 1% is +- 3K. I contend we don’t know the solar input to 1%, sure work has been done on TSI, and a spanner thrown in my metrologists, NIST. What else couples in? A few satellites is not proper sampling of in or out. Good at doing dark side and light side, dynamic range is what exactly?
Given the wholesale poor practices on data collection, well, the error bounds are wide. Then we have the dire problem of what exactly is meant by surface and at least as importantly why there? The tradition of human head height in gas is no sound reason. Other planets, we know much?
If there is an elephant it is the lack of primary evidence.
If the case was, this is what we think is so but it is not possible to prove it, I would view the situation differently. Human nature and omission, wibble, avoidance, flapping, uh huh. Lot of it about.
tchannon says: August 25, 2015 at 3:04 am
“Given the wholesale poor practices on data collection, well, the error bounds are wide. Then we have the dire problem of what exactly is meant by surface and at least as importantly why there? The tradition of human head height in gas is no sound reason. Other planets, we know much?
If there is an elephant it is the lack of primary evidence.
If the case was, this is what we think is so but it is not possible to prove it, I would view the situation differently. Human nature and omission, wibble, avoidance, flapping, uh huh. Lot of it about.”
I agree fully Tim! This seems to be the flip side of CAGW nonsense, but still nonsense. No need to rip apart, just flush the thing! Guessing, this is yet another Doug Cotton film-flam now adding Maxwell’s
name to his 5 Year old Gravito-something. He then adjusts the temperatures on these bodies to match his latest attempt at curve fitting. You can Buy this crap for $36! 🙂
tchannon says: August 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tim,
I was having a laugh, but I hit an innocent bystander, SW, which was not my intention. Nor was rudeness intended, I just have a very black sense of humour. 😉
In a later comment you write –
Sigh, do I have to do the stuff?
” Dimensional analysis: the process of removing extraneous information from a problem by forming dimensionless groups.”
To which I answer – this approach can work. The atmosphere of earth is complex. Very complex. Conduction, convection, reflection, absorbing, emitting of radiation, evaporation and precipitation. No one has yet modelled it correctly.
So take the atmosphere out of the equation.
“How hot would the surface of our planet get if it were illuminated by an average of 240 w/m2 of solar short wave and could only radiatively cool?”
Answer that correctly, and then you know the NET effect of all atmospheric processes on surface temperatures.
We know that current surface average temperatures are around 288K. But what is a good figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere”? Climastrologists say 255K. Konrad says 312K. Which is more likely to be correct? Climastrologists got their figure by treating the oceans as short wave opaque and constantly illuminated. Konrad got his figure by treating the oceans as short wave translucent and intermittently illuminated. Only one can be the correct approach.
My point is this, the authors of that paper removed information that was provably not extraneous to the solution of the problem. Worse, as you point out – “If there is an elephant it is the lack of primary evidence”. We don’t actually have good data for any planets or moons other than Earth or Mars. The data for Mars is patchy and the data for Earth is politically corrupted. They were fitting a non existent curve.
Sceptics can’t seize on everything that refutes the AGW nonsense. We must be sceptical of all offerings.
“I agree fully Tim! This seems to be the flip side of CAGW nonsense, but still nonsense….”
Well what would not be nonsense?
It seems one needs a standard model.
One could say the problem is that Earth varying in temperature. Are we have glacial and interglacial periods.
I assume we could agree that average temperature varies. Ice builds up, sea levels lower, ice melts, sea levels rises. Average temperature of ocean warms up and cools down. Etc.
And it seems reasonable that this variation largely occurs in Temperate Zones.
Now a standard model or you like as analogy of Greenhouse Effect Theory is an ideal blackbody.
Which is a surface which absorbs all sunlight, and conduct the heat so that all areas of the sphere are radiating the same amount of watts and it radiate in full blackbody spectrum.
Or absorbs all sunlight of the disk area into heat and divide that energy over entire surface.
It receives about 1360 watts and radiates uniformly 340 watts. And something which emits perfectly
340 watts of infrared is about 5 C.
And such a device if it worked, would not vary much in the amount it radiates into space- it temperature would not vary much over the eons. It’s not effected by how much the sphere spins or what axis it spins on.
If instead of ideal blackbody, one covered a planet with uniform asphalt parking lot, it like the ideal blackbody does not change much in terms of it’s temperature. Though it matters what the spin rate of this planet is, and axis tilt probably matter a bit. So unlike an ideal blackbody the spin and the orbit over the sun have some effects. And if add an atmosphere to asphalt parking lot one adds some more variations. Then if you add in checkerboard like fashion water- black is asphalt and white is water, one adds in more possible variations. But it seems it would have less variation than one has with Earth.
And it seems it’s an improvement to start it with some variation than compared to no variation.
One could have global ocean and have black square connected at their diagonal points. Or one could square ponds around the parking lot- and the pond could connected at diagonal points or not.
Then you could decide how big the squares are- 100 meter- 1 km or whatever.
it should keep in mind that if small squares, one will not see than from orbital height unless using a telescope or something. If they were 100 meters square, and blue and white square- you would see light/bright blue.And with some magnified sensor detect temperature- hmm, I guess it depends on how it’s designed, but it seems it would register the highest reading [highest temperature].
Anyhow, if we go back to world completely covered with an asphalt parking lot, what would the average temperature be? So no water, no CO2, a lifeless flat level parking lot with a 1 atm N2 atmosphere.
It seems one should get an urban heat island effect [distorts the readings of the white box which 5 feet high and spaced every 100 miles.
dscott: “So the conclusion about earth’s past temperatures? Variable(s) changed. Then is it reasonable to think that during the age of the dinosaurs prior to the advent of the periodic ice ages, the earth’s atmospheric pressure was higher to account for the significantly warmer era?
Gbaikie: “Yes, but there is not evidence which supports this.”
Of course there is evidence which supports it. It’s the denser atmosphere that enabled pterosaurs to fly. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/
Will J: “this is yet another Doug Cotton film-flam now adding Maxwell’s
name to his 5 Year old Gravito-something.”
Actually, it’s OUR 5 year old Gravito-thermal something (Or Loschmidt’s if we correctly attribute). Doug Cotton shamelessly steals material from this website, makes a mess of reiterating it, and refuses to acknowledge his sources. Which is why he’s not welcome to post here.
Trick says:
August 24, 2015 at 10:53 pm
The NASA data & his math simply show IGL P=density*R*T works within reason for the macro. atm.s of Venus and Earth which is not news.
The NASA data does not show the IGL works for Earth atm. The IGL is assumed to work and used to calculate the densities recorded in the table. Then these densities calculated using IGL are given as evidence that IGL is working.
The NASA density data is calculated from IGL using pressure and temperatures, which are measured.
The NASA table combines real data and calculated data. An unscientific practice of meteorologists since Pascal’s Treatise on the Weight of a Mass of AIr in 1651.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2015 at 9:57 am
(Will J: “this is yet another Doug Cotton film-flam now adding Maxwell’s name to his 5 Year old Gravito-something.”
“Actually, it’s OUR 5 year old Gravito-thermal something (Or Loschmidt’s if we correctly attribute). Doug Cotton shamelessly steals material from this website, makes a mess of reiterating it, and refuses to acknowledge his sources. Which is why he’s not welcome to post here.”
Roger,
As far as I know Cotton Socks is discouraged everywhere! This just has all the hallmarks of adjusting the numbers to fit the current theory. Especally cost US$36 🙂
The whole thing concept came from about 1982 and the switch to absolute temperature by physicists.
Chemistry and engineering have measurements that demonstrate the the difference in Cp over Cv is not work, the isentropic exponent. It makes the whole LR = -g/Cp nonsense, and for a gravitationally contained atmosphere, only, the Kinetic theory of Gas, needs a bit of adjustment for gas density changes.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2015 at 9:57 am
dscott: “So the conclusion about earth’s past temperatures? Variable(s) changed. Then is it reasonable to think that during the age of the dinosaurs prior to the advent of the periodic ice ages, the earth’s atmospheric pressure was higher to account for the significantly warmer era?
Gbaikie: “Yes, but there is not evidence which supports this.”
Of course there is evidence which supports it. It’s the denser atmosphere that enabled pterosaurs to fly. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/
It seems to me it’s possible that Earth’s atmosphere had a bit more mass at this point in time,
but twice as much seems unlikely.
In terms of the flying reptiles:
“These folks need to get out of their armchairs, however, and check out some classic work on animal flight and giant pterosaur takeoff. James Marden’s 1994 work on animal takeoff found some surprisingly consistent scaling trends among animal flight power and takeoff ability, allowing us to predict the muscle power of even long extinct fliers like Meganeura, Archaeopteryx and a 10 m span azhdarchid. The resulting aerobic power output of azhdarchid flight muscles – all 60 kg of them (a fairly safe bet for a 250 kg azhdarchid given what we know of animal flight muscle fractions among modern fliers) – is a bit rubbish, only 4.52 N/kg of body weight. Animals need to be generating 9.8 N/kg to fight gravity, so this would seemingly ground our giants. Bear in mind, however, that swans, albatross, vultures and turkeys also have aerobic power outputs of around 4.5 N/kg from their flight muscles, and they can fly just fine. The secret to their takeoff lies in the great power of anaerobic muscle contraction, which provides twice the power achieved under aerobic regimes.”
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/08/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-giant.html
Roger Clague says: August 25, 2015 at 10:57 am
“The NASA density data is calculated from IGL using pressure and temperatures, which are measured.”
If the correction to the IGL with the proper isentropic exponent for a diatomic gas is used the numerical results are correct for Earth, not so good for Venus with weird triatomic CO2. all such corrections must be noted in each use.
“The NASA table combines real data and calculated data. An unscientific practice of meteorologists since Pascal’s Treatise on the Weight of a Mass of AIr in 1651.”
I agree! Sloppy inaccurate work is the standard.
Roger – NASA really did measure the density(z) of Venus atm. through refractivity of the Magellan and Pioneer radio signals, used the measured pressure profile P(z) then calculated Venus T(z) simply from P=density*R*T and hydrostatic equilibrium back in 1991. Their T calculations then agreed with Soviet in situ T measurements so the IGL was proven to work for the bulk atmosphere.
The geometry of the “highly effective isotropic radiated power” radio signals were used for “measurements of the absorptivity and refractivity of the Venus atmosphere….Since the bulk of the neutral atmosphere of Venus is composed of nonpolar gases…and is well mixed, the density of the atmosphere rho(z) is related to the refractivity N…by a scalar multiple”.
To improve the radio signals, the spacecraft stopped modulating and just sent a clean carrier wave. You can find the graphic results “Magellan Orbit 3213” at Harry’s site linked above clicking on the 1st link. Paper referenced is:
Radio Occultation Studies of the Venus Atmosphere with the Magellan Spacecraft, Icarus, Vol. 110, 79-94, 1994.
Will J: Chemistry and engineering have measurements that demonstrate the the difference in Cp over Cv is not work, the isentropic exponent.
Where is this empirical data to be found Will?
Trick says: ‘The 1.176 is different than the 2601.3/1360.9 incoming sunlight ratio’
Yes, that’s twice you told me what I had already explicitly stated myself, but thanks anyway.
oldbrew 7:38pm: “Venus only gets 1.176 times the insolation of Earth..”
This is the incorrect statement as shown in this paper’s Table 2, incoming TOA sunlight avg. insolation solar irradiance ratio, S Venus/S Earth is 2601.3/1360.9 as gbaikie correctly wrote about “twice”. Harry’s 1.176 ratio you used is defined much differently, is not “twice”.
Konrad 9:01am: “How hot would the surface of our planet get if it were illuminated by an average of 240 w/m2 of solar short wave and could only radiatively cool?”
The paper shows their answer for our planet (Earth) in Table 4 “Mean airless spherical temperature, Tna (K) (eqn. 4c)” = 197.0 brightness temperature.
Same brightness temperature measured for the other object that can only radiatively cool in Earth’s mean orbit 240 W/m^2 from the cites they give in table 3. No curve fitting necessary for the moon as 197K brightness GMAT was observed by Diviner.
Konrad ,I think you are on the correct path.
“How hot would the surface of our planet get if it were illuminated by an average of 240 w/m2 of solar short wave and could only radiatively cool?”
The only aspect where I differ is I think 255k is correct not the 312k he proposes.
tallbloke says: August 25, 2015 at 2:28 pm
(Will J: “Chemistry and engineering have measurements that demonstrate the the difference in Cp over Cv is not work, the isentropic exponent.”)
“Where is this empirical data to be found Will?”
Roger,
You won’t find it directly on the internet as that has been poisoned. It comes from how Cv is to be measured correctly and what that means for atmospheric free expansion. As my aero eng explained on the phone. The isentropic exponent for this atmosphere is 1.4. Both atmospheric pressure and density are logarithmic with altitude in the troposphere, 1.4 is the ratio.
With Cv calculate the temperature needed to raise the pressure by 1.4. Say a 22.3 litre, Cv. One mole of air at STP 101.3 kPa, increasing to 141.3 kPa. Perforate the Cv to insure Cp, and increase the temperature as calculated. Under free expansion, what is the molar content of that 22.3 litre perforated Cp. Answer 0.714 moles, it floats, upward adjusting temperature, pressure and density freely with the continuum. I thought the aero guys would be giggling at how meteorology tries to do that with work. 🙂
All the best! -will-
Thanks Will, I’ll ponder that. My first question is whether or not the increase in temperature is achieved by work being done? I’m just trying to find my entry point to the ‘continuum’ you are discussing…
Suppose Earth were covered with concrete which was 4″ thick and in had emissivity of .85. So smooth as sidewalk. Earth atmosphere with not much water or CO2 it.
And so no clouds and but with concrete one increase the amount reflected from the surface. And looking at it from space [particularly at distance of million of km] this Earth II would probably be brighter than our Earth.
And with the atmosphere without clouds reflecting sunlight and the concrete surface reflecting sunlight, there could be about 400 watts of the disk area that receives 1360 watts per square meter.
Which means that the hemisphere which is sunlight and twice the area of the disk area would one average reflect 200 watts per square meter. And if average this the shadowed area which is not reflecting any sunlight, globally it reflects on average 100 watts per square meter.
Now if look at the hemisphere which sunlit [which is -**actually** reflecting sunlight] with 200 watts per square meter on average being reflect, which portion of this hemisphere is reflect higher than the the average of 200 watts and what part is reflecting less than 200 watts per square meter?
This is important question, and part of reason world covered with concrete is cooler than a world covered with water which reflects the same amount of sunlight.
The answer for both Earth II and Earth [with it’s 70% surface covered with water] is that either of the earths reflect the most amount of sunlight in the area that receives most of the sunlight.
On average the portion of your Earth which receives the most amount of sunlight is the tropics. A region between 23 degree north and south, or wiki:
“The tropics is a region of the Earth surrounding the Equator. It is limited in latitude by the Tropic of Cancer in the northern hemisphere at 23°26′14.1″ (or 23.43726°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere at 23°26′14.1″ (or 23.43726°) S; these latitudes correspond to the axial tilt of the Earth.”
The tropics is area which is about 40% of the entire Earth surface. Or on the sunlight hemisphere at the time of the equinox the tropics is 40% of the sunlight area. And despite being 40% of the area, it receives more than 50% of the sunlight.
And were Earth or Earth II not rotating on 23°26′14. tilt, but instead had 0 degree or lower degree tilt the tropics [23 degree N/S latitude region] would receive more sunlight on average.
And this is related to why the Milankovitch cycles cause glacial and interglacial periods- because of the placement of land regions [or were Earth completely cover with ocean the Milankovitch cycles would have little effect upon global climate].
One can extend beyond the tropics to about 40 latitude north and south and increase the the percent from 40% to 50% of the entire surface, and again were instead there was 0 axis tilt, this half the the world would get about 80% of all the sunlight.
So within 23, 30, or up 45 degree latitude on average receive, up to or more than 80% of the sunlight and the other half of the world receive on average less than 20% of total of average sunlight.
So even were the the half of the world which receives about 20% of the total sunlight were to be to more reflective [and it “always” is] it can reflect much of the total sunlight because it does get much.
This also points to the insignificance of the reflectivity of polar caps, it also points to the minor effect of say North America largely covered with ice caps in terms of this reflectivity causing global cooling.
What matter with our earth in terms of reflectivity is clouds in or near the tropics.
So with a concrete covered world, the concrete on the surface when/where the sunlight is most powerful will reflect a more significant amount of sunlight. In contrast clear skies over the ocean reflect
nearly nothing.
So I would say in terms of appearance or what can be seen, the Earth II world would appear to reflect more sunlight than Earth, but it could like Earth reflect about 400 watts of the 1360 watts received from the sun.
Or were one to add a blackish/greyish belt at the equator by instead of the concrete, using asphalt, than this would significantly altered the amount it reflects.
Will said::
“it floats, upward adjusting temperature, pressure and density freely with the continuum”
Would that ‘continuum’ be the ‘ideal’ lapse rate slope set by mass, gravity and insolation?
If so then we are back to work being done against gravity in cooling, ascending air and work done with gravity in warming, descending air.
Stephen, if gravity does work, when will it all be used up by?
🙂
I know you know gravity is a force, not an energy, but we must strive for clarity.
‘The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Trick said: ‘S Venus/S Earth is 2601.3/1360.9’ [result = 1.911~]
Therefore the Venus:Earth ratio is derived from the fourth power of 1.911 i.e. 1.176~(V):1(E).
oldbrew – Very good, an improvement over your “Venus only gets 1.176 times the insolation of Earth..”. Venus gets 1.911 times the insolation of earth, which was the about “twice” ratio of insolation or sunlight received that gbaikie discussed and Harry’s discussion defining the ratio T_Venus/T_Earth=1.176. The ratios shown only off from NASA Venus density(z) measurements thru P=density*R*T around +0.5K to -5K at 1bar to 0.2bar.
Hi Everyone,
Interesting discussion! Thanks to oldbrew and Tallbloke for bringing this unusual paper to our attention.
As a former engineer, who’s used to paying attention to details, I noticed something in the paper that no one on this blog had discussed yet …. According to Table 2, the albedos of studied planets varies from 0.136 (for Moon) to 0.90 (for Venus), which is quite a range. Equation 10, on the other hand, which the authors claim accurately predicts average planetary temperatures, does not account for this albedo variation. How is that possible? Is there something wrong with the analysis? How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??
tallbloke says: August 25, 2015 at 9:54 pm
“Thanks Will, I’ll ponder that. My first question is whether or not the increase in temperature is achieved by work being done? I’m just trying to find my entry point to the ‘continuum’ you are discussing…”
No! In the case of thermal convection the work is done by insolation. In the case of mechanical convection There may not be any work at all, even for mass accelerations. This may be just a rearrangement in atmospheric angular momentum. This will demonstrate that energy from wind farms is not renewable as insolation has no way to replace angular momentum. 🙂
The Idea is that there is no PV work done. New term Cpv, for constant volume and pressure, and the only tropospheric altitude change in temperature is that with (PV = NRT), N is inversely proportional to T. The result is the measured lapse rate. The continuum is all atmosphere local to that 22.3 litre perforated volume that is in no way adiabatic. It is still isentropic.
Stephen Wilde says: August 25, 2015 at 10:56 pm
(Will said: “it floats, upward adjusting temperature, pressure and density freely with the continuum”)
“Would that ‘continuum’ be the ‘ideal’ lapse rate slope set by mass, gravity and insolation?”
No never! Include adjusting mass, if any, also! The continuum is all atmosphere local to that 22.3 litre perforated volume that is in no way adiabatic. It is still isentropic. No DALR, no SALR, no packets, and no hydrostatic equilibria! 🙂
“If so then we are back to work being done against gravity in cooling, ascending air and work done with gravity in warming, descending air.”
Stephen, please try to understand, even in your insane version, “all meteorological concepts of how this atmosphere may work are crap, and need to be flushed ASAP”. Please give the job of discovering the what and why of this atmosphere to folk that have demonstrated some competence.
tallbloke says: August 25, 2015 at 11:02 pm
” Stephen, if gravity does work, when will it all be used up by? 🙂 ”
Grinn!
“I know you know gravity is a force, not an energy, but we must strive for clarity.”
Roger, After pondering, can this get cleaned up, clarified, and out before December?
All the best! -will-
JSadell – “..does not account for this albedo variation. How is that possible?”
The authors simply “expect” all regolith covered bodies with “tenuous atmosphere” will have an albedo equal to that measured for the moon (see bottom p. 14). So their eqn. 4c (Tna) is computed from the moon’s albedo (and moon emissivity) for all “airless” situations (e.g. “airless” Earth at 197K) in Table 4, just plug in the respective insolation S at the mean orbit and turn the crank.
JSadell, welcome to the blog, might be a bit wild.
Some time ago I modelled the lunar temperature in a novel way provoking others to do the same thing in different ways, same answer. A twist which was never really discussed, merely declared wrong, was no albedo in the computation. I tend to simply leave things, disagreeing is fine. That wasn’t all I omitted.
The point was starting with minimal assumptions, simple as possible. I’m a bit wary of albedo because I think it is a redundant factor, cancels, x/x = 1, what reflects does not heat and does not have to be radiated from the body. Others do not agree.
The modelling was not so simple, specifically dealt with a spinning body.
The earth has a vague and complex “surface”, doesn’t have one. We can though have a body temperature, not what is normally talked about.
tallbloke asked:
“Stephen, if gravity does work, when will it all be used up by?”
Gravity does no work. Work is done by matter moving in space relative to a gravitational field.
That work uses no energy (which must be conserved) but does transform energy between kinetic and potential form.
I think we can agree that, at the big bang, temperatures and densities were high and that both reduced during the subsequent expansion. KE declined and PE increased.
It is also proposed that if the expansion of the universe reverses then densities and temperatures will increase.PE declines and KE increases.
An approach of matter towards a gravitational field in space, around a clump of matter, partially mimics the contraction of the universse. Densities and temperatures increase within the locality in which the matter is accumulating. PE declines and KE increases.
The effect is relatively small in relation to solids and liquids due to their minimal compressibility but gases, with compressibility magnitudes greater, are a different matter.
For gases, mere convection up and down within a gravitational field around a planet produces the results that we observe.
It is convection, returning KE to the surface in descending columns and removing it simultaneously in ascending columns, that causes the surface temperature to rise above S-B because the energy (both KE and PE) engaged in the overturning process is in addition to that provided by continuing insolation and so the thermal effect of both processes needs to be added together to get the actual surface temperature that can be achieved by surfaces beneath atmospheres.
Very simple really.
Stephen Wilde says: August 26, 2015 at 4:34 am
(tallbloke asked: “Stephen, if gravity does work, when will it all be used up by?”)
“Gravity does no work. Work is done by matter moving in space relative to a gravitational field.”
Good GOD This guy is worse than Doug Cotton and Gary Novak (pravda), combined! Where were they going to put the discard (sludge) from Alberta tar sands?
Will said:
“Where were they going to put the discard (sludge) from Alberta tar sands?”
Well, since the sludge has no buoyancy (not being a gas at lower density than the surroundings) one would have to do work by adding energy to raise it up against gravity.
In contrast, once a gas parcel has achieved positive buoyancy, it rises spontaneously (detaching from the surface) into regions of lower pressure which means that no work is necessary against surrounding moleculres, only against gravity.
JSadell asked:
” How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??”
Because albedo (reflectivity) is offset by opacity (resistance to energy transmission) once the atmosphere arrives at hydrostatic balance.
Gravity is the backside of E=M*C 😉 Even Einstein knew that. He just could not express the mathematics. Albert started out trying to explain gravity and got side tracked with the relativity of light speed measurement. Some of his logic on the one precluded solution of the other.
Stephen Wilde; I know you understand how atmospheres act under gravity. but you need to rethink your explanations terms, this one is not working. Some people rather argue over terms then learn or maybe they just want to waste your efforts through argument. Good luck 😉 ..pg
Trick says: August 25, 2015 at 3:27 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
While 197K is correct for lunar regolith, it cannot be correct for Earth’s “surface without radiative atmosphere”. 71% of the surface of our planet is short wave translucent ocean. Empirical experiment proves that water is heated in a very different manner by solar radiation than opaque materials.
Salvatore Del Prete says: August 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm
”The only aspect where I differ is I think 255k is correct not the 312k he proposes.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Salvatore, the 255K figure used by many is simply a result of plugging a constant average of 240 w/m2 of radiation received into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with short wave absorptivity set equal to LWIR emissivity. This effectively treats the planets surface as short wave opaque. It ignores diurnal cycle and ignores that ocean hemispherical SW absorptivity is higher than LWIR emissivity. The result of these multiple errors is that 255K is about 80K too low for 71% of the planets surface.
In obtaining the AGW foundation figure of 255K for “surface without radiative atmosphere”, each of these five simple rules was ignored –
JSadell says, August 26, 2015 at 12:06 am:
“How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??”
You can’t.
Stephen Wilde says: August 26, 2015 at 5:16 am
(Will said: “Where were they going to put the discard (sludge) from Alberta tar sands?”)
“Well, since the sludge has no buoyancy (not being a gas at lower density than the surroundings) one would have to do work by adding energy to raise it up against gravity.”
OK let us discuss density, accumulation within a volume, or dense, some lawyer that has not a clue.
Work is never an accumulation of power (energy), or a chance is form of energy from Kepler’s planetary, orbital KE to PE. Work is the conversion by power into action or construction. i.e. All of Miami beach-front property. Conversion by power into organisation rather than random. The cost of such construction is called entropy. It is never some conservation of energy. 1LTD. It is the waste of energy by stupid earthlings. Anyhow for the rest:
That sludge may be “Amber” where we may embed Doug Cotton, Gary Novak, and Stephen Wilde.
We do this so none ever escape to re-perpetuate such insanity!
Konrad says, August 26, 2015 at 5:38 am:
“While 197K is correct for lunar regolith, it cannot be correct for Earth’s “surface without radiative atmosphere”. 71% of the surface of our planet is short wave translucent ocean. Empirical experiment proves that water is heated in a very different manner by solar radiation than opaque materials.”
Konrad, I don’t think the paper considers Earth without a “radiative atmosphere” when stating that figure. It considers Earth without any atmosphere at all. Then Earth’s surface would be fairly close to lunar. Didn’t Tim and his model suggest a ~208K average temp for Earth in such a scenario?
Kristian says: August 26, 2015 at 6:24 am
JSadell says, August 26, 2015 at 12:06 am:
(“How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??”)
“You can’t.”
You must, if the intent is to SCAM/defraud for monetary or political gain! 🙂
Stephen W: It is convection, returning KE to the surface in descending columns and removing it simultaneously in ascending columns, that causes the surface temperature to rise above S-B because the energy (both KE and PE) engaged in the overturning process is in addition to that provided by continuing insolation and so the thermal effect of both processes needs to be added together to get the actual surface temperature that can be achieved by surfaces beneath atmospheres.
The convection itself is driven by the insolation of solar radiation. The reason the surface T is above SB is:
1) SB is inapplicable to non-vacuums and absorbant surfaces with heat capacity and imperfect emissivities.
2) Considering insolation as a 240W/m^2 constant is unphysical; the zenith Sun puts around 1000W/m^2 into the ocean, which is overturning.
3) 1&2 considered in combination can account for the higher surface T, as Konrad’s EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS have demonstrated.
p.g.sharrow says: August 26, 2015 at 5:30 am
“Stephen Wilde; I know you understand how atmospheres act under gravity. but you need to rethink your explanations terms, this one is not working. Some people rather argue over terms then learn or maybe they just want to waste your efforts through argument. Good luck 😉 ..pg”
pg,
I have no complaint with you.
Can you present evidence that anyone knows how ‘this’ atmosphere acts? Please?
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 26, 2015 at 6:32 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kristian,
312K is also my best current estimate for Earth with no atmosphere at all. (Because a non-radiative atmosphere cannot add to surface cooling, as it has no effective way to cool itself).
The problem with the paper is, just like “mainstream” climastrology, it doesn’t consider surface properties. Our planet is a giant spacecraft. Spacecraft engineers know that in thermal control, surface properties are critical. Surface properties are everything. From vacuum metallised MLI, titanium oxide coatings to back silvered quartz radiators that cool electronics even in full 1365 w/m2 solar radiation. Get it wrong and your spacecraft dies. That’s what happened to China’s “Jade” rover. (In contrast, remember the success of Russia’s early Lunokhod? They knew they didn’t have the science to go passive, so they built in a active system. So too Apollo, they used a variable rate of “thermal roll”).
Solar hot water engineers know about surface properties. That’s why they use black nickel coatings on collectors. Great SW absorptivity, poor LWIR emissivity. Far better than black paint.
Even swimming pool cover manufacturers know more than climastrologists. They know that clear pool evaporation covers work better for keeping warm than opaque covers for pools that are sunlit.
Tim has asked for the paper to be torn apart. I feel my calling it “garbage” was somewhat understated. Ignoring albedo is the least of it. Height of albedo fraction? Depth of UV/SW/SWIR absorption in atmospheric and surface materials? Speed of planetary rotation? Radiative properties of surface materials and atmospheric gases?
But above all, how I know they are wrong is that empirical experiment shows our atmosphere cools Earth’s surface and they have tried, just like the climastrologists, to claim the reverse.
tallbloke says: August 26, 2015 at 6:39 am
“1) SB is inapplicable to non-vacuums and absorbant surfaces with heat capacity and imperfect emissivities.”
TB. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation “only” expresses the “maximum” possible EM thermal radiative emittance/acceptance of a flat surface area, at an absolute temperature with an environment a ‘different’ absolute temperature. There is nothing in the equation that indicates what is or ever should be.
However, if you ever calculate a higher value or different direction of maximum radiative flux, as I have done, there are three options:
1) Shoot yourself!
2) Get very dronk!
3) Go mess around with someone you like!
From obviously limited experience, I highly recommend #3 🙂
Rog,
1) Iagree that S-B is inapplicable to non-vacuums and I go on to explain why convective overturning is the relevant mechanism.
2) I agree that the oceans are a complicating factor as is uneven surface insolation but don’t you need a gravito-thermal concept that works even when there are no oceans and no GHGs?
3) As far as I recall, Konrad says that without GHGs there is no cooling with height and no convection. Correct me if that is wrong. His empirical experiment doesn’t adequately reflect reality because he uses columns with vertical sides which do not allow for the increase in volume with height that occurs around a sphere. It is that increase in volume with height that causes reducing pressure, density and temperature with height so that all one needs to induce coonvective overturning is uneven surface heating, which is inevitable.
pg,
Thanks. I constantly try to adapt terminology to address legitimate objections but that is no answer to wilful blindness.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2015 at 11:02 pm
I know you know gravity is a force, not an energy, but we must strive for clarity
Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration, that is a rate of change of velocity, v/s.
You might reply that when gravity acts on mass it produce a force.
We call it weight, mg, but not everything has weight.
The properties of gas are explained by their momentum mv, not their weight, mg.
Weightlessness is normal
1. Light
2. Electrons in an electric current
3. Falling objects
4. Orbiting objects
5. The atmosphere
6. Floating objects
By saying gravity is the force caused by mass in a gravity field you remove the possibility that
1. Gravity acts on mass without producing a force.
2. Gravity acts on things other than mass
JSadell says:
August 26, 2015 at 12:06 am
How can anyone predict a planet’s average surface temperature without considering the albedo??
I ask the opposite question, why should the albedo affect surface temperature?
You might say:
When I wear a white shirt I stay cool. If wear black I feel hot. So my shirt albedo causes my surface temperature to change.
The sun warms the surface and more reflection and the sun will warm the surface less.
But I say: mammal/shirt/sun is not a model for the Earth/atmosphere /sun
The Earth surface temperature is caused by Earth Gravity, atmos. mass and incoming radiation.
The surface temperature is set from the tropopause temp (sun) + Lapse rate (gravity) x atmos. Height (atmos. mass)
That different fractions of the radiation are reflected (albedo) from the surface of different planets is not a factor.
Earth’s surface temperature is not caused by surface warming.
Konrad says, August 26, 2015 at 7:16 am:
“312K is also my best current estimate for Earth with no atmosphere at all. (Because a non-radiative atmosphere cannot add to surface cooling, as it has no effective way to cool itself).”
There is no way Earth’s global surface could ever reach a mean temp of 312K with no atmosphere on top of it, Konrad. Not with the current input from the Sun.
No atmosphere, no oceans. Only regolith and/or rock and ice.
Our atmosphere clearly and definitely forces the global surface of the Earth to be at a much higher average temperature than if it weren’t there. However, it doesn’t do it by radiation, but by simply being massive …
And so, these two scenarios (non-radiative massive atmosphere vs. no atmosphere) are far from being equivalent.
Will Janoschka says:
August 26, 2015 at 1:18 am
This [convection]may be just a rearrangement in atmospheric angular momentum.
I agree. Gas has no weight, convection of air requires no work.
New term Cpv, for constant volume and pressure,
The adiabatic process theory of lapse rate T/h the derivation starts with cv and ends up with cp. Why cp?
If anything in atmosphere is constant it is volume, not pressure.
I would be interested to know if specifics heat of gasses at constant volume and pressure are available
Are they half way between cv and cp?
and the only tropospheric altitude change in temperature is that with (PV = NRT), N is inversely proportional to T. The result is the measured lapse rate
You say lapse rate T/h is caused by PV = NRT, gas law.
But P is not proportional to T.
P/h is exponential, T/h is linear
Konrad – “71% of the surface of our planet is short wave translucent ocean.”
For this paper’s “airless” expectation, Earth 71% ocean would be regolith. So they calculate their 197K for Earth based on moon albedo and emissivity.
The compression caused by gravity does not cause an increase in the energy contained in the molecules of a volume of the atmosphere. It does cause an increase in the energy density contained in that volume.
Measured temperature of that volume would increase due to the compression, molecular energy levels did not change!
Arguments about a naked Earth’s surface temperature are ridicules waste of time. It would be just like our moon’s surface temperature. The Earth is NOT NAKED. It has a Troposphereic atmosphere over vast dirty water oceans.
The Tropospause is the key to understanding the behavior of any atmosphere. This is the point where radiation becomes the principle means of energy transfer. Below the Tropopause conduction and convection predominate. WATER adds greatly to this convection. Above, the stratosphere is much more static with little mixing and radiation is the means of energy transfer.
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon, the principle constituents of our atmosphere, are the real GREENHOUSE gases as they are insulators that slow energy losses…
WATER is the working fluid of our air-conditioning, air scrubbing system. without that, the surface conditions and breathable air can not exist.
Get these parts right first, understand the Major activities and constituents, then worry about the bit players such as carbon dioxide and methane…pg
“Konrad says:
August 26, 2015 at 5:38 am
Trick says: August 25, 2015 at 3:27 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
While 197K is correct for lunar regolith, it cannot be correct for Earth’s “surface without radiative atmosphere”. 71% of the surface of our planet is short wave translucent ocean. Empirical experiment proves that water is heated in a very different manner by solar radiation than opaque materials.”
Dealing in unlike won’t work because they are different entities.
There is no earth surface as such, only a vague region with depth. Applies to Mercury and the Lunar bodies too, it’s a thinner region.
Body temperature avoids this problem. Unfortunately there is no reliable data for the body temperature of any planet.
Roger Clague says:
‘You say lapse rate T/h is caused by PV = NRT, gas law.
But P is not proportional to T.’
True. But if you bring in density…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law#Molar_form
‘This form of the ideal gas law is very useful because it links pressure, density, and temperature in a unique formula independent of the quantity of the considered gas.’
Stephen 8:48am: “1) Iagree that S-B is inapplicable to non-vacuums..”
tallbloke 6:39pm: “1) SB is inapplicable to non-vacuums and absorbant surfaces with heat capacity and imperfect emissivities.”
Yet the top post paper clearly presents (from given cites) measured data confirming S-B works at ~0bar (197.35K +/-0.9), both brightness T as well as 1bar (287.4K +/-0.5) thermodynamic T and all the other noted surface pressures in Table 2. If you go back and read the original tests confirming S-B, then find they were done at room temperature and 1bar. With imperfect emissivities! Later tests were done in a vacuum confirming the same S-B 1bar results. In his original paper, Planck tells us this is so, from tests cited.
To write any surface is “above S-B” does not agree with test. Where this idea originated about S-B needing a vacuum to be applicable is beyond me.
Stephen 8:48am: “but don’t you need a gravito-thermal concept that works even when there are no oceans and no GHGs?”
Of course you do. HS seems to think this paper has a “new empirical” gravito-thermal GH effect in it. Stephen seems to agree. Just where is this “new” gravito-thermal effect exactly Stephen? Eqn. 2? Eqn. 6? or 7,8,9? Where?
And please show or ref. how to compute Table 2 Observed GMAT from just mass, insolation and gravity which are all data given in the paper or easily obtainable.
Radiative balance already has computed GMAT for each object shown – well, except for Mars, which was shown higher by radiative balance around 215K or so in the cites given not the lower 190.56 +/-0.7 needed to fall ON the top post Ts/Tna curve instead of at ~1.35 above the curve.
oldbrew says:
August 26, 2015 at 4:59 pm
True. But if you bring in density…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law#Molar_form
‘This form of the ideal gas law is very useful because it links pressure, density, and temperature in a unique formula independent of the quantity of the considered gas.’
You shouldn’t bring mass density into Gas Laws. Replacing N by m/M is not a molar form it is a mass form.
The mass density equation is not independent of quantity of gas. The equation has changed the measure of quantity from number to mass.
This formula is used in the US Standard Atmosphere to calculate mass density from measurement of T and P.
Gas Laws are about gas. The properties of a gas depend on number density not mass density.
To apply the Gas law T and p must be the same throughout the volume of gas. In the atmosphere they are not.
These mass density figures, the density/h graph are a fiction. A deliberate distraction from the failure of the Gas laws to explain P/h and T/h
P and T in the atmos. are not related by the gas law. P/h and T/h have different shape. They have different causes.
Hydrogen density 0.1g/l. specific heat 14kJ/kgK
Nitrogen density 1.2g/l , specific heat 1kJ/kgK
Surely greater mass density will need more heat not less.
Mass density does not work for gas.
Roger Clague says: August 26, 2015 at 11:41 am
Will Janoschka says: August 26, 2015 at 1:18 am
(“This [convection]may be just a rearrangement in atmospheric angular momentum.”)
“I agree. Gas has no weight, convection of air requires no work.”
Nonsense Roger, Atmosphere has no weight. Lab grade pressurized gasses come in different colored
bottles. Each stamped with tare weight, and volume. If I grab the green bottle for an oxidising measurement. and it don’t oxidise. Whops!, what is in the bottle, it aint O2!. Measure pressure, measure net weight. subtract tare weight = weight of gas contained. Use volume and pressure to determine molar mass! Is it N2? Is it Ar? It certainly ain’t O2!!
(“New term Cpv, for constant volume and pressure,”)
Yes 22.3 litre perforated container. at constant surround 101.3 kPa measure temperature. From that calculate number of atmospheric moles within that volume!! This is how this atmosphere works!
“The adiabatic process theory of lapse rate T/h the derivation starts with cv and ends up with cp. Why cp? If anything in atmosphere is constant it is volume, not pressure.”
That is the meteorological scam! They ‘assume’ the difference between Cp and Cv is do to work done compressing or expanding the atmosphere against itself. No work! That process within the atmosphere
is always isentropic never adiabatic. Cp/Cv = P/rho = isentropic exponent = gamma = 1.4 = 7/5 degrees of freedom for rigid diatomic gasses. For 30 Celsius and 80% RH the atmospheric isentropic exponent = 1.3996 for close work.
“I would be interested to know if specifics heat of gasses at constant volume and pressure are available
Are they half way between cv and cp?”
Not really! For molar specific heat Use Cv and replace mass with moles. Set # to temperature from STP. As above, #/Temperature equals number of moles of atmosphere within the 22.3 litre perforated volume. This works for any earth tropospheric pressure.
“You say lapse rate T/h is caused by PV = NRT, gas law. But P is not proportional to T. P/h is exponential, T/h is linear.”
Exactly! that is why it is called atmospheric isentropic exponent. Precisely P/molar density.
oldbrew says: August 26, 2015 at 4:59 pm
(Roger Clague says: ‘You say lapse rate T/h is caused by PV = NRT, gas law. But P is not proportional to T.’)
“True. But if you bring in density… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law#Molar_form
‘This form of the ideal gas law is very useful because it links pressure, density, and temperature in a unique formula independent of the quantity of the considered gas.’”
True. But the IGL assumes a gamma of 5/3 for an atomic gas. For this atmosphere use 7/5 please.
OB,
Hate to bring this up, but this cannot be a scientific or physical discussion. Like with an Earth with no atmosphere??? Philosophical instead: What is Earth? What is atmosphere? Why does Earth have one?
Does atmosphere always move in all directions within itself? Why? Why compare Earth to other solar system bodies?… We have Earth’s atmosphere here now, we live within it. Yet it is obvious that we understand none of it. Answer each of the Philo questions for yourself until ‘you’ are comfortable with ‘your’ answers. Only then can discussion begin.
All the best! -will-
Roger 6:09, 6:29pm – “To apply the Gas law T and p must be the same throughout the volume of gas. In the atmosphere they are not.”
Not really Roger, can just use mean T and the gas law formula applies, works reasonably well. Using NASA measured mass density and P, Harry H. showed T can be found (linked above by oldbrew) within 5K for Venus out of some 300K using the gas law. Surely the T and p were not the same thoughout the Venus atmosphere being measured at the time.
Roger Clague says: August 26, 2015 at 6:29 pm
“Hydrogen density 0.1g/l. specific heat 14kJ/kgK Nitrogen density 1.2g/l , specific heat 1kJ/kgK
Surely greater mass density will need more heat not less. Mass density does not work for gas.”
Why? You get a more moles/kg with H2 than N2! Both are diatomic and rigid.
Will Janoschka says: August 26, 2015 at 6:59 pm
“Not really! For molar specific heat Use Cv and replace mass with moles. Set # to temperature from STP. As above, #/Temperature equals number of moles of atmosphere within the 22.3 litre perforated volume. This works for any earth tropospheric pressure.”
Whoops! Should be This works for ‘each’ earth tropospheric pressure.”
Still have to multiply by measured pressure/standard pressure. The molar content of that 22.3 litre volume does really go down with increasing altitude, not up. Goes down for any temperature increase at that altitude place. Just trying to show why no work going up or down. Sorry for any confusion!
This paper strengthens the case for albedo change via solar wind and clouds as the important actor for short term variation.
Pochas,
What do you mean by:
“This paper strengthens the case for albedo change via solar wind and clouds as the important actor for short term variation”
Can you clarify?
Stephen W: Konrad says that without GHGs there is no cooling with height and no convection. Correct me if that is wrong. His empirical experiment doesn’t adequately reflect reality because he uses columns with vertical sides which do not allow for the increase in volume with height that occurs around a sphere. It is that increase in volume with height that causes reducing pressure, density and temperature with height
I think you’ll find the increase in volume for a ‘column’ extending from Earth’s surface to TOA is negligible, because you’re starting from a large radius to a radius only a fraction of a percent larger.
Earth’s radius is several thousand kilometres, and the atmosphere is only a couple of tens of kilometres high. Do the maths.
Roger C: Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.
Not in the classical understanding of the term. Mass in a gravitational field will undergo an acceleration *due to the force* of gravity.
Acceleration is not what gravity is, its what it does to masses. If something accelerates, its does so because a force is applied to it. That force could be generated by a chemical reaction like a rocket thruster, or a mechanical force, such as a spring unwinding. Or by a force such as gravity, which is inherent to mass.
Trick says:
August 26, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Stephen 8:48am: “but don’t you need a gravito-thermal concept that works even when there are no oceans and no GHGs?”
Of course you do.
Do you know of a planetary atmosphere free of radiative gases Trick? No you don’t. So you can’t assert that a gravito-thermal theory has to be able to work in atmospheres which are not observed.
HS seems to think this paper has a “new empirical” gravito-thermal GH effect in it. Stephen seems to agree. Just where is this “new” gravito-thermal effect exactly Stephen? Eqn. 2? Eqn. 6? or 7,8,9? Where?
The effect is as old as the planet. There is nothing new under the Sun. Fourier identified it. So did Loschmidt.
Kristian says: August 26, 2015 at 11:40 am
”There is no way Earth’s global surface could ever reach a mean temp of 312K with no atmosphere on top of it, Konrad. Not with the current input from the Sun.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kristian,
In obtaining 312K, I am leaving the oceans in place. This is necessary to calculate the “surface without radiative atmosphere” for planet Earth. In this senario, the oceans would become a giant evaporation constrained convecting solar pond with only radiative cooling from their upper surface. The sun would then drive them to an average of 335K or beyond.
If you were to include the oceans as part of the atmosphere, then you could claim the “fluid atmosphere is” increasing the temperature of the planet.
But because of the hard line between ocean and gas atmosphere, I believe ocean should be included as part of “surface”. The reason for this is there is actually a radiative GHE on our planet, but it is in the liquid oceans, not the gas atmosphere and it is important to differentiate. By showing that the atmosphere actually improves the cooling of the oceans (the reverse of what the failed AGW hypothesis claims), it can be seen that the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface (land and ocean) cooling not warming or “slowing cooling rate”. Ie: AGW is a physical impossibility.
@JSadell:
Equation (10a) makes the surface temperature enhancement a function only of surface pressure. The reduced pressure P_r is according to the text assumed constant. The same arbitrary number (triple point of water) is used regardless of the planet being considered, so that leaves surface pressure only. So, what else can affect temperature enhancement and help to produce the natural temperature variation we observe? In section 2.1 “Reference Temperature and Reference Pressure,” they present Eq (4b) which includes a term for albedo, and then in Eq (4c) they simplify albedo right out of the picture, so that if there is any variation in albedo, such as for clouds, it will not affect the calculation but will in fact affect T_na and surface temperature enhancement T_s / T_na. This lumping – in of albedo would seem to be a loophole in the theory that would allow variation in surface temperature with cloudiness. Of course other effects, TSI, tidal mixing, Milankovic cycles, will contribute as well.
Stephen Wilde says: August 26, 2015 at 8:48 am
”3) As far as I recall, Konrad says that without GHGs there is no cooling with height and no convection. Correct me if that is wrong.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Stephen,
with regard to full tropospheric convective circulation I am not claiming there is no “cooling” with altitude. Gases expand and adiabatically cool on accent, but this is matched by compression and adiabatic heating on decent. This is buoyancy neutral (does not drive circulation) as there is no energy loss.
There are two drivers of strong vertical circulation in the troposphere –
1. Warm air masses rising, losing energy via LWIR to space, thereby losing buoyancy and descending.
2. Warm moist air masses rising, water vapour condensing, which reduces buoyancy after the heat pulse of latent heat release dissipates via LWIR emission and conduction.
In our atmosphere, water and water vapour is critical to both processes, that is why strong vertical circulation stops at the tropopause.
In your modelling, you are trying to drive strong vertical circulation without a valid method for buoyancy loss. Adiabatic cooling on accent is matched by adiabatic heating on decent, it is buoyancy neutral so cannot drive circulation.
Trick says:
August 24, 2015 at 7:20 pm (Edit)
They even take pains to put Mars Ts/Tna dot precisely on the fitted curve. That curve fit is too good to be true, nature isn’t ever that clean even on simple lab experiments.
1) They had to lower Mars GMAT (Ts) about 25K or more below every other published estimate (as they explain). They hand wave away all the other papers on the subject as simply “wrong” (copied Konrad tactic less the rudeness).
This is a gross mischaracterisation of the empirical data and sound spherical integration equation they use in Appendix B to show the GMAT of Mars is lower than that arrived at by global warmists like Lacis who insist on using incorrect assumptions and methods despite their proven incompetence.
tallbloke 10:40pm: “The effect is as old as the planet. There is nothing new under the Sun. Fourier identified it. So did Loschmidt.”
And Poisson in 1823, Maxwell c. 1870s, Prof. Helmholtz improved on Maxwell in 1888. Yet these names/ref.s are not in this paper tb. Where exactly in this paper is the gravito-thermal effect HS writes about? What page, paragraph, line, Eqn.? Where?
Eqn (2) is from Helmholtz 1888 paper (who had it first actually) and I am guessing that is the one you mean but need the experts (and well, Stephen too) on gravito-thermal effect to point GTE (or ATE) out exactly in this paper.
Konrad: By showing that the atmosphere actually improves the cooling of the oceans (the reverse of what the failed AGW hypothesis claims), it can be seen that the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface (land and ocean) cooling not warming or “slowing cooling rate”. Ie: AGW is a physical impossibility.
As well as improving cooling, the atmosphere’s mass also limits it by suppressing evaporation (by exerting pressure on the ocean surface). It also insulates the ocean from the coldness of space.
Konrad says that despite these effects, the net result is that the atmosphere cools the planet, but given that there would be no (liquid) ocean if there were no atmosphere, its an assertion that is easily misunderstood.
Water exists in three phases on Earth, which make up parts of the cryosphere, oceans and atmosphere. While I understand Konrad’s desire to differentiate between atmsophere and ‘surface’, I think that to understand Earth’s climatic system components, including albedo, it’s as well to consider them all together too.
Trick, stop being such a drama queen.
From the text:
Table 6 lists the average global surface temperatures of the three celestial bodies
predicted by Eq. (10b) along with employed input data on orbital distances and mean surface
atmospheric pressures gathered from the literature.
tallbloke 10:40pm: ”So you can’t assert that a gravito-thermal theory has to be able to work in atmospheres which are not observed.”
Didn’t assert that exactly, those are your words. Gravito-thermal theory does have to work in atmospheres not observed in order to have survived as a theory as it has since the “effect is as old as the planet”. I would propose Helmholtz GTE eqn. 2, though ideal, (& if you agree that’s the one in this paper) has been tested well enough to be applicable to exoplanets which is sort of the whole point of this paper: “GMATs of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.”
Which of course depends on those rocky exoplanets, if “airless”, having “expected” moon regolith albedo & emissivity. And if with atmosphere, then that atm. working like the ones in the solar system. Big curve fitted “if” I would say. Especially with every other published paper having Mars atm. Ts/Tna high above the curve – as they write.
12:10am: Drama is good, causes lotsa’ interesting discussion & learning based on tests/observations. Wait for my next longer post on Mercury if you want some good drama and some maybe useful projections like Table 6.
Mercury
The paper discusses rocky planet Mercury in the text but leaves it off the curve fitting exercise – to which they DID subject Mars with some unique hand waving as there is no probe Mercury Ts, yet.
Look at Table 6 as tb clips 12:10am. Here they say Mercury would plot at Tna = 317.4K from Eqn. (4c) compared to Eqn. (3) result around 442K from a bond albedo of 0.068, irradiance mean annual 9126.6 W/m^2.
I would buy their argument that observed “airless” Mercury brightness Ts (not available yet) could be lower than the Mercury NASA Fact Sheet at 440.1K as was learned from the “airless” moon. How low? Ts could come out lower than 317.4K because that figure uses higher moon bond albedo = 0.11 and Mercury bond albedo is lower at 0.068. (Hint: the “expected airless” regolith is not the same albedo everywhere guys!) However this difference only means Mercury Ts around 5K lower than Tna on the mean.
What about Mercury surface emissivity? Not known either, but I would buy not much different than that “expected” for the “airless” moon at 0.98.
If Ts really is only 5K lower than Tna then Ts/Tna = 312.4/317.4 = 0.98 the difference entirely due albedo (not emissivity). At surface P~0, plot this ratio on the top post curve a little lower than the moon sort of as expected due lower albedo. I can’t guess why they left this off the curve fit, doesn’t seem like it would hurt. Maybe they didn’t feel comfortable going out on a limb when as they write MESSENGER IR data analysis is due soon for Ts. If it matches, expect some crowing, otherwise crickets.
Also, due will be Pluto IR data to compare Table 6., however from the recent pictures, it may be hard to claim it is all regolith. Pluto may come out between the icy moons and earth’s moon for albedo and emissivity in the GMAT brightness temperature readings at the various orbital positions.
NASA fact sheet has guessed Pluto bond albedo = 0.4-0.6, S = 0.89 for Eqn. (3) = 44K with emissivity like an icy moon cranked up to water ice 0.99 at the wavelengths of interest. If bond albedo is more extreme like say Enceladus at 0.99, then Pluto brightness Ts will be around 14K. Coldest spot observed in the solar system, less than the lowest 25K in the shade on the moon pole.
Probably will be a good race somewhere in between 44K and 14K (this paper Table 6: Tna= 30K-39K) unless geothermal, CMB or gravity or other heating proves not to be ignored in the thermal IR data from New Horizons yet to be analyzed.
But like Stephen writes, mean surface T is all about mass, gravity and insolation, & convective overturning so I’m sure he has his own bets to place & I can’t guess where.
However, Konrad will likely write the Pluto atm. cools the surface way below 14K, maybe to find the first object ever at or less than 0K.
tallbloke says: August 27, 2015 at 12:04 am
”Konrad says that despite these effects, the net result is that the atmosphere cools the planet, but given that there would be no (liquid) ocean if there were no atmosphere, its an assertion that is easily misunderstood.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Roger,
I agree what I have written here could be confusing. I acknowledge that without pressure the oceans would boil into space. On previous threads I have indicated removal of all atmospheric effects excepting pressure for the “surface without atmosphere” temperature calculation.
This is essentially what the climastrologists were doing when they came up with their 255K figure, but they mistakenly thought they could treat the land and ocean as a “near blackbody”, ignoring the diurnal solar cycle and the SW translucency of the oceans.
When they’ve got “surface without radiative atmosphere wrong, they’ve gotten everything so wrong the hypothesis can’t be rescued.
Trick says: August 27, 2015 at 12:26 am
”However, Konrad will likely write the Pluto atm. cools the surface way below 14K, maybe to find the first object ever at or less than 0K.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No Trick, you don’t get to put words in my mouth.
The atmosphere of Venus warms the surface of the planet. The atmosphere of Earth cools the surface of the planet. To know what the addition of an atmosphere is going to do, you need to correctly model both surface and atmospheric properties. For Earth, climastrologists provably got both utterly wrong. This is why I dispute this paper as it is making the same mistakes as the climastrologists did.
Konrad: “The atmosphere of Venus warms the surface of the planet. The atmosphere of Earth cools the surface of the planet.”
I hadn’t caught that nuance Konrad. Interesting for another time. Both troposphere atm.s get cooler above the surface.
On topic here, the 1st two objects in Tables 2,4 you just covered, which of the remaining 3 objects w/atm. cool and which warm the surface of the planet? Why? And what about Pluto assuming a thin atm. will prove to exist with non-zero paper Eqn. 7?
tallbloke says: August 26, 2015 at 10:29 pm
(‘Roger C: Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.’)
“Not in the classical understanding of the term. Mass in a gravitational field will undergo an acceleration *due to the force* of gravity.”
Now getting close, Mass in a gravitational field if allowed to accelerate will express acceleration, such expresses no weight. Mass in a gravitational field, if prevented from accelerating do to an opposing vector force such a normal surface with no acceleration in the force direction will express weight, heaviness in the direction of the opposing vector force! Buoyant rigid compressible mass in a gravitational field will, if prevented from accelerating do to an opposing scalar force (pressure with weight displacement), will exhibit no acceleration, and exhibit no weight itself. Buoyant compressible mass in a gravitational field will, if prevented from accelerating do to an opposing scalar force (pressure), will exhibit no acceleration, and exhibit no weight, as only the vacuum of space is displaced. The mass of such compressible, in a gravitational field, will shed or accumulate mass from the continuum, as required, to remain isentropic. This is essential to understanding of an atmosphere.
Next, a definition of gravity itself. What gravity is: Gravity is the potential field generated by a mass proportional to on the amount of mass (extrinsic), and projective. That potential field is attractive to all other mass having such a like field, so far. The two fields are multiplicative but inversely proportional to mass separation squared. As far as we understand in most cases. Clarity is essential for understanding of symbolic algebra. Symbolic algebra is not the physical expression by the symbols, nor does it have any meaning. It must remain abstract to be mathematical.
“Acceleration is not what gravity is, its what it does to masses. If something accelerates, its does so because a force is applied to it. That force could be generated by a chemical reaction like a rocket thruster, or a mechanical force, such as a spring unwinding. Or by a force such as gravity, which is inherent to mass.”
Correct, inherent but still extrinsic! Roger, correct “my” mistakes, please. Clarity!!
All the best -will-
Konrad says: August 27, 2015 at 1:23 am
“This is essentially what the climastrologists were doing when they came up with their 255K figure, but they mistakenly thought they could treat the land and ocean as a “near blackbody”, ignoring the diurnal solar cycle and the SW translucency of the oceans. When they’ve got “surface without radiative atmosphere wrong, they’ve gotten everything so wrong the hypothesis can’t be rescued.”
Indeed, and when you have an optically thick atmosphere in or out The S-B equation is NOT applicable to any near mass! Not applicable to any non isothermal cross sectional areas either! Total incompetence!
All the best! -will-
Trick says: August 27, 2015 at 1:50 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Trick,
we have very limited data for all the extra-terrestrial planets. Knowing that the atmosphere of Venus warms is easy, because the pressure and SW opacity are so great. Knowing that the atmosphere on Earth cools is easy, because we can calculate a fair “surface without atmosphere (excluding pressure) figure.
Triton, Titan, and Mars are more difficult without a lot more data, but here are my educated guesses –
Triton – atmosphere causes very slight surface cooling.
Why? The atmosphere is largely short wave transparent, so solar heating is at the surface. The surface is SW translucent ice, a SW selective surface. The addition of a 3D radiative atmosphere could slightly improve the 2D radiative cooling ability of the surface. However given max atmospheric pressure there is believed to be just 0.019 millibar, the authors of the paper were just being silly including dodgy data for Triton as evidence for anything.
Titan – atmosphere may cause surface warming.
Why? Like Venus, the atmosphere of Titan absorbs most solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Radiative subsidence is occurring as is vertical circulation. The temperature of an air mass in the solar absorption region should adiabatically increase (like Venus) as it descends to the surface. Problem – we don’t know if the albedo of the surface or atmosphere is higher on Titan. Warming would only hold true if atmosphere had equal or lesser albedo than surface.
Mars – atmosphere may cause incredibly slight warming and cooling depending on conditions.
Why? Again a very thin radiative atmosphere. But there are selective surfaces at the poles. During clear conditions possibly immeasurably slight cooling. But during the big dust storms possibly warming like Venus, as the dust clouds have a similar albedo to the surface, yet absorb solar radiation above the surface in an atmosphere experiencing vertical circulation and attendant adiabatic heating of CO2 masses on decent. More study is needed with atomic Seebeck generator powered landers that can report during and after a planetary dust storm. Are we there yet?
The gas giants – we can’t know.
Why? Until we understand their internal heat sources we know nothing!
Pluto – again we can’t know, but Pluto is the new hotness!!!
Why? NASA/JPL have just imaged Pluto, albeit at blistering solar escape velocities. The images are confounding, exciting and tortuously limited. Anyone who has spray painted a textured surface from only one angle would recognise some of those patterns. Forget planetary weather, what “regional” weather is Pluto experiencing? Is it being hit with Oort cloud micro comets and being spray painted with its own ejecta? Is it flying through a mist of material we didn’t know existed? Forget Pluto’s atmosphere’s effect on surface heating and cooling. What are its drag effects, is this material surface ejecta or something the planet(oid) is passing through? Pluto has a lot more to tell us.
–Trick says:
August 27, 2015 at 1:50 am
Konrad: “The atmosphere of Venus warms the surface of the planet. The atmosphere of Earth cools the surface of the planet.”
I hadn’t caught that nuance Konrad. Interesting for another time. Both troposphere atm.s get cooler above the surface.–
Somewhat irrelevant, but then again, maybe it is relevant. Say have lapse rate of 6.5 K per 1000 meter.
Or .65 K per 100 meters. Or .065 K per 10 meters..And I would say that generally 10 meter above the Venus and earth surface is both colder than the surface.
Of course on earth the atmosphere can warm the surface- put ice in the shade of the sun and it could melt- because of the warmth of the atmosphere.
On the moon if it the shade the surface can become quite cold, whereas in the shade is how we measure temperature on Earth [it would not make any sense to do this on the Moon- or one ask how long as it been in the shade. So on Earth .anything cooler than the air temperature is warmed.
So basically the atmosphere is like the room temperature- the atmosphere is merely an odd room- a very tall and roofless room. And because it’s tall, gravity has controlling effect. Or gravity is called a weak force but it has effect over large distances- as compared to the other forces in the Universe.
And what gravity does in regard to an atmosphere is that it sorts densities, or heavier things fall and lighter things rise.
So why doesn’t the heavier molecules like CO2 stay near the surface? The reason it doesn’t is that there are zillions of gas molecule [which are moving fast and because they have high kinetic energy [going faster than bullet] they are a strong force. Or if atmosphere were a lot colder then denser types gases could stratify according their mass. Or if you start out which bunch of pure CO2 it will fall to lower levels- until there is is the time and means of it mixing with other gases.
So the heat of the atmosphere will eventually mix gases equally- unless there is some stronger force which prevents it or it’s not warm enough.
So higher kinetic energy of gas, makes it less dense, but molecules in the troposphere are fixed due to constant and random collisions in a location in terms seconds or minutes of time but it’s the transfer of kinetic energy of the molecule is bouncing around at speed of a bullet, so the transfer of the energy amongst many molecules which is the lighter “thing” that rises in the gravity well. though if one as enough heat difference [big enough volume of mass which is lighter, then the whole mass of zillions of gas molecules moves upwards- you get an updraft or thermal uplift- which is individual molecule moving as mass upwards. It’s a wind which goes upwards [or one also get wind falling downward- an large mass which denser which falls. Both updraft and downdrafts can accelerate [over time increase there velocity- as apple increases it’s velocity if it falls. Atomic bombs with the mushroom cloud demonstrate have fast gas can rise upwards [the bombs make a lot of heat] and the velocity of downdraft can become fast enough to crash airplanes.
So something in the shade [or at night] is radiating heat into space, but is kept warm by the air temperature. So on the moon if given hours of time, object can cool down. So when LRO diviner measured temperature when Earth shaded the Moon, and the surface of 120 C in about 2 hours cooled by 100 K [become 20 C], it seems if you put a warmed lunar rock which is about 120 C and put it some shade, in about 2 hours it will cool to about 20 C. If put a rock warmed by sunlight to 70 C
and put it in the shad for 2 hour it will cool to air temperature [which could be say 30 C].
If do this on Venus- the diffused sunlight doesn’t warm a rock, and putting it in the shade will make not a difference in it’s temperature.
I looked today at the paper that the authors refer to when describing the calculation of their airless average spherical temperature Tna. It’s freely avilable from SpringerPlus at
“On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect“, 2014:
http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723
The paper is rather long but provides a detailed explanation about the difference between Te (Eq. 3) and Tna (Eq. 4), and how Tna was derived. I found it worth reading although some sections were a bit over my head. The main point made by the authors appears to be that Te is not a physical temperature when it comes spheres but an abstract mathematical temperature that should not be compared to measurable surface temperatures. I think this is similar to what Trick has been saying here… Anyway, this earlier article seems to cast additional light on the analysis made by the authors in this paper.
Konrad says, August 27, 2015 at 5:26 am:
“Knowing that the atmosphere of Venus warms is easy, because the pressure and SW opacity are so great. Knowing that the atmosphere on Earth cools is easy, because we can calculate a fair “surface without atmosphere (excluding pressure) figure.”
All massive atmospheres “warm” (insulate) the global, solar-heated planet/moon surfaces underneath them to some extent. The more massive the atmosphere, the better it insulates the surface and the larger its “warming” effect. The Martian atmosphere thus only forces the Martian global surface to be a little bit warmer on average than if the atmosphere weren’t there (but not at all compared to the calculated planetary emission temperature of Mars, 210-211K), but Earth’s atmosphere (being much more massive) forces our planet’s mean global surface temperature to be a fair bit warmer than if the atmosphere weren’t there (and even a few tens of degrees warmer than Earth’s calculated planetary emission temp in space, 255K), and the atmosphere of Venus (much more massive again) functions almost like a sea on top of the global Venusian surface, and so almost completely blocks the heat transfer away from it, thus forcing it to be vastly warmer than if the atmosphere weren’t there, and 500-550K warmer than the calculated planetary emission temp of Venus in space (184-232K).
You say that your ‘atmospheric cooling’ of the surface on Earth is excepting pressure and keeping the oceans. But if you remove the atmosphere altogether, there is no pressure and there are no oceans. And so the overall effect of having a massive atmosphere here on Earth is indeed a considerable insulating (“warming”) effect: Moon -> Earth.
But it is NOT a radiatively caused effect.
I concur with Tallbloke, Konrad. I see your point, and I agree with the general gist of it, but you need to keep the two scenarios apart: non-radiative massive atmosphere vs. no atmosphere at all. And then you’re fine …
Kristian: 255K
This is a fictitious ‘benchmark’ figure produced from an unphysical scenario – a ‘blackbody’ Earth illuminated constantly from all angles by a weak radiation instead of a strong point source (the Sun).
JSadell: “Te is not a physical temperature when it comes spheres but an abstract mathematical temperature that should not be compared to measurable surface temperatures. I think this is similar to what Trick has been saying here”
Just the opposite. Trick believes the Te produced by Eq 3 really does represent the equilibrium GMAT of a body without the effect of GHG’s added. Despite the obvious flaws with the theory.
Konrad: “The atmosphere of Venus warms the surface of the planet. ”
Unless the surface of Venus is hot due to internal heat sources such as volcanic action and that heat is having trouble escaping due to the thick atmosphere. In which case Venus’ surface isn’t warmed by its atmosphere so much as the atmosphere prevents it from cooling.
It’s the difference between active and passive.
Will J: “Roger, correct “my” mistakes, please. Clarity!!”
No need, you’ve done a great job of tidying up my comment to Roger C.
tallbloke says, August 27, 2015 at 7:03 am:
“This is a fictitious ‘benchmark’ figure produced from an unphysical scenario – a ‘blackbody’ Earth illuminated constantly from all angles by a weak radiation instead of a strong point source (the Sun).”
Indeed. It is still Earth’s “calculated BB emission temp in space”. As you’ll notice, I am not suggesting 255K would be the actual average sfc temp of Earth without atmo. It would be rather closer to that of the Moon. The 255K is simply the value employed by the rGHE/AGW proponents to ‘show’ that there is a “radiative greenhouse effect” caused by the raising of the conceptual ERL above the surface on Earth. On Mars, however, there is no such raising of the ERL at all, yet there is much more CO2 in its atmosphere than in Earth’s …
tallbloke says: August 27, 2015 at 7:14 am
(Will J: “Roger, correct “my” mistakes, please. Clarity!!”)
“No need, you’ve done a great job of tidying up my comment to Roger C.”
Thank you! I was not sure about using that “rigid compressible” (Submarine). I wanted to be clear to Roger C., that air or any gas contained in a fixed volume has weight but a buoyant ensemble enclosing such need not express weight (scuba tank). This may be way over picky for some. 🙂 For an atmosphere the main point is that the atmosphere is NOT a closed system. Kristain’s U = Q-W doesn’t hold, for a system that exhibits, actually promotes, mass interchange between subsystems. A bowling ball without a large balloon exhibits weight.
All the best! -will-
I have thinking more about what Konrad said: “The atmosphere of Venus warms the surface of the planet. The atmosphere of Earth cools the surface of the planet.”
And this:
“Mars – atmosphere may cause incredibly slight warming and cooling depending on conditions.
Why? Again a very thin radiative atmosphere. But there are selective surfaces at the poles. ”
Generally I regard the atmosphere is neither warming or cooling.
But since the land on earth becomes the warmest, being the warmest would mean it radiates the most
amount wattage into space per square meter. And per square meter of land, I wonder if warms the air the most.- because it has greater difference. But then again if have desert with sand at 70 C, the could fairly quickly warm to say 45 C, and there would be a smaller difference.
But anyhow, with Mars it has surface temperature which reaches about 20 C [noon and sun near zenith] but I didn’t realize that this actually too cool.
You could say it got a cold atmosphere and it should be even colder, or something.
Mars surface can receive about 600 watt. And blackbody which 40 C would emit 545 watts per square.
So being in noon time sun for an hour with Mars thin atmosphere should get a temperature of
around 40 C rather than 20 C. But it doesn’t. So in hour it should warm up the ground- so don’t think it’s conducted much heat under the surface. And so the difference has to be convected by the air.
Or I think if you put a greenhouse on Mars [greenhouses stop convection] I would expect you would get surface temperature of 40 C at noon when sun near zenith.
Now I had generally assumed that there was not much convection loss on Mars.
And I still think there isn’t if something isn’t very warm- not sure what that number would be though- but as wild guess say somewhere around 0 C or cooler
Anyways, difference between 20 C and 40 C is 418.vs 545 watts. So is possible that area of mars being warmed the sunlight which would heat to around 40 C is being cooled by the atmosphere by about 100 watts per square meter?
It’s weird idea.
But I have been aware that the winter pole is warmed- from latent heat of condensation
of CO2- it snows a lot during polar winter, and it rapidly melt [at an alarming rate:) in the summer.
But now I am wondering if the destruction of polar atmosphere isn’t fed by this air convected from region of the world being warmed by the sun.
Or if there is not much heating, then there isn’t much snowing. And a lot heating and a lot of snowing.
Or something like that.
Kristian says: August 27, 2015 at 7:39 am
“Indeed. It is still Earth’s “calculated BB emission temp in space”. As you’ll notice, I am not suggesting 255K would be the actual average sfc temp of Earth without atmo. It would be rather closer to that of the Moon. The 255K is simply the value employed by the rGHE/AGW proponents to ‘show’ that there is a “radiative greenhouse effect” caused by the raising of the conceptual ERL above the surface on Earth. On Mars, however, there is no such raising of the ERL at all, yet there is much more CO2 in its atmosphere than in Earth’s …”
The 255K is simply the fakevalue employed by the rGHE/AGW proponents. There is no ERL either. Earth’s whole atmosphere must and does accumulate EMR exitance to space all the way past 100km.
All the best! -will-
Kristian: On Mars, however, there is no such raising of the ERL at all, yet there is much more CO2 in its atmosphere than in Earth’s …
Much more by what measure? In %age terms yes, but 95% of f*ck-all is still f*ck-all…
–tallbloke says:
August 27, 2015 at 9:08 am
Kristian: On Mars, however, there is no such raising of the ERL at all, yet there is much more CO2 in its atmosphere than in Earth’s …
Much more by what measure? In %age terms yes, but 95% of f*ck-all is still f*ck-all…—
Mars has about 28 times more CO2 per square meter than Earth.
Or:
Mars “Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg”
or 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere. And of atmosphere:
“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32%”
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
And much larger Earth has about 3 trillion tonnes of CO2 in it’s atmosphere.
Trick, a question for you.
The authors 2014 paper asserts that:
“We showed that the actual mean surface temperature of the Moon (197.3 K) is about 73 K cooler than the Moon’s effective radiating temperature Te ≈ 270 K computed from Eq. (3) using the same albedo. This large discrepancy is due to the fact that Eq. (3) essentially yields a disk-average temperature instead of a spherical temperature mean.”
Do you still dispute this?
If so why?
If not, why do you think estimates of Mars GMAT using Eq3 are of any use and that the authors’ are making an “airy handwaving dismissal” of the global warmists who insist on continuing to use Eq3?
gbaikie: True, but CO2 is a bit player in radiative gas terms on Earth. What happens to the mass ratio when water vapour is included?
Rog,
Point taken about the volume increase with height. I’d forgotten about that having known it previously.
That pulls us back to gravity as setting up a density gradient with height steeper than would have occurred from the volume increase with height.
The stronger is gravity the steeper the decline in density with height.
That leads me to realise better where Konrad is going wrong but I’ll address that separately.
Re density and various earlier comments:
‘The speed of sound in an ideal gas is independent of frequency, but does vary slightly with frequency in a real gas. It is proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature, but is independent of pressure or density for a given ideal gas. Sound speed in air varies slightly with pressure only because air is not quite an ideal gas. Although (in the case of gases only) the speed of sound is expressed in terms of a ratio of both density and pressure, these quantities cancel in ideal gases at any given temperature, composition, and heat capacity. This leads to a velocity formula for ideal gases which includes only the latter independent variables.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
So given the relationship you linked in your resonance thread
Γ = (g·M/cp)·³√(12·g·M·(1/R – 1/cp))
the composition and mass of an atmosphere depends on the pitch the planet is whistling at…
😉
Konrad, you say that I lack a plausible means of reducing buoyancy with height.
You say the reduction of buoyancy is due only to radiation to space from GHGs in the vertical column and that radiation to space is the only means of reducing temperature with height so that rising parcels cool and become denser so that they can then fall.
Let’s consider that from first principles.
The initial convective ‘push’ from the surface is due to insolation but once a parcel of lower density air leaves the surface no further ‘push’ is required.
In true adiabatic ascent the relative buoyancy with surrounding gases is indeed retained throughout ascent (assuming no radiative losses or work done against surrounding molecules) but when one reaches the point of hydrostatic balance the amount of KE providing the upward pressure gradient force falls below the amount of PE representing the downward force of gravity so that further uplift slows and eventually stops.
When uplift stops at the top of an atmosphere the higher air is colder and denser than the air coming up from below and so it is pushed sideways and begins to descend.
If one introduces an inversion such as the tropopause then uplift stops there rather than at the top of the atmosphere but the higher layers do still exhibit a separate regime of convective overturning such as the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere.
Note that adiabatic overturning is indeed neutral overall if one sums up ascending and descending columns but it is not neutral in either ascending or descending columns. You can have vigorous convection arising from that difference between ascending and descending columns.
So what we have here is maximum buoyancy from KE at the surface and the parcel’s buoyancy relative to the lower buoyancy of the surrounding gases is maintained BUT the parcel’s absolute buoyancy ( the amount of KE relative to the downward force of gravity represented by PE) declines throughout the uplift process.
Once above the point of hydrostatic balance the downward force of gravity steadily overcomes the remaining upward pressure gradient force until descent is unavoidable.
I think that dividing buoyancy into relative (to the other surrounding gases) and absolute (in relation to gravity) does provide the necessary means of reducing buoyancy with height so as to permit convective overturning without any need for radiative gases.
The fact is that PE is energy and is carried by molecules in addition to their KE and due to the force of gravity KE is replaced by PE as a molecule moves up the vertical column.
PE represents the downward force of gravity and KE represents the upward pressure gradient force.
Due to PE not being heat and being unable to radiate it cannot be lost to space and since it is not heat its increase relative to KE with height provides the necessary cooling with height to keep convective overturning going and thereby preventing the development of an isothermal atmosphere.
I haven’t seen it expressed like that anywhere else.
Stephen W: “(PE’s) increase relative to KE with height provides the necessary cooling”
I take it the cooling due to expansion of the convecting air into the lower pressure surroundings isn’t part of this concept? Is it already accounted for in another aspect of your hypothesis?
Rog
Cooling due to expansion of upward convecting air into lower pressure surroundings is the means whereby KE is transformed into PE.
Warming due to contraction of downward convecting air into higher pressure surroundings is the means whereby PE is transformed into KE.
In an adiabatic process energy is moved neither in or out but the energy within the parcel is transformed to PE from KE or from PE to KE.
tallbloke says: August 27, 2015 at 9:28 am
‘gbaikie: True, but CO2 is a bit player in radiative gas terms on Earth. What happens to the mass ratio when water vapour is included?’
What happens when the 2.6cm of atmospheric water condensate (clouds), not WV, not even gas, is included? All insolation evaporating sunside and re-condensing with no precipitation is the insolation never getting to the surface, but keeping mid-troposphere at just the right temperature for baby bear!
p.g.sharrow says: August 26, 2015 at 3:12 pm: says water is the only player.
Atmospheric water is a variable, and thankfully not set by earthlings or their governments! This paper is a fake as is the one JSadell referenced. 🙂
Stephen Wilde says: August 27, 2015 at 10:40 am
“In an adiabatic process energy is moved neither in or out but the energy within the parcel is transformed to PE from KE or from PE to KE.”
Do you have a definition for your PE, KE, or adiabatic process? How is each expressed in Earth’s atmosphere? Is your high atmosphere ‘only’ cooled by your claimed “expansion”? How does that work?
I’ve already produced copious links but you regard them all as ‘fraudulent meteorology’ and/or ‘climastrology’
.
Stephen W: Cooling due to expansion of upward convecting air into lower pressure surroundings is the means whereby KE is transformed into PE
Ah OK, so does this now replace the negligible ‘expansion room’ provided by the (marginally) tapering column idea I rejected earlier?
Adiabatic convection is kept in motion by
1) Energy input to the surface
2) Planetary rotation relative to the point source of energy
3) Holder’s inequality creating an energy differential between equator and poles due to the energy coming from a point source.
4) Radiative loss of energy to space from the upper atmosphere causing cooling and contraction
The common factor in the first three is the Sun.
You seem to be in a dispute with Konrad regarding the 4th point.
Is it essential to any circulation? Possibly not.
Does it make circulation more vigorous? Definitely.
Is it what is actually happening? Definitely.
So what is your argument’s underlying driver? That we need some ‘spare energy’ to raise surface T above the airless value?
If so, then I think you’re stuck on trying to squish Earth’s system into a thermodynamically closed system, when in fact it’s an open system with energy throughput.
Konrad 5:26am: Appreciate the thoughtful reply, thanks for the clarification work.
Still, I’m not convinced an illuminated from above object cools surface Tmean by increasing its opacity to exitance (such as your LDPE sheet in contact with the water, or any atmosphere). Such an added opacity increase should increase the mean object surface temperature to enable additional radiation/conduction out for balance with the illumination. I’ll look in this paper try to isolate their related views and citations from observations, if any.
Rog said:
“So what is your argument’s underlying driver? That we need some ‘spare energy’ to raise surface T above the airless value?
If so, then I think you’re stuck on trying to squish Earth’s system into a thermodynamically closed system, when in fact it’s an open system with energy throughput.”
Yes, you do need ‘spare’ energy at the surface to maintain convective overturning and keep the atmosphere suspended off the surface in hydrostatic balance against the constant force of gravity.
No, there need be no problem with the open system involving energy throughput because the KE taken up in ascent does not need to be the same KE as is delivered back to the surface in descent.
KE from the surface is constantly flowing through BOTH the radiative exchange with space and the adiabatic exchange with the atmosphere.
There is no thermodynamically closed system, simply a dynamic exchange of solar throughput between both components (radiative and adiabatic) of an open system.
tallbloke 9:20am: “Do you still dispute this?”
Not sure I ever disputed your clip; I did go back and (briefly) read their earlier work. What I point out is their “actual mean surface temperature of the Moon (197.3 K)” should more physically read in my words: actual mean surface brightness temperature of the Moon (197.3 K). Since 197K is arrived at by radiometers not thermometers.
Thus moon’s brightness T= 197K conversion to thermometer T is dependent on knowing emissivity, direction of rays, diffractivity, reflectivity, ray polarization maybe more. The designers of the radiometers have to make a frequency interval judgment and an emissivity judgment based on best available regolith tests. To the extent the judgment on interval et. al. is off, there will be an unknown difference with the surface ordinary thermodynamic (thermometer) T field temperature. The Apollo testing indicates a higher T field exists depending on depth into regolith. In detail, the rays Diviner observed emanate not just from the surface as Planck pointed out in his original work, but from the interior of the object. So T field at some depth is really being observed by Diviner, carrying thermal info. from depth in regolith.
The interest in pursuing this research doesn’t appear to be a high enough current funding priority. No one going to be living and digging foundations on the moon any time soon.
“If not, why do you think estimates of Mars GMAT using Eq3 are of any use..”
For exoplanet research, Eqn. 3 is at least somewhat observable/calculable. Understanding its benefits and limitations seem to be useful to make judgments of the exoplanet surface temperatures. And whether liquid water can exist on the surface. I also think eqn. 4c (and thus 10b) is useful but realize these are specific for moon regolith emissivity and albedo. No way to know that for planets or exoplanets but educated judgments with other moons, planets, exoplanets with judged similar regolith properties should be useful.
Will Janoschka says:
August 27, 2015 at 2:31 am
Mass in a gravitational field, if prevented from accelerating do to an opposing vector force such a normal surface with no acceleration in the force direction will express weight, heaviness in the direction of the opposing vector force!
Stationary liquids and solids (and humans made of them) on the surface of rocky planets cause weight. This is a very uncommon situation in the Universe
In most cases mass is moving and accelerating, including molecules in a gas.
Mass in a gravitational field if allowed to accelerate will express acceleration, such expresses no weight.
In a gas gravity, rate of change of velocity, v/s, will increase or decrease velocity. At surfaces gas causes pressure not weight.
Molecules cause pressure by change of momentum mv.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
Gravity acceleration changes the velocity and momentum of molecules.
Weightists argue that increased air pressure in a ball causes increased weight. Therefore air has weight.
Consider the vertical part of the motion of molecules. On average molecules move up or down an equal amount of the time. Gravity increases downward velocity and decreases upward velocity
The change in total momentum on the inner surface of the ball causes an increase in down ward force measured on the scale.
This is incorrectly called weight.
Change in momentum caused by gravity also explains buoyancy.
Weightists have no explanation for buoyancy.
Roger – “..an increase in down ward force measured on the scale. This is incorrectly called weight.”
The top post paper doesn’t even mention weight except in area-weighted cal.cs. But I will limitedly agree ot, many do try to deny the readout on a bathroom scale is actual added weight. I’m curious – what else does Roger term a similar readout? I will try to use it correctly at my next physical.
Now we have weightists – defined as those with no explanation for bouyancy. The lexicon grows.
Sq. inch column of standard air mean surface pressure 14.7 psi up to TOA weighs 14.7lb.s on Earth. Divide 14.7 by g, get its mass.
Skeptical Science on 255K:
” I will say that I do not particularly like this model as a suitable introduction to the greenhouse effect. It is useful in many regards, but it fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect on account of making a good algebra lesson, and opens itself up to criticism on a number of grounds; that said, if you are going to criticize it, you need to do it right, but also be able to distinguish between understood physics and simple educational tools.”
http://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html
Hansen et al. 1981 define the greenhouse effect:
“For A – 0.3 and So = 1367 watts per square meter, this yields Te ~ 255 K. The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds, which cause the mean radiating level to be above the surface.”
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
IPCC 1990 defines the greenhouse effect:
“The strength of the greenhouse effect can be gauged by the difference between the effective emitting temperature of the Earth as seen from space (about 255K) and the globally-averaged surface temperature (about 285K)”
IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 (FAR). Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml
So why is this “algebra lesson” and “simple educational tool” being published by Science and the IPCC? Also, I do wonder if there is a conflict between the correct calculation and that used for the Venus-Earth comparison (which does not take into account rotation or uneven illumination):
“Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth.”
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I do find that relationship compelling, so why does it work?
Blob says: August 27, 2015 at 7:22 pm
‘I do find that relationship compelling, so why does it work?’
Laws of physics perhaps 😉
“Laws of physics perhaps ;-)”
Yes, and consistent with only mass, gravity and insolation being relevant for the greenhouse effect.
–tallbloke says:
August 27, 2015 at 9:28 am
gbaikie: True, but CO2 is a bit player in radiative gas terms on Earth. What happens to the mass ratio when water vapour is included?–
Water vapor on Mars is suppose to be about 210 ppm. So in term of parts million it’s about 1/4 of Earth.
In terms of quantity, Earth mass is “Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg” whereas Mars is “Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg”. So Earth atm is 200 times more mass. But one include the smaller Mars surface area. Mars:144.8 vs Earth 511 million km. Mars is about 3 1/2 times smaller, so instead of 200 it’s about 57 time more massive per square meter.
So Mars about 1/4 as much water vapor per ppm, but Earth has 57 times more mass per square meter, so per square meter Earth has 57 times 4, or 228 times more water vapor as mars per square meter of air column.
But if you are of the believe that water vapor in non tropical region of earth is significant or you think water vapor important in Earth’s higher atmosphere is significant. Which think there is a tendency for some to think, then the difference of Mars and Earth’s water vapor not as great as it seems.
Or if don’t think water vapor [and/or all greenhouse gases as significant below, say 3000 meter elevation] then the difference is not as much.
I happen to believe that greenhouse gases below 1000 meter above the surface are the most significant [in terms of any radiant effects], in that case earth has more vapor and more CO2 as compared to Mars [also below 1000 meter]
Or Mars has a high elevation atmosphere considering how little mass it has and and how cold it is, and the density of CO2. It’s a fluffy atmosphere because of it’s low gravity [and probably it’s spin also helps by a significant bit].
Stephen: “..only mass, gravity and insolation being relevant for the greenhouse effect.”
Relevant but not sufficient.
In all these years, Stephen has never shown a calculation of Earth’s 33K and Venus’ 552K (plus some CIs) in this paper from just mass, insolation and gravity or Stephen would be all over a ref. that did so. Stephen always needs one temperature too, called the intercept in higher level math. Stephen will always and everywhere need that one T, the intercept and therefore needs to drop “only”.
In this paper they observe that needed one temperature from LRO Diviner radiometer measurements – the 197.0K GMAT from the moon’s radiatively balanced insolation, regolith emissivity and albedo. Prior to Diviner they may have used another estimated T for the intercept. Here, with some math and that one T, they propose a curve fitted solution needing only a regolith or similar rocky surface atm. pressure to get Ts from the plotted Ts/Tna ratio.
Trying as hard as he can for years, Stephen just cannot get away from needing radiation. Which is how natural radiative-convective atmospheres work. And why there are whole books dedicated to atmospheric radiation.
Will Janoschka says: August 27, 2015 at 10:53 am
(“Do you have a definition for your PE, KE, or adiabatic process? How is each expressed in Earth’s atmosphere? Is your high atmosphere ‘only’ cooled by your claimed “expansion”? How does that work?”)
Stephen Wilde says: August 27, 2015 at 11:38 am
“I’ve already produced copious links but you regard them all as ‘fraudulent meteorology’ and/or ‘climastrology’”
Yes I do! Like you, your links use only meaningless symbols and words. FB may a symbol for ‘fire and brimstone’ Does your religious meteorology define the physical meaning “lava from a volcano, run!”?
I am asking if you, not them, have any physical meaning whatsoever in ‘your’ writings. Do you have a definition for your PE, KE, or adiabatic process? How is each expressed in Earth’s atmosphere? Is your high atmosphere ‘only’ cooled by your claimed “expansion”? How does that work? Your symbols and words are like a litany repeat and repeat, God will be pleased, still without meaning!
–Trick says:
August 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm
Stephen: “..only mass, gravity and insolation being relevant for the greenhouse effect.”
Relevant but not sufficient.
In all these years, Stephen has never shown a calculation of Earth’s 33K and Venus’ 552K (plus some CIs) in this paper from just mass, insolation and gravity or Stephen would be all over a ref. that did so. Stephen always needs one temperature too, called the intercept in higher level math. Stephen will always and everywhere need that one T, the intercept and therefore needs to drop “only”.–
As I understand the paper, it’s using ideal blackbody without instant global conduction of heat.
So you take an ideal blackbody and disconnect it’s magical ability warm the planetary sphere at uniform temperature, which at Earth distance from the sun would uniform temperature of 5 C.
One could say that with the ideal blackbody there is no heat capacity of material, by in terms compensation, adds the magic of being able able to re-distribute the heat in equal fashion.
Or distrubuting the heat is way of absorbing heat, but any other way of absorbing heat is ignored.
An paper say that any absorbing of heat, is a warming effect.So result is a bigger starting minus than the -33 K.
Both the old ideal blackbody and the new and improved with bigger minus ideal blackbody, can ignore a planet’s spin. Which is assists people in imagining a planet’s spin and it’s tilt of axis has nothing to do with a temperature of a planet.
Considering that we are presently in an Ice Box climate which due mostly with planetary tilt and the Earth spin and large part of global climate was started because the interesting patterns of glacial and intergalactic periods, this lend proof to idea that mathematician should never be put in charge of anything.
Trick says: August 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm
“Trying as hard as he can for years, Stephen just cannot get away from needing radiation. Which is how natural radiative-convective atmospheres work. And why there are whole books dedicated to atmospheric radiation.”
Could you please reference one book that correctly describes atmospheric radiation, From the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations, rather than some fantasy thermodynamic concept?
The thermodynamic is the only fantasy that thinks ‘average temperature’ has any meaning whatsoever for EMR. 🙂
Trick wrote (August 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm) “a calculation of Earth’s 33K”
Trick, that 33K seems incorrect. Take a non-rotating spherical blackbody and set Lat=0, Long=0 at the point closest to the sun. Set Imax=1366 w/m^2. The calculation for the day side (Lat/Long from -90:90 degrees) is:
I[Lat,Long]=Imax*cos(Lat*pi/180)*cos(Long*pi/180)
T[Lat,Long]=(I[Lat,Long]*(1-albedo)/(emissivity*sigma))^.25
Tmean=mean(T)/2
The division by 2 is to account for the night side of the sphere. For the blackbody, albedo=0 and emissivity=1. This gives ~145 K. I think that is the correct starting point, not the uniformly illuminated flat earth model (which averages the energy before taking the 4th root). The observed average temperature is closer to 288K, so there is ~143K difference to be explained, before taking albedo into account.
Blob says: August 27, 2015 at 11:21 pm
“The division by 2 is to account for the night side of the sphere. For the blackbody, albedo=0 and emissivity=1.”
Could you please give even one physical example of a blackbody? There are none!!!
“This gives ~145 K. I think that is the correct starting point, not the uniformly illuminated flat earth model (which averages the energy before taking the 4th root). The observed average temperature is closer to 288K, so there is ~143K difference to be explained, before taking albedo into account.”
Your writings of temperature are but fantasy. This Earth is nowhere flat and has an optically thick atmosphere. The S-B equations apply only between difference in temperature with a flat surface, express only the maximum directional flux possible, the minimum is always zero. No extension of that exact expression. is permissible. For spherical bodies with atmospheres, any application is nonsense, and cannot result in any answer! This paper and the referenced papers are but again an attempt by the CAGW advocates to defend the ridiculous application of the S-B equation and the more ridiculous, if possible, claim of ‘back-radiation’!
Stephen Wilde says: August 27, 2015 at 3:34 pm
(Rog said: “So what is your argument’s underlying driver? That we need some ‘spare energy’ to raise surface T above the airless value? If so, then I think you’re stuck on trying to squish Earth’s system into a thermodynamically closed system, when in fact it’s an open system with energy throughput.”)
“Yes, you do need ‘spare’ energy at the surface to maintain convective overturning and keep the atmosphere suspended off the surface in hydrostatic balance against the constant force of gravity.”
You seem to be implying that without convection there would be no atmosphere and no lapse rate!
I that what you claim? And are willing to defend? Good luck!
Will, I don’t claim to know what the correct temperature calculation should be. I am taking the applicability of the S-B law as a premise since that is what is commonly done. I do not exclude the possibility there are other problems with it. Just saying, “it is not applicable because the assumptions are not true” is not really helpful, because it may still be a good approximation, or starting point. Instead, please point out how sensitive it is to those assumptions.
Roger Clague says: August 27, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Will Janoschka says: August 27, 2015 at 2:31 am
(‘Mass in a gravitational field, if prevented from accelerating do to an opposing vector force such a normal surface with no acceleration in the force direction will express weight, heaviness in the direction of the opposing vector force!’)
“Stationary liquids and solids (and humans made of them) on the surface of rocky planets cause weight. This is a very uncommon situation in the Universe”
Indeed! Do you disagree with my general description of the expression by mass?
“In most cases mass is moving and accelerating, including molecules in a gas.”
OK! There is a great difference in random local atomic motion speed and a linear group motion, called velocity
(‘Mass in a gravitational field if allowed to accelerate will express acceleration, such expresses no weight.’)
‘In a gas gravity, rate of change of velocity, v/s, will increase or decrease velocity.’
In this atmosphere gravity plays no part in the speed of molecules. Nor does it play a part in group velocity! Do you disagree with my general description of the expression by mass?
‘At surfaces gas causes pressure not weight.’
Indeed! Do you disagree with my general description of the expression by mass?
“Molecules cause pressure by change of momentum mv”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
Correct: the nuevo science interpretation of that theory is incorrect. Newton did not say that kinetic energy equalls (mv^2)/2, but rather the change on momentum within a time interval, d(mv)/dt!. In this atmosphere energy is the time rate of change in momentum. Collisions (intercepts) per second for any given number of molecules, proportional to temperature! Temperature at altitude must be inversely proportional to mean free path also, not exclusively speed of molecules!
“Gravity acceleration changes the velocity and momentum of molecules.”
Gravity expresses no accelerative force for any part of the compressible atmosphere itself, in this troposphere. The expressions of gravity are limited to density, pressure, and delta temperature, as specific location functions within Earth’s gravity field! Is this difficult to understand? You bet your sweet a**! It is no wonder that the incompetent religious meteorologists got it so very wrong!
All the best! -will_
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 12:23 am
“Will, I don’t claim to know what the correct temperature calculation should be. I am taking the applicability of the S-B law as a premise since that is what is commonly done.”
This is done ‘only’ by folk intentionally attempting to scam others. ClimAstrologists, and academic meteorologists! They do know better!
“I do not exclude the possibility there are other problems with it. Just saying, “it is not applicable because the assumptions are not true” is not really helpful, because it may still be a good approximation, or starting point. Instead, please point out how sensitive it is to those assumptions.”
Nonsense is not sensitive to assumptions, it remains strictly nonsense! Applicability requires a through understanding of electromagnetic field theory, complete with the holes that it has!
gbaikie – “As I understand the paper, it’s using ideal blackbody without instant global conduction of heat.”
The paper considers gray bodies at emissivity 0.98, see bottom p. 11, not BBs.
There aren’t as many mathemetician’s around to put in charge as you say because they know they can never get close to the opposite sex going 1/2 then 1/2 then 1/2 the distance each step & so on, they can never get there. But scientists and especially engineers know they can get close enough to get the job done.
Stephen Wilde says: August 27, 2015 at 9:11 pm
(“Laws of physics perhaps 😉 ”)
“Yes, and consistent with only mass, gravity and insolation being relevant for the greenhouse effect.”
Still promoting the intentional scam of “greenhouse effect”, I see!
Blob – Does your non-rotating spherical planet have an atmosphere and if so, what is the surface pressure in kPa & how could the albedo possibly be zero and surface emissivity possibly = 1.0? Since BBs don’t exist.
If no atmosphere, “airless” so no liquid surface water, this paper computes Tna = 197.2K sort of like the moon. Note rotation rate is immaterial. It is possible Hölder’s inequality & albedo explain the difference from your 143K, I dunno for sure you do the work and tell me.
If this were an exoplanet with observed & computed stellar S=1366 insolation, no apparent atmosphere so 0 kPa surface pressure, the top post chart might be a good starting point, find Ts/Tna = 1.0 so expect the Ts = Tna = 197K going in IF the surface is expected sort of like regolith properties more or less (meaning non-zero albedo).
If add Earth pressure atm. at impossible albedo 0, L&O emissivity 1, atm. emissivity 0.0 (you didn’t specify) find increase in Ts = 278K ordinary T – 197K brightness T = 81K atm. GTE.
Then I found for your planet w/normal Earth atm. pressure at S=1366, the paper computes Te = 256.1K w/atm. at 0.0 emissivity and I compute Ts = 289.5 at atm. around global 0.8 emissivity so 289.5 – 256.1= 33.4 GTE so GTE = 33K by my analysis.
Annual observations from CERES ~ 255K looking down, avg. annual thermometer field ~288K so 33K GTE is also observed by test confirming my analysis.
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 1:39 am
“The paper considers gray bodies at emissivity 0.98, see bottom p. 11, not BBs.”
So much for that BS!!!
“There aren’t as many mathemetician’s around to put in charge as you say because they know they can never get close to the opposite sex going 1/2 then 1/2 then 1/2 the distance each step & so on, they can never get there. But scientists and especially engineers know they can get close enough to get the job done.”
As per Dr. Gus R. Kirchhoff, For any “surface”, Emissivity and absorptivity of that surface have the same value between 0 and 1. The value of each, now both, are strong functions of wavelength and direction. They remain equal for each frequency and for each direction. Any claim of composite emissivity is BS, and intent to defraud!
Trick, engineers do not use symbolic algebra. We measure what is! Then try to construct that which works, rather than asplodes! We make many mistakes, tested by others, for obvious reasons. 🙂
Trick, the paper does a different calculation that includes “ground heat storage” and “geothermal flux”, these may be valid but I am starting at the most fundamental level. It shows the model is extremely sensitive to the assumption of a uniformly illuminated flat earth.
If I start with a non-rotating spherical blackbody (no there is no atmosphere or anything else; it has albedo=0 and emissivity=1), I get ~145 K. Thus the Earth appears to be at ~143 K higher temperature than for a non-rotating spherical blackbody at 1 AU from the sun.
The next step is to account for all the factors that get us to 288 K. For example, clearly rotation will increase this because the night side doesn’t get to cool all the way down to zero, etc. What is the breakdown of all these factors? We need to know this, because alterations in any of them (e.g., how albedo/emissivity are distributed over the surface) can change the average easily by a few degrees. Is anyone attempting to measure all this?
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 1:51 am
“Annual observations from CERES ~ 255K looking down, avg. annual thermometer field ~288K so 33K GTE is also observed by test confirming my analysis.”
Nadir radiance converted to some nutty temperature that has no meaning. Never has the radiative intensity of this Earth ever been measured! 🙂
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 2:21 am
“The next step is to account for all the factors that get us to 288 K. For example, clearly rotation will increase this because the night side doesn’t get to cool all the way down to zero, etc. What is the breakdown of all these factors? We need to know this, because alterations in any of them (e.g., how albedo/emissivity are distributed over the surface) can change the average easily by a few degrees. Is anyone attempting to measure all this?”
Blob troll,
It is lapse rate!! Nothing to do with any surface, nothing to do with ‘surface’ radiation.
Why do you continue to jerk off in the cloak room, with not a female in sight? 🙂
Trick says: August 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm
‘Trying as hard as he can for years, Stephen just cannot get away from needing radiation. Which is how natural radiative-convective atmospheres work.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do have a care Trick. While Stephen gets it wrong on radiative subsidence, you would do well to remember that climastrologists have been also working desperately to erase radiative subsidence from scientific history. Remember “Travesty” Tremberth’s 2010 attempt to replace radiative subsidence with pole-wise energy flow? The Internet does. Forever.
The Internet also remembers the pre-warmulonian era meteorology of radiative subsidence –
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
You would also do well to remember that you yourself argued black and blue that I couldn’t drive convective circulation in a fluid in a gravity field by removing energy from the top of a fluid column.
Climastrologists, like Stephen, try to invoke “immaculate convection”. Ie: strong vertical circulation that doesn’t vary in speed with variation in radiative gas concentration. Only through this trick can they make the “radiative gases warm at low altitude and cool at high altitude” claims, ignoring of course that the net effect of our atmosphere on surface temperatures is cooling, and the atmosphere would have no ability to have this effect if it could not radiatively cool itself.
Trick, you are previously on record as denying that energy loss through radiative subsidence was a driver of tropospheric vertical circulation (2011). Can you explain yourself?
Will – “Trick: Could you please reference one book that correctly describes atmospheric radiation, From the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations, rather than some fantasy thermodynamic concept?”
In context of this paper, Will really means correctly describing why light is scattered in an atmosphere causing temperature fluctuations. The electric charges in matter are acted on by electric fields Will. There is no fundamental difference between specular reflection and refraction by films, diffraction by edges or slits, and scattering by atmospheric particles. All are consequences of light exciting matter to radiate.
The Maxwellian approach to atmospheric scattering is, as Will knows when sober, by way of continuum electromagnetic theory: reflected and refracted waves satisfy the partial differential equations of the electromagnetic field. This approach comes to grips with the nature of light but not of matter, which is treated as continuous. So the Maxwellian approach lacks a certain rigor Will.
If Will wants that rigor, I suggest going full monty with the quantum electrodynamic method, an approach that fully recognizes the discreteness of both matter and radiation fields but is, alas, even more difficult to apply than Maxwell’s eqn.s except for very simple systems, you know like the hydrogen atom.
For me, I am going with the empirical approach which arrives at the laws with purely geometrical statements about what is observed, and a discreet silence is maintained about the underlying causes (always a safe route).
Oh wait, all Will asked for was a book. There is amazon.com and your local college library for that Will. I suggest the ones with plenty of thermodynamic tests, no fantasy, and cites to the original test work done in the exact words of the original authors. What creeps in behind is astounding error propagation. Pop a cold one Will, read up, let me know which one you like. Scientific knowledge grows like the accumulation of bric-a-brac in a vast and disordered closet in a house kept by a sloven.
I do recommend Cliff Truesdell “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854” which explains the beginnings of thermodynamics as a field “accursed by misunderstanding, irrelevance, retreat, and failure” on p.1 no less.
Will wrote at August 28, 2015 at 2:40 am: Blob troll,
“It is lapse rate!! Nothing to do with any surface, nothing to do with ‘surface’ radiation.”
Then show me the calculation. I can’t find it?
Also, to Trick. I found this where they get the 255 K from top of atmosphere OLR: “The CERES OLR data is converted to the effective radiating temperature (Te) using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Te = (OLR/σ)^0.25 – 273.15.”
CERES Satellite and Climate Sensitivity. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=739
That is not the correct calculation to compare to average temperature. They averaged OLR over the globe already to get ~240 W/m^2, then got the temperature. That is for a uniformly illuminated flat earth. Using the sphere (in my post above), mean(I)~277 W/m^2 (higher than 240 K due to no albedo) which corresponds to the mean temperature of ~145 K. The answer is totally different if you calculate using the sphere rather than assume a uniformly illuminated flat earth…
Typo, should read: “(higher than 240 W/m^2 due to no albedo)”
Blob – ”255K is for a uniformly illuminated flat earth.”
I can assure Blob the earth is decidedly not flat nor uniformly illuminated; CERES observes earth annually as an oblate spheroid with no shade from an always on sun to obtain the 255K. If Blob were on the moon and pointed his Ryobi model IR002 laser target with earth filling the viewport, it would observe Earth as an IR sun at 255K. So the calculation is NOT totally different, it agrees reasonably with test data which is pretty much all I trust in this business.
“I get ~145 K.”
Which is impossible in nature with S=1366.
“..the paper does a different calculation that includes “ground heat storage” and “geothermal flux”
And CMBR! All of which the paper then says can be “insignificant” and “combining” into Eqn. (4c) for Tna ref. “no-atmosphere” temperature.
“clearly rotation will increase this”
Nope, planet rotation is immaterial to the paper’s GMAT. Search paper for “rotation” hits: 0. Rotation only matterial for max./min. T not material for mean T, the paper’s focus. See page 8 for list of 7 material planet & included moon GMAT factors.
“Is anyone attempting to measure all this?”
Yes. Personally I trust little that isn’t measured, then I suspect that too. Even testing can be used to mislead. I’m with Cliff T.: thermodynamics as a field “accursed by misunderstanding, irrelevance, retreat, and failure”. Yet we made Saturn 5 engines work in the 60s!, (anyone see the new descended giant Rocketdyne engine video test recently? performed flawless for like 11minutes) & we get spacecraft thermally protected to Pluto and beyond. Side facing the stars having different emissivity than the side facing the sun.
Despite Will searching for the truth all the time, some times dronk, we even understand some thermo. in the atmosphere pretty well without resorting to QED theory.
Trick wrote at:August 28, 2015 at 3:49 am: “I can assure Blob the earth is decidedly not flat nor uniformly illuminated;”
Then why are you using calculations that assume it is? Dropping this assumption gives different answers by >100K.
“Which is impossible in nature with S=1366.”
It is impossible for a flat earth. Look at figure 2 from that CERES link. The daily average varies from 110-290 W/m^2 by latitude. This is not uniform… You can’t average that then plug it into the S-B law to get a temperature. You have to calculate the temperatures first, then average those, which gives a lower value. If not, what is the justification for averaging first as if the planet is a uniformly illuminated flat surface? The math is clear that you get widely divergent answers.
Konrad says: August 28, 2015 at 2:41 am
Climastrologists, like Stephen, try to invoke “immaculate convection”. Ie: strong vertical circulation that doesn’t vary in speed with variation in radiative gas concentration. Only through this trick can they make the “radiative gases warm at low altitude and cool at high altitude” claims, ignoring of course that the net effect of our atmosphere on surface temperatures is cooling, and the atmosphere would have no ability to have this effect if it could not radiatively cool itself.
Konrad,
Thank you! In this earth’s troposphere has no “immaculate convection”, but always has “immaculate advection”! Atmospheric ‘mass motion’, with ‘always’ self buoyancy requires no “work”. It remains free and isentropic. Of course accelerations of such mass and confounding shear forces on mass velocity require “work”. Provided by insolation ‘energy’. The entropy of all that ‘work’ is continually dispatched to space via EMR exitance, at every altitude. Without this ‘process’ surface temperatures would be much higher. The atmospheric lapse rate must remain. Independent of power flux in or out. If out is less, the whole damn column temperature must increase until in ‘out’ is exactly equal to ‘in’. Earth’s surface temperature remains just perfect for baby bear, somewhat lesser at high latitudes, but still perfect for baby polar bear. What a wonderful planet!
All the best! -will-
Konrad: “Can you explain yourself?”
Not if you don’t show a link to show precisely what I need to explain. My point likely was if the energy under study is not lost from a system, the mean T of the system remains unchanged. Wind energy is not lost, evapotranspiration energy is not lost to the earth/atm. system, that energy stays in the system. No change in mean T; winds don’t make it to space as it isn’t windy in space, doesn’t rain in space. To space, only L&O&atm. radiation gets out alive.
——
Blob – “Then why are you using calculations that assume it is (flat)?”
No such assumption Blob, I assure you the earth is an oblate spheroid. In the paper search on “flat” – 1 hit: “The factor 1/4 inside the parentheses serves to distribute the stellar flux from a flat surface to a sphere” so the paper uses earth as a spheroid Blob, all the observations & tests confirm it is so. The sun is always “on”, no shade in space. The paper uses measured data and Hölder’s inequality to compensate for the spheroid. You aren’t using Hölder’s inequality to compensate and an impossible albedo & emissivity.
“Look at figure 2 from that CERES link.”
Looks like a sphere to me but there is no citation given, I can’t go to the original material to check. Did you?
“You have to calculate the temperatures first, then average those..”
Better to avg. the S-B energies, get the temperatures second. Has to do with extensive properties.
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 2:57 am
Will wrote at August 28, 2015 at 2:40 am: Blob troll,
“It is lapse rate!! Nothing to do with any surface, nothing to do with ‘surface’ radiation.”
“Then show me the calculation. I can’t find it?”
You seem to need calculations by symbolic algebra. A perfect example of the deliberate brain washing of innocent children.
Lapse rate is measurable. Quite independent of any squirely earthling fantasy concepts!
–If I start with a non-rotating spherical blackbody (no there is no atmosphere or anything else; it has albedo=0 and emissivity=1), I get ~145 K. Thus the Earth appears to be at ~143 K higher temperature than for a non-rotating spherical blackbody at 1 AU from the sun. —
So it’s 290 K on sunlit side and 0 K on dark side?
Well, let’s see, say sphere had diameter of 10,000 km. So disk area about 78.5 million square, and 314.1 million for entire surface with sun lit being 1/2: 157 million square km.
With circumference of 31415.9 km, and divide by 360 degrees is 87.26 km per latitude/longitude.
And at point of zenith, 40 degrees north, south, east, and west is circle with diameter of 6981.3 km
and radius of 3490.65 km with area of 38.27 million square km
A ring around this which is 1745,2 km wide [20 degree latitude] has about 47.85 million square km.
So roughly out to 60 degree from zenith is 86 million of 157 million square km. And on moon at 60 degree latitude it’s about 320 K. In this circle one has highest temperature of about 400 K decreasing to about 320 K.
At 90 degree, one has circumference of 31415.9 km. So 90 to 80 is band 872.6 km wide, or about
24.4 million square km, this sunlit region is quite cold and at warmer area at 80 degree with the Moon it’s about 240 to 230 K:
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Adding them: 38.27 + 47.85 + 24.4 is 110.5 million of 157, leaving 46.5 for remain region of between
80 and 60. And 80 is 240 to 230 K:, 70 is about 290 on Moon, and again 60 is 320 K.
So this 60 to 80 roughly averages to 290 K [your number]. So left to average the 80 to 90 latitute type ring which has 24.4 million square km to the middle disk which is 86 million square km.
80 to 90 ring goes from 240 to close to 0 K. I would say most of it is less than 100 K, but on average 100 K [or maybe more]. So chunk of the middle which is 400 K which same area of 24.4 million and that averages to 250 K, leaving 61.6 million which warmer than 320 K which average with 24.1 x 2 =
48.2 million. So seems 290 K seems about right for something like the moon. Though rotating moon would warmer as the regolith under couple inches under than would still be warm, and any hills would in the 80 to 90 degree ring be hot and be reflecting the heat in surround region- doesn’t take much watts to warm something higher than 100 K- and if shading 2 K region- it doesn’t matter.
:
Trick wrote on August 28, 2015 at 5:05 am: “No such assumption Blob, I assure you the earth is an oblate spheroid. In the paper…” I am not talking about the paper, I am talking about you. The paper does not say anything about 33C, you used that number. You have also now misquoted the paper twice (earlier saying they did not account for “ground heat storage”, and now saying that they used the S-B equation with 4 in the denominator). I am sorry I attempted to have a discussion with you.
To Will: Like Trick, you also have not been helpful.
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 5:05 am
(Konrad: “Can you explain yourself?”)
“Not if you don’t show a link to show precisely what I need to explain.”
(Konrad’s question) :
No link is needed or desired, no reference to others, just a question. “Can you explain yourself?”
Trick, you expound in confusing ways the expression of others never self. Is this not clear identification of this Trick insane Bot?
-scrap, other garbage-
Blob – “I am not talking about the paper, I am talking about you.”
The top post is about the paper, not me.
“The paper does not say anything about 33C”
See Table 2. Earth Ts=287.4K, Table 4. Earth Te = 256.4K. Do the arithmetic.
“You have also now misquoted the paper twice (earlier saying they did not account for “ground heat storage”
Where exactly are my misquotes? I used verbatim clips so you could find the context.
“I am sorry I attempted to have a discussion with you.”
Thread’s discussing the paper’s contents, not mine. Discuss the paper and you’ll be less sorry I bet. Paper has a lot of good stuff. You have to get to know Will a little better too, he’s helpful in a whole different way than you’d expect. Oh! the drama!
Will – “Is this not clear identification of this Trick insane Bot?”
Verily. Proud warmulonian. I had a hockey cap made up with that last season, gets some interesting conversation started at the ice rinks.
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 5:30 am
‘To Will: Like Trick, you also have not been helpful.’
To your fantasy no! Blob, Again! The atmospheric lapse rate must remain. Independent of power flux in or out. If out is less, the whole damn column temperature must increase until in ‘out’ is exactly equal to ‘in’. Earth’s surface temperature remains just perfect for baby bear, somewhat lesser at high latitudes, but still perfect for baby polar bear. What a wonderful planet!
All the best! -will-
Konrad said:
“Climastrologists, like Stephen, try to invoke “immaculate convection”. Ie: strong vertical circulation that doesn’t vary in speed with variation in radiative gas concentration”
That assertion is untrue.
So called immaculate convection would only occur in an atmosphere with no radiative capability at all but convection would occur nonetheless due to uneven surface heating and the conversion of KE to PE with height creating the decline in temperature with height.
The effect of radiative gases is indeed to vary the vertical circulation in speed as I have often said but the thermal effect at the surface is zero because the warming in ascent columns is offset by cooling in descent columns for a zero net effect at the surface.
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 5:57 am
(Will – “Is this not clear identification of this Trick insane Bot?”)
“Verily. Proud warmulonian. I had a hockey cap made up with that last season, gets some interesting conversation started at the ice rinks.”
OK. Your insight into this is seems very good! Your presentation, stinks to high heaven! Suggest that, you ask questions of anything outside of your brainwashing!
Stephen Wilde says:
August 28, 2015 at 6:16 am
(Konrad said: “Climastrologists, like Stephen, try to invoke “immaculate convection”. Ie: strong vertical circulation that doesn’t vary in speed with variation in radiative gas concentration”)
“That assertion is untrue.”
Rave on barrister, this jury is asleep. Do you have anything pertinent to this Earth’s atmosphere?
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 2:49 am
(Will – “Trick: Could you please reference one book that correctly describes atmospheric radiation, From the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations, rather than some fantasy thermodynamic concept?”)
Trick,
I had no meaning other than your claim
Stephen W: “warming in ascent columns is offset by cooling in descent columns.”
Care to elucidate?
Rog:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
especially diagram 2
tallbloke says: August 28, 2015 at 7:35 am
“Stephen W: “warming in ascent columns is offset by cooling in descent columns.” 😮 ”
Will they never accept that ‘warming’ is transfer of power to? This has nothing at all to do with any atmospheric temperature. In limited cases, transfer of ‘power to/from’ can result in change of temperature.
Within this atmosphere, temperature only indicates the location of mass. Altitude. Higher/lower temperature! with absolutely no warming or cooling. Only location (altitude) in the gravitational field.
TB. This is a real bitch. 🙂
==Stephen Wilde says:
August 28, 2015 at 7:57 am
Rog:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
especially diagram 2==
I would say that when air mass is lifted via buoyancy, it will cause warming.
But only portion of atmospheric heating is done by rising air. Or air is warmed without convectional uplift of a air mass.
So wind can blow air up a slope and than the air falls after being pushed up the slope- it’s called
adiabatic heating:
“With adiabatic heating, as a mass of air descends in the atmosphere—as it does when it moves downslope from a mountain range—the air encounters increasing atmospheric pressure. Compression of the air mass is accompanied by an increase in temperature.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800010.html
But for a mass to air to rise, doesn’t require a mountain, but wind up and over a mountain does it consistently- or it demonstrates that a thermal upward movement of a air mass will result in warming.
But air can and normally does warm with rising packets of air, which not movements of molecules but rather are a pattern of a transfer of kinetic energy. Now If have enough of this kinetics transfer, it can cause the mass of molecules to move upwards, rather than just the kinetic transfer of air packets.
Or when one has thermals, the atmosphere is said to be instable, whereas you would not call wind blown over a mountain as unstable [or you shouldn’t].
But it’s common enough in the sense that birds use thermals to help fly and thunder clouds are creating updrafts [and downdrafts].
So if mass of air is lifted, and mass of air will fall- it has to, but the increase of the air temperature is not limited to having air molecules go up [or down]. Or individual gas molecule within trillions of other other gas molecules [within say, a liter of air] are all going with average velocity of a bullet, don’t go anywhere, but with enough individuals molecule go in a direction it can result in the mass of air to move, and the molecules are still “not going anywhere” move because the air mass moves [they still aren’t going anywhere, but “their universe” moves and most are essentially are stationary within it],
This doesn’t apply if there a lot less molecule in a given volume. Or the rules of the universes alter when density is greatly reduced- say above the troposphere.
Or in less density the rules apply less and one gets other rules which apply more. Or if average molecule on average can travel more than say an inch, you are getting different rules. And example of different rule is a molecule which moves faster, can on average go furthest- which also applies in troposphere, but a molecule has to go very, very fast.
Say, 100 times faster than the average. Or basically a molecule does not hit another molecule, rather it’s the trillions of molecule having the chance to hit the molecule- and if a molecule is a lot faster- they [the trillions of them] have less chance of hitting the very fast molecule [running between raindrops].
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 2:57 am
“That is not the correct calculation to compare to average temperature. They averaged OLR over the globe already to get ~240 W/m^2, then got the temperature. That is for a uniformly illuminated flat earth. Using the sphere (in my post above), mean(I)~277 W/m^2 (higher than 240 K due to no albedo) which corresponds to the mean temperature of ~145 K. The answer is totally different if you calculate using the sphere rather than assume a uniformly illuminated flat earth…”
To me you’re asking the right questions. Using the same calculation for the moon as the one that gives the infamous 255K for earth results in the effective temperature for the moon of ~270K.
Actual temperature ~197K !!.
Calculating the average temperature of an atmosphere-less planet at our distance from the sun that has one side continuously facing the sun (like the moon facing the earth) gives a much lower result. Depending on albedo ~150 – 160K. Using this number makes it pretty straightforward to explain the actual temperature of the moon.
Question should be: why is the average temperature of the earth (~290K) so much higher than that of the moon ( ~197K).
Ben – “Actual temperature ~197K “
Actual brightness temperature ~197K !!. The actual physical thermometer Tmean is unknown. Apollo thermometer data shows physical Tmean indicated somewhat higher from the Vasavada paper cited in this paper.
Trick:
If I understand correctly the 2014 paper by the authors, the 197.3 K average Moon temperature was actually calculated from output of the NASA TWO model (Vasavada et al. 2012), not directly from Diviner brightness temperature measurements, see:
http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723
The TWO model has been previously verified against Diviner equatorial data. Also, Vasavada et al. (2012) say that they’ve used a specific IR channel on Diviner to retrieve Moon surface temperatures that gives unbiased results. So, it seems like they made an effort to retrieve actual (physical) surface temperatures …
The authors of this paper say that Apollo temperature measurements come from the lunar subsurface, which is why they show higher values….
gbaikie says:
August 28, 2015 at 10:01 am
But air can and normally does warm with rising packets of air, which not movements of molecules but rather are a pattern of a transfer of kinetic energy.
Packets of air ( 10^9 molecules according to Fluid dynamics) don’t exist. There are only molecules, which correctly figure in the rest of your post.
What are “ patterns of a transfer of kinetic energy”. ?
Kinetic energy is carried and transferred by molecules in random motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
Ben Wouters wrote August 28, 2015 at 1:07 pm:
“Calculating the average temperature of an atmosphere-less planet at our distance from the sun that has one side continuously facing the sun (like the moon facing the earth) gives a much lower result. Depending on albedo ~150 – 160K. Using this number makes it pretty straightforward to explain the actual temperature of the moon.
Question should be: why is the average temperature of the earth (~290K) so much higher than that of the moon ( ~197K).”
Yes, I think this is a huge deal. Even the “measured” temperature from CERES (and probably others) is wrong because they average the Irradiance then calculate the overall temperature. For a half-illuminated sphere, the temperature would seem to depend upon the *distribution* of albedo, emissivity, and heat capacity over the surface. The rate of rotation is also important because it determines how much the night side can cool before being heated again.
Using values like 30% albedo uniformly distributed over the surface is also only correct for the uniformly illuminated Earth (actually it isn’t even flat, it needs to be concave facing the sun). For the sphere, the exact spatial distribution matters. If these factors contribute >100 K of warming, then even small (~1%) changes can explain what has been seen the last century.
I was hoping to get some criticism of my reasoning here but was unable to do so.
Blob: “I was hoping to get some criticism of my reasoning here but was unable to do so.”
Well Blob, there is little to criticize so far, but I see one. Your thoughts and questions are pretty much same here. That “33°C” you here so much about is not physical not even wrong. Apply that same math “logic” to any other thick atmosphere and it falls apart.
I took the time to perform your original integration as you described and I too, using a Monte Carlo numeric integration, come up with the same 145.4 K when using 1361 W/m2. But I see a hidden problem here since I did the same testing for Nickolov-Zeller when they released their method description and showing nearly the same. What I believe you have left out is the area weighting on the lit side or the fact that just taking the two cosines randomly you heavily weight all areas near the poles. If you just trivially take cos(lat)*cos(lon) and let lat and long randomly vary from -pi/2 to +pi/2 and then divide by two for the unlit side your distribution of the points are heavily weighted at the poles as seen from a fixed positioned “sun” energy source.
If I remember correct, you can correct this by using one of at least two different methods. One is to find a method to evenly distribute points randomly on a sphere. Wolfram’s site has such methods on line, some are easier than others. Then just do as you first wrote. The other is to take the lit hemisphere and break it into nearly infinitesimal areas, numerically integrate, don’t use Monte Carlo, and take the precise area and angle of each point into consideration.
What this does to your 145 K is to raise that to about 157.5 K once performed correctly if IIRC. 😉
Wayne wrote August 28, 2015 at 7:47 pm:
>”What I believe you have left out is the area weighting on the lit side or the fact that just taking the two cosines randomly you heavily weight all areas near the poles.”
Yes, I see what you mean. I agree, thank you.
>”That “33°C” you here so much about is not physical not even wrong. ”
I am thinking so as well. If you find my first post in this thread (August 27, 2015 at 7:22 pm), you will see the calculation leading to this is called an “algebra lesson” at skeptical science. Therefore it is supposedly not worth criticism.
I suspect this problem was not realized until recently. In that 1990 IPCC report I quoted, they say 255 K was measured from space, without citing a paper. Does anyone know a reliable source for how effective radiating temperature has been recently calculated? The one I used above from CERES is not the best.
–Roger Clague says:
August 28, 2015 at 5:33 pm
gbaikie says:
August 28, 2015 at 10:01 am
But air can and normally does warm with rising packets of air, which not movements of molecules but rather are a pattern of a transfer of kinetic energy.
Packets of air ( 10^9 molecules according to Fluid dynamics) don’t exist. There are only molecules, which correctly figure in the rest of your post.
What are “ patterns of a transfer of kinetic energy”. ?—
patterns of a transfer of kinetic energy would be descriptive of packet/parcel of air.
There isn’t a size of packet/parcel air, because they are NOT a bunch of molecule rising, instead they are a collisional patterns.which effects the air molecules motion and by making a packet of them denser or lighter. But it’s the pattern of kinetic energy affecting the gas molecule motion, which moves
not any specific molecule or group of molecules. Or when the gas molecules move, you have a wind,
And rising air packets can/could make wind, but they are not wind- updrafts, downdrafts, jet streams, etc. Nor are they some kind if mini wind or something. It’s about the energy moving not the molecules.
Or if air packets rise, there is no thing rising, and therefore no thing has to fall as a result.
JSadell 4:53pm – That’s a thoughtful post, thx.
This other paper Volokin 2014 is worthy of a top post all of its own if the blog proprietors here care to dig into the subject some more. It is in my memory that Tallbloke’s blog et. al. were discussing the moon’s brightness temperature = 197K way before April of 2014. These guys claim 1st in print:
“Equation (13) yielded Tmoon = 197.3 K. To our knowledge, this is the first physically robust estimate of the Moon’s true average global surface temperature reported in the scientific literature.”
Maybe not 1st on a blog. IIRC the original discussion of 197K came from digitizing and integrating the area under the curve of the Diviner brightness T vs. time to get Tmean:
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Don’t have time to quickly research that sleeping dog along with all the updated ref.s given; maybe it can be crowd sourced. I do remember trying to find the 197K in the literature some time ago and being unsuccessful.
——
wayne – Do you remember? Were you the one did the integration?
And what do you get for your 157.5K integration calculation when the moon’s S & albedo from Table 2 and emissivity=0.98 are input?
There are papers. Actually writing down radical numbers gets avoided, peers and all that. Long history of physics wobbling converging on values.
Near-Surface Temperatures on Mercury and the Moon and the Stability of Polar Ice Deposits
Click to access Vasavada-etal-1999-ice-mercury-moon.pdf
Or from 1961, includes tables of temperatures from various works.
adsabs
Stephen Wilde says:
August 28, 2015 at 7:57 am
“Rog:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
especially diagram 2″
Guest post by Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Giggle 🙂 Care to elucidate rather than hallucinate ?
I said : “Or if air packets rise, there is no thing rising, and therefore no thing has to fall as a result.”.
I should add that air packets also fall, and as consequence, no thing has to rise as result of air packet falling.
The evidence that air packets fall is there is wind that falls [downdrafts] which would be created
by falling air packets.
JSadell says: August 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm
“The TWO model has been previously verified against Diviner equatorial data. Also, Vasavada et al. (2012) say that they’ve used a specific IR channel on Diviner to retrieve Moon surface temperatures that gives unbiased results. So, it seems like they made an effort to retrieve actual (physical) surface temperatures …The authors of this paper say that Apollo temperature measurements come from the lunar subsurface, which is why they show higher values….”
By what means can you relate brightness temperature with thermometric temperature? Just what are your many many assumptions that allow such to be related? What allows anyone to even think that a radiance measurement indicates some value of thermometric temperature? Why should a model represent anything physical?
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 8:46 pm
“I am thinking so as well. If you find my first post in this thread (August 27, 2015 at 7:22 pm), you will see the calculation leading to this is called an “algebra lesson” at skeptical science. Therefore it is supposedly not worth criticism.
I suspect this problem was not realized until recently. In that 1990 IPCC report I quoted, they say 255 K was measured from space, without citing a paper. Does anyone know a reliable source for how effective radiating temperature has been recently calculated? The one I used above from CERES is not the best.”
A measurement of radiance in any waveband is never related to physical thermometric temperature! Brightness temperature of that waveband is the best you can do. JPL often uses spectral distribution to get a better temperature estimate and a value for combined emissivities.
Will – “By what means can you relate brightness temperature with thermometric temperature?’
My Ryobi IR002 is the means Will. Reads 212F pointed at the boiling painted tea kettle and 32F pointed at a clear glass of ice water.
Just like Diviner reads 197K when pointed at the moon. Except we don’t know the thermometric temperature of the moon yet, its emissivity is a bit more complicated having so much diffracting, polarizing, frequency interval dependent powder on the surface. Easy to confuse my Ryobi too, by pointing it at say shiny pots and pans, so it is easy to confuse Diviner a bit as the Apollo data seems to indicate.
MESSENGER may be a bit confused as may New Horizons but they will still provide some reasonable useful data. Unlike Will, who while never thinks he’s confused, is only sometimes right.
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 2:49 am
(Will – “Trick: Could you please reference one book that correctly describes atmospheric radiation, From the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations, rather than some fantasy thermodynamic concept?”)
Not even one book can troll trick even name!
Cliff Truesdell “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854” Never even mentions atmospheric radiation.
“The Maxwellian approach to atmospheric scattering is, as Will knows when sober, by way of continuum electromagnetic theory: reflected and refracted waves satisfy the partial differential equations of the electromagnetic field. This approach comes to grips with the nature of light but not of matter, which is treated as continuous. So the Maxwellian approach lacks a certain rigor Will.”
Electromagnetic radiation requires no matter! Field theory is completely rigorous as is flux!
“If Will wants that rigor, I suggest going full monty with the quantum electrodynamic method, an approach that fully recognizes the discreteness of both matter and radiation fields but is, alas, even more difficult to apply than Maxwell’s eqn.s except for very simple systems, you know like the hydrogen atom.”
OK, might be fun watching you again stomp on you tongue, but to check if you have a clue to QED:
1) Is EMR flux quantized? Why?
2) If quantized, is each quantum called a photon?
3) In what way does QED falsify Willis Echenbach’s description of what his steel greenhouse does via radiative flux?
Trick says: August 29, 2015 at 12:48 am
(Will – “By what means can you relate brightness temperature with thermometric temperature?”)
“My Ryobi IR002 is the means Will. Reads 212F pointed at the boiling painted tea kettle and 32F pointed at a clear glass of ice water.”
Really? you claim to have done both yourself? What are the error bars? What were the thermometric temperatures?
———————————————————————————————————————————–
OPERATION NOTE:
Temperature readings can only be measured on a target surface.
n Place the unit less than two (2) feet from the item you wish to read.
n Accuracy of readings is plus ( + ) or minus ( – )5°C of the actual temperature, assuming ambient temperature of 25 + / – 1ºC.
n Readings at distances greater than two (2) feet may be less accurate due to external light sources, surrounding air temperature and reading of larger surface areas not intended to be measured.
n Cleaner surfaces will give more accurate readings.
n Allow 10-15 minutes to adjust to extreme temperature changes when testing an item or area out of the operating range 32 ̊F to 122 ̊F (0 ̊C to 50 ̊C
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Yep that’s the one to use, for determining surface temperature of 0.3 ̊C per decade!!! Don’t forget to clean the earth’s surface before measuring! 🙂 What a goof!
Will – Trying to discuss the top post paper here; if it only was about EMR and no matter, what would there be to discuss? Empty space? Your plans for dinner tonight? Maxwellian field theory is not completely rigorous as treats matter as continuous (hint: matter consists of discrete electric charges Will) & QED is under study at the moment, write to CERN.
If you don’t think Cliff. T. mentions atmospheric radiation in the book, then I suggest you obtain and read the book. Don’t be off put by the symbols, they signify stuff shorthand. Amazon.com has all the books, I am but a customer. Check with them for the book that meets your standards. Let me know. I’ll actually get it.
1. Light is discrete, an oscillating EM field which can excite the discrete charges in matter to oscillate. Skip continuum EM field theory (Maxwell eqn.s) go directly to fully discrete QED theory in the test based book of your choice to answer “Why?”.
2. Just check the dictionary meaning of discrete. A photon is always very discrete.
3. Willis’ steel greenhouse is non-Planckian as it radiates to itself. Since he used Planck’s law, he disregarded lawful limitations Planck set forth. An example of error propagation I mentioned. Use the approach I recommended for your answer: “For me, I am going with the empirical approach which arrives at the laws with purely geometrical statements about what is observed, and a discreet silence is maintained about the underlying causes (always a safe route).” So build one. Set Willis straight.
——
Error bars? Couple tenths degree F. out of 212. Always adjusts in a few seconds, matches my Weber digital thermometer CI readouts. Try it, use the approach I recommend. Measuring the earth and lunar surface with a Ryobi IR002? What a goof! Better to use CERES and Diviner.
–OK, might be fun watching you again stomp on you tongue, but to check if you have a clue to QED:
1) Is EMR flux quantized? Why?
2) If quantized, is each quantum called a photon?
3) In what way does QED falsify Willis Echenbach’s description of what his steel greenhouse does via radiative flux?–
1 because electron jump rather than skate.
2 yes, I suppose.
3 Willis does not allow for conduction losses- steel conducts fairly well.
Or there would be a significant difference between a thick brick greenhouse and a steel greenhouse.
And I wait for my score. Or the correct answers.
It is disappointing that people still talk about the 33 Kelvin warming that Earth’s atmosphere (allegedly) brings about. This is based on the idea that Earth’s average temperature is 288 Kelvin compared to 255 Kelvin “Sans Atmosphere”.
Tim Channon and many others (including this camel) have shown that the 255 Kelvin figure is not even close to being correct. A better estimate would be 197 Kelvin:
Consensus scientists can’t explain the 33 Kelvin warming due to the atmosphere in terms of [CO2] so don’t expect them to even try to explain 288 – 197 = 91 Kelvin of warming.
Theories based on thermodynamics that include convection, conduction and radiative heat transfer processes can explain the temperature at any altitude in a planet’s (or a moon’s) atmosphere;
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html
gbaikie says: August 29, 2015 at 3:24 am
(“–OK, might be fun watching you again stomp on you tongue, but to check if you have a clue to QED:
1) Is EMR flux quantized? Why?
2) If quantized, is each quantum called a photon?
3) In what way does QED falsify Willis Echenbach’s description of what his steel greenhouse does via radiative flux?–”)
“1 because electron jump rather than skate.
2 yes, I suppose.
3 Willis does not allow for conduction losses- steel conducts fairly well.
Or there would be a significant difference between a thick brick greenhouse and a steel greenhouse.
And I wait for my score. Or the correct answers.”
1) EMR flux is quantized as per Planck’s constant (h), the ‘energy’ of each EMR cycle! An EM field is time cyclic in two orthogonal directions with flux always proceeding in the third orthogonal direction (cross product of the E and H fields. Without the cyclic no EM field at all. Part of a cycle cannot be expressed as flux.
2) A photon is the expression of molecular action upon absorbing a work function of ‘action’. Energy absorbed within a 4D volume (Joule seconds/m^3)! that amount is proportional frequency (1/t). In the case of Einstein’s photoelectric effect, the emission of an electron from nickel, requires wavelength less than 0.7 micron. Most conversion to sensible heat has a much lower work function, and is presentable at much longer wavelengths.
3) The numerical value from Willis’ SGH thought experiment is correct. The error is in the claim of flux proportional to T^4 of the emitter and his back radiation. EM fields are similar to gravity only as they both are projective 1/R^2. Where gravitational field interactions are multiplicative (m1 x m2), EM field interaction is vector additive. For opposing fields subtractive.
For thermal EMR the maximum possible unidirectional flux is (Ta^4 – Tb^4) with the direction set by the resulting sign. Always unidirectional, spontaneous, and in a direction towards the lower temperature! Thermal flux ‘can’ be bidirectional using different frequencies and temperatures. Highly irregular for a surfaces each with a temperature. Welcome to actual QED!
All the best! -will-
gallopingcamel says: August 29, 2015 at 5:11 am
“Theories based on thermodynamics that include convection, conduction and radiative heat transfer processes can explain the temperature at any altitude in a planet’s (or a moon’s) atmosphere;”
Whoops! Need gravitational force, gas species, rotation rate, and axial tilt. Cannot do that for atmospheres with phase change constituent parts, especially if multiple phases are present, some not even a gas! Earth! Much more needs to be known! This Earth has a fine thermal control system that earthlings may be able to screw up with wind farms!! The temperature of our stratosphere is highly dependent of gas species. Not really enough heat up there to worry much though. What is the possible use of a global temperature, except to try and scare folk, for profit?
All the best! -will-
Roger Clague says: August 28, 2015 at 5:33 pm
“Packets of air ( 10^9 molecules according to Fluid dynamics) don’t exist. There are only molecules, which correctly figure in the rest of your post. What are “ patterns of a transfer of kinetic energy”.?”
The airborne water colloids (clouds, ice) have deformable structure. The smallest visible ones have approximately 10^9 H2O molecules held together by hydrogen bonds. of course not gas, but not liquid either. These are recognized by FD as air particles (aerosols) in this atmosphere.
“Kinetic energy is carried and transferred by molecules in random motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory ”
Your Wiki article has huge holes in it for an atmosphere. There it claims ‘pressure’ is caused by molecules clanging into and bouncing off the walls of the container, while temperature (T)is proportional to the mean squared velocity of the molecules, linear kinetic energy. Within a fixed volume this can give the correct numerical result for pressure and KE and temperature.
However this is a fatal error for atmospheres. All Newtonian kinetic energy can be precisely expressed by ‘his’ definition: ‘the time derivative of momentum’ KE = d(mv)/dt, not necessarily = (mv^2)/2). With the atmosphere there is only one wall the surface. In this atmosphere, KE = mean momuntum (mv) divided mean free path MFP or molar density (mv)/rho. Each inter-molecule interception results in change in momentum spread over the degrees of freedom of each molecule.
As The Earth’s surface only affects pressure for molecules less than a mean free path from it, the effect is negligible. As with the Wiki article the pressure is the same, the volume went down to MFP^3. for an atmosphere, then KE = P/rho = RT. Thermodynamic KE does go down, with altitude. This is the PV side of the claimed internal energy. No work is done, Wasn’t that easy?
All the best! -will-
gallopingcamel – An Earth w/oceans and optically thin enough atm. scenario find GMAT = 256.4K per this paper Table 4 eqn. (3).
An “airless” Earth, no oceans with regolith same as moon scenario find brightness GMAT = 197.0K Table 4 Eqn. (4c).
Table 2 Observed Ts=287.4 so GTE can be around 31K or brightness GTE 90K depending on scenario. It is only disappointing when posters are not specific in their scenario choice.
With gallopingcamel’s links found this in a few minutes from 3/28/2012 tallbloke:
“Well, at least I was right about one thing; the empirical data is the most important. I’ve just had an update via email to say the latest empirical estimate of mean temperature for the Moon is 192-197K.”
Cutting edge blog science indeed.
Repeating the top post claim which might be technically correct 1st in print April 2014 for moon’s brightness temperature:
“Equation (13) yielded Tmoon = 197.3 K. To our knowledge, this is the first physically robust estimate of the Moon’s true average global surface temperature reported in the scientific literature.”
Will says: “However this is a fatal error for atmospheres. All Newtonian kinetic energy can be precisely expressed by ‘his’ definition: ‘the time derivative of momentum’ KE = d(mv)/dt, not necessarily = (mv^2)/2). ”
Really? So Will, how do explain that the units are not even correct in what you just stated? Is not force (F) the time derivative momentum? Getting a bit rusty?
And this is not really correct either: “KE = P/rho = RT”
What’s accepted as correct is these units [J/kg] = [m²/s²] and KE/mass = P/ρ = RT = v²/3. Called the ideal gas law in one of it’s many different configurations it can take. Or are you, just like SW, redefining science and thermodynamics to fit your viewpoint? Like SW, I read you stream of science words but they make no sense.
Will Janoschka says:
“Whoops! Need gravitational force, gas species, rotation rate, and axial tilt. Cannot do that for atmospheres with phase change constituent parts, especially if multiple phases are present, some not even a gas! Earth! Much more needs to be known!”
Amen to all that. Besides thermodynamics and radiative energy transfer the Robinson & Catling model includes gravity (Duh!) and gas species. Rotation rate and axial tilt were not included. Liquid to gas phase changes were included indirectly by inserting “Alpha” (an arbitrary constant representing the wet/dry adiabat ratio).
I have been trying to improve on the R&C model using Finite Element Analysis by introducing multiple cloud layers. Nothing useful achieved to date owing to pressure of work (the kind I get paid to do).
Most of the various lunar models presented at Tallbloke are capable of computing the effect of rotation rate and axial tilt. For example, my lunar model showed that average temperature rises as the rate of rotation increases:
We already have models that accurately predict the average temperature of airless bodies and all seven bodies in the solar system with significant atmospheres. Those models could be further refined as you suggest but “Consensus Scientists” will continue to claim that [CO2] trumps everything even though their theory can’t explain observations or make useful predictions.
gallopingcamel says: August 29, 2015 at 8:03 pm
“Amen to all that. Besides thermodynamics and radiative energy transfer the Robinson & Catling model includes gravity (Duh!) and gas species. Rotation rate and axial tilt were not included. Liquid to gas phase changes were included indirectly by inserting “Alpha” (an arbitrary constant representing the wet/dry adiabat ratio).”
Thank you Peter!
Alpha will not cut it. There is absolutely no adiabat anywhere in Earth’s atmosphere. A fantasy. There is always constant mixing of gas molecules with their heat, especially with any relative mas motion (shear).
We must have some actual measurement of continuous evaporation of airborne water condensate (clouds, overcast, fog, etc.) via insolation to WV at the rate of 2400 J/g. Then the removal at the night time conversion back to condensate (no precipitation to the surface), powering major atmospheric EMR exitance to space. For this, no atmospheric temperature change is required. There is 2.8 cm of airborne water. Only 3 mm is daily precipitation to the surface. Without a determination of this major power transfer from insolation to space, no conversion of power to temperature has any meaning whatsoever! 😦
“I have been trying to improve on the R&C model using Finite Element Analysis by introducing multiple cloud layers. Nothing useful achieved to date owing to pressure of work (the kind I get paid to do).”
Thank you, for your continuing effort!
“Most of the various lunar models presented at Tallbloke are capable of computing the effect of rotation rate and axial tilt. For example, my lunar model showed that average temperature rises as the rate of rotation increases:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/ ”
Yes I’ve noticed! Nice for airless or atmospheres not containing multiple phases of matter. That ain’t Earth!! I’ve not commented as I have no dispute as how EMR is handled!
“We already have models that accurately predict the average temperature of airless bodies and all seven bodies in the solar system with significant atmospheres. Those models could be further refined as you suggest but “Consensus Scientists” will continue to claim that [CO2] trumps everything even though their theory can’t explain observations or make useful predictions.”
So far the “Consensus Scientists” exhibit no absolutely competence in understanding this atmosphere.
All the best! -will-
wayne says: August 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm
(Will says: “However this is a fatal error for atmospheres. All Newtonian kinetic energy can be precisely expressed by ‘his’ definition: ‘the time derivative of momentum’ KE = d(mv)/dt, not necessarily = (mv^2)/2). ”)
“Really? So Will, how do explain that the units are not even correct in what you just stated? Is not force (F) ? Getting a bit rusty?”
Thank you Wayne,
Seems no one else even tries to understand. Which one of us is getting a bit rusty? F is not necessarily the time derivative momentum. Force is a vector. Such vector cannot be applied to the aggregate of randomly moving molecules (moles). Some other explanation must be given for the KE of this atmosphere.
“And this is not really correct either: “KE = P/rho = RT””
The expression is dimensionally correct for any number of molecules of gas. If you must, please write KE/mole! I am trying to make this understandable to chemists with their IGL. It ‘must’ be correct there also.
“What’s accepted as correct is these units [J/kg] = [m²/s²] and KE/mass = P/ρ = RT = v²/3. Called the ideal gas law in one of it’s many different configurations it can take.”
Or v²/5, or v²/6, depending on species of gas, which you used to be interested in!
When neither Pressure nor Volume is constrained (atmosphere) the relationship to RMS velocity or mean square velocity does not cut it. It it needs to be (RMS momentum or velocity for moles)/t. Looks like v² but is instead, v x time rate of collisions/intercepts for that number of molecules. If that number of molecules expands, the rate of collisions go down reducing temperature without changing velocity at all. Temperature still proportional to real KE, but not v²/3, the linear form of KE. I think such clarification is way overdue. This is not JT cooling. Must happen even with (He)!
“Or are you, just like SW, redefining science and thermodynamics to fit your viewpoint? Like SW, I read you stream of science words but they make no sense.”
OK I have many other explanations for the same thing. I am trying “only” to correct a minor confusion with the kinetic theory of gas, with the most minimum change required. (m)v²/2 is not the kinetic energy of random motion. The banging into, and delta mv, controls temperature.
The insult was not necessary! Just ask!
All the best! -will-
wayne says: August 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm
(‘lots **’)
wj: “It it needs to be (RMS momentum or velocity for moles)/t.” No! Sorry Wayne! should be
(mean free path)/t. looks like velocity call that (b)! Has to do with PV force x distance.
It it needs to be (RMS momentum or velocity for moles) x b (l^2/t^2, your, v². This has me on my back trying to understand the bottom of the table!
Re banging into and change mv, Will: Thanks, that may settle a question in my mind from when we started this gas laws rule! stuff, a few years and tears ago.
Brett Keane says: August 30, 2015 at 10:17 am
“Re banging into and change mv, Will: Thanks, that may settle a question in my mind from when we started this gas laws rule! stuff, a few years and tears ago.”
To get a concept: Long vacuum tube few atoms moving only parallel to the tube axis with the same velocity. Each bang at the ends if the tube is a 2mv momentum change. Shorten the tube while no atoms banging, no work on the gas. Both the pressure and temperature go up, only because volume decreased along with density increasing. Just like atmospheric mass descending, still no work. Atom velocity stayed constant, but appears to increase as per v²/2. The kinetic gas equations give the correct answer for T and P, but for the wrong reasons. Prolly wrong interpretation of internal energy (U) also. This gets you into fantasy air parcels and adiabatic atmospheric motion, never happens! Monumental incompetence at NOAA!
All the best! -will-
Will: “I am trying “only” to correct a minor confusion with the kinetic theory of gas”
Will, to me, I can now tell that you do not know what you are speaking of and have never tried to work your thoughts through the math. That is because of some of the statements you are using.
The “3” in the v²/3 is because we live in a three dimensional world, not 2 dimensional, and definitely not 5 or 6 dimensional…. just three. So your commment of v²/5 and v²/6 has no base.
I can see that equation that I gave you threw you so here a little example.
Energy mass density, [J/kg] = P/ρ = Rs·T = v²/3.
Let’s look at 3 vertical points on oldbrew’s 76 Standard Atmosphere [http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/tableatmosphere.htm] or many others to check my figures below, and if you want some other examples from literal radiosonde measurements at various altitudes, look one up and give me the altitude’s P and T that they measured.
At sea level, h=0, you rearrange the part Rs·T = v²/3.
3·Rs·T = v²
v² = 3·Rs·T
v.rms = √(3·Rs·T)
so at 0 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 288.15) = 498.1 m/s, correct.
and at 6000 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 249.15) = 463.2 m/s, correct.
and at 11000 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 216.65) = 431.9 m/s, correct.
You can do the same using pressure and density via:
3·P/ρ = v²
v² = 3·P/ρ
rms v = √(3·P/ρ)
that gives the same answers but of course you have to first get the density via ρ=P/(Rs·T).
Your concept that the rms velocities stay constant and the number of “collisions” or bang rate is not correct that I can see. You can use those same numbers above to get the mean-free-path and the collision-rate but that is just a rough estimate because the exact cross section of each species molecules and atoms are not know to that kind of precision. And besides, to me, by your method you are not going to come up with constantl rms velocities.
You can take a very similar equation to the rms v and apply the heat capacity ratio to get the speed of sound (“a”) equals a= √(γ·Rs·T) instead of √(3·Rs·T):
so at 0 meters, a = √(1.4 · 287.05 · 288.15) = 340.3 m/s, correct.
and at 6000 meters, a = √(1.4 · 287.05 · 249.15) = 316.4 m/s, correct.
and at 11000 meters, a = √(1.4 · 287.05 · 216.65) = 295.1 m/s, correct.
The speed of sound, as stated by a commenter above, can be used as the starting point and by working this series backwards and given either the pressure or temperature and the speed of sound extract all of the other parameters at any point within our atmosphere within tolerances.
If you want to prove your point Will, you are going to have to do it with some real equations and some real numeric examples, sorry, math is the language of these branches of science, not just conjectures and streams of words.
I showed you in math why I seem to be correct and if you still believe that you are also correct… please show us… in math.
wayne says: August 30, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Will: “I am trying “only” to correct a minor confusion with the kinetic theory of gas”
“Will, to me, I can now tell that you do not know what you are speaking of and have never tried to work your thoughts through the math. That is because of some of the statements you are using.”
I am not writing of the math. The Math can give you a mathematically correct value, with absolutely no understanding of the symbols used in the abstract, symbolic algebra. You use the symbol v²/3, Then call that “energy mass density”, another abstract symbol, just as though that v² had some physical significance. Your v² or even mv²/2, so called linear kinetic energy has absolutely no physical expression in this atmosphere. In this atmosphere there is a rms v of molecules and a v of sound. the velocity of sound must include the insentropic exponent, of 1.4 for diatomic gas, the ratio P/rho.
“The “3” in the v²/3 is because we live in a three dimensional world, not 2 dimensional, and definitely not 5 or 6 dimensional…. just three. So your comment of v²/5 and v²/6 has no base.”
“Yes, we live in a stupid three dimensional intellect. This is way different than molecules expressing more than 3 degrees of freedom.” Please retract your insult of “no base”!
“I can see that equation that I gave you threw you so here a little example.
Energy mass density, [J/kg] = P/ρ = Rs·T = v²/3.”
“Let’s look at 3 vertical points on oldbrew’s 76 Standard Atmosphere [http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/tableatmosphere.htm] or many others to check my figures below, and if you want some other examples from literal radiosonde measurements at various altitudes, look one up and give me the altitude’s P and T that they measured.”
OK, P, T, rho, and altitude of this atmosphere are related. I agree, I disagree with your claim that the ‘first’ symbolic algebra expression that gives numerically correct results, accurately represents this physical.
Such is a fantasy!
“At sea level, h=0, you rearrange the part Rs·T = v²/3.”
3·Rs·T = v²–v² = 3·Rs·T–v.rms = √(3·Rs·T)
so at 0 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 288.15) = 498.1 m/s, correct.”
Can you please demonstrate that this physically is the v.rms of atmospheric molecules? A fantasy!
“and at 6000 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 249.15) = 463.2 m/s, correct.”
Can you please demonstrate that this physically is the v.rms of atmospheric molecules? A fantasy!
“and at 11000 meters, v.rms = √(3 · 287.05 · 216.65) = 431.9 m/s, correct.”
Can you please demonstrate that this physically is the v.rms of atmospheric molecules? A fantasy!
Would you please compare the rms velocity of H2 molecules v.s. N2 molecules under the same conditions of temperature, pressure, and molecular density? Do you notice the problem?
The mv is correct. The Ke = mv²/2 and proportional to temperature is way off! Ke and proportional to temperature = mv x “other” distance/time. Known as P/rho. Gas Ke is proportional to temperature, it is not proportional to some “measurable” mv²/2. This ‘nuevo physics’ intentional corruption of understanding via symbolic algebra, is very similar to meteorological ‘air parcels’. They are both fantasy!
The creation of such fantasy is only because some academic attempted to appear competent! Such is ‘science’ for the last 70 years.
“If you want to prove your point Will”
My only point, with no desire to prove, is that the West has been systematically corrupted to the point that symbolic algebra “is” the physical. Such algebra is but some compact expression of “concepts” about this physical, with absolutely no confirmation or evidence.
“you are going to have to do it with some real equations and some real numeric examples, sorry, math is the language of these branches of science, not just conjectures and streams of words.I showed you in math why I seem to be correct and if you still believe that you are also correct… please show us… in math.”
I refuse to participate in your promulgation of the BS, that symbolic algebra is physical! We have an earthling attempt to understand the physical meaning of such symbols, and discourse between earthlings trying to understand. Your approach Wayne, reduces Humans to bits in a computer. I am not impressed. See my reply to Brett above.
Academic physical science is now but rote brainwashing of innocent children, into symbolic formula that give answers, with no understanding. I must await the expression of the detailed workings of a Kubota 3 cylinder diesel, into statistical mechanics, equipartition theory, and the kinetic theory of gas. You have been so damned SCAMMED!
All the best! -will-
“the grand unified theory is compact and elegant in mathematical terms”
INDEED. This theory is most destructive for any understanding of this “is or physical”. It is but a complete mathematical fantasy. Always intended to deceive or frustrate any understanding by some or all of the serfs! This is WAR. 🙂
Trick says: August 28, 2015 at 2:50 pm
“Actual brightness temperature ~197K !!. The actual physical thermometer Tmean is unknown. Apollo thermometer data shows physical Tmean indicated somewhat higher from the Vasavada paper cited in this paper.”
OK, but the average actual surface temperature will be pretty close to this number.
Whether this temperature turns out to be 190K or 200K, it is nowhere near the 270K Effective temperature for the moon, calculated in the same way as the infamous 255K.
Blob says: August 28, 2015 at 6:37 pm
” For a half-illuminated sphere, the temperature would seem to depend upon the *distribution* of albedo, emissivity, and heat capacity over the surface. The rate of rotation is also important because it determines how much the night side can cool before being heated again.”
With one rotation per orbit as the base case, the other end of the spectrum would be one rotation per second. This would distribute incoming solar evenly over each latitude. The difference between equator and poles still would give an average temperature well below the Effective Temperature. (255K for Earth, 270K for the moon).
To me the heat capacity is the most important factor. On the moon the sun only warms a thin layer of the surface, giving behavior pretty close to expected grey body temperatures.
On earth we have oceans, which the sun warms to considerable depth. Think in J/s/m^2 and how deep the sun penetrates the oceans. And how much these oceans cool during the night.
On earth surface emissivity seems irrelevant, since only a small percentage of the outgoing radiation is coming directly from the surface.
I am aghast at the general quality and irrelevance (with a few notable exceptions) of the comments above. The peer-reviewed paper under consideration has been largely ignored by the commentators; or, where it had been briefly referred to, has been summarily dismissed (and in some cases abused) by armchair ‘experts’, many of whom show no sign at all of having read it.
Yet the paper, which is exquisitely well presented and remarkably comprehensive, provides a significantly expanded empirical confirmation of Harry Dale Huffman’s original discovery, namely that the temperature at any given pressure level in the Earth’s troposphere matches to a remarkable degree the temperature at the corresponding pressure level in the Venus atmosphere (after scaling to account for the different planetary insolations). This discovery of Huffman’s is despite the fact that the two planets have markedly different bond albedos (Earth 0.37; Venus 0.65); and dramatically different atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Earth 0.04%; Venus 96.5%) and so very strongly suggests that tropospheric temperatures do NOT depend on albedo and do NOT depend on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Following on from Harry’s original discovery, this current peer-reviewed paper now presents further strong empirical evidence that neither albedo nor atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to have any influence on the tropospheric temperature profiles of SIX celestial bodies, including Earth and Venus.
Yet the view held here is, apparently, that amateur theorisings, many from anonymous people, must obviously triumph over the paper’s empirically based conclusions, which can therefore be dismissed out of hand without any attempt at analysis.
What a farce!
Ben – “OK, but the average actual surface temperature will be pretty close to this number.”
The sparse Apollo measured data indicates otherwise, the regolith thermometer temperature could be well above 197K. The effects of actual emissivty, diffraction, polarization, frequency interval, non-isotropy, depth could well be substantial.
“..it is nowhere near the 270K Effective temperature..”
Your arguments backing this assertion are…? There are lab tests of Apollo lunar regolith showing its emissivity on the order of 0.7 and less with substantial view angle variablity.
David – “..very strongly suggests that tropospheric temperatures do NOT depend on albedo and do NOT depend on atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
THAT would be news. The effects of Venus albedo, composition are carried into Harry’s formula in the density measurements by NASA that Harry cites. Once those measurements were known, NASA and Harry simply used P=density*R*T to find T from pressure at various levels. Harry’s ratioing (T_Venus/1.176) by the brightness temperature (“radiating temperature”) for orbits to compare T_Earth shows the gas law also works for 1bar et. al. P on Venus & should not be news.
“..paper now presents further strong empirical evidence that neither albedo nor atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to have any influence on the tropospheric temperature profiles…”
This “news” is not in the conclusion of the paper either, which does include albedo, surface emissivity and the statement that their dimensional analysis included: “solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables and two temperature ratios as dependent variables.”
I am similarly aghast at some comments.
Will Janoschka says:
August 31, 2015 at 3:28 am
Can you please demonstrate that this physically is the v.rms of atmospheric molecules?
This is a fair question. How can I measure the velocity of a molecule?
http://www.britannica.com/science/gas-state-of-matter
The average time between collisions of molecules is 10^-10s.
So directly measuring the velocity of a single molecule is not practical. This is why Maxwell and Boltzmann invented statistical mechanics.
We are still calculating, indirectly, everyday concepts like, velocity, distance travelled, density, and time between collisions.
My only point, with no desire to prove, is that the West has been systematically corrupted to the point that symbolic algebra “is” the physical. Such algebra is but some compact expression of “concepts” about this physical, with absolutely no confirmation or evidence.
The theoretical concept of Kinetic Theory of gas is the molecule. Interaction between them is according to Newtons Laws of Motion. Both have a long successful history of confirmation.
Roger Clague says: August 31, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Will Janoschka says: August 31, 2015 at 3:28 am
(‘Can you please demonstrate that this physically is the v.rms of atmospheric molecules?’)
“This is a fair question. How can I measure the velocity of a molecule?”
We cannot nuevo science claims v.rms is sqrt v² from mv²/2 molecular KE. This is but one expression for the proportionality of T to KE , and the wrong one for any atmosphere.m
“We are still calculating, indirectly, everyday concepts like, velocity, distance travelled, density, and time between collisions.”
Indeed. we calculate to get results, a value, however this calculated v.rms, has no meaning in this atmosphere. It is an illusion, a fantasy, like air parcels!
(‘My only point, with no desire to prove, is that the West has been systematically corrupted to the point that symbolic algebra “is” the physical. Such algebra is but some compact expression of “concepts” about this physical, with absolutely no confirmation or evidence.’)
Just for you Roger!
The molar volume of STP atmosphere is 22.4 litres at 0 Celsius and 101.3 kPa. What is the molar volume of atmosphere is at 10 Celsius and 101.3 kPa?
I only claim that the increase in molar volume at constant pressure, indicates an increase in MFP, or increase in time between collisions at constant v.rms. This ‘other’ change(density) for atmospheres also changes KE per molecule. QED v.rms alone, cannot ‘explain’ the actual KE or temperature of this atmosphere!
(‘If that number of molecules expands, the rate of collisions go down reducing temperature without changing velocity at all. Temperature still proportional to real KE, but not v²/3, the linear form of KE. I think such clarification is way overdue.’)
“The theoretical concept of Kinetic Theory of gas is the molecule. Interaction between them is according to Newtons Laws of Motion. Both have a long successful history of confirmation.”
The values expressed by this theory do have long history of confirmation. If what you wish are formula values! This theory, expressing all as molecular velocity (v.rms), with no consideration of MFP (rate of change in momentum), truly obstructs any understanding of how an atmosphere is, or acts. The theoretical concept of the Kinetic theory of gas “as currently expressed”, leads to all sorts of nonsense, like work being done on something, as a mass of atmosphere changes location within the same atmosphere. Satellites and planets change distance from their primary, with no work. Molecules within an atmosphere, likewise change altitude with no work! Think about it.
All the best! -will-
David Cosserat said:
“I am aghast at the general quality and irrelevance (with a few notable exceptions) of the comments above. The peer-reviewed paper under consideration has been largely ignored by the commentators; or, where it had been briefly referred to, has been summarily dismissed (and in some cases abused) by armchair ‘experts’, many of whom show no sign at all of having read it.”
In our off-line correspondence we have generally been in agreement yet I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism on this occasion.
While Will Janoshka does not believe in adiabats (wet, dry, or in between) he seems to accept that the work of Robinson and Catling correctly predicts the temperature gradients in all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres. The R&C model works from the planetary surface, through the troposphere, through the tropopause and on to the top of the stratosphere.
The only body that defeated Robinson & Catling is Mars. Hopefully they will eventually cough up a paper explaining what is going on there.
R&C are not afraid to communicate with the great unwashed (in sharp contrast with the litigious Michael Mann). They even provide access to their code so amateurs like me can reproduce their work:
GC: “The only body that defeated Robinson & Catling is Mars.”
Probably because Mars doesn’t have a troposphere as such. The stratosphere extends from the surface.
DC: “very strongly suggests that tropospheric temperatures do NOT depend on albedo and do NOT depend on atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
The paper deals with surface temperatures, not so much vertical profiles. However, we know that environmental lapse rates on planets with atmospheres bear some similarities.
“strong empirical evidence that neither albedo nor atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to have any influence on the tropospheric temperature profiles”
What empirical evidence in the paper are you referring to? Subsidence, which largely defines the height of the tropospheres, doesn’t get a mention at all.
TB,
Yes, you are correct that the paper itself only deals with surface temperatures. I should have said that the paper “strongly suggest TO ME that neither albedo nor atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to have any influence on the tropospheric temperature profiles”.
If the paper is correct in claiming that CO2 is not a determinant of near surface temperatures then it seems obvious that (for those planets having a significant tropospheric lapse rates) the temperatures at all heights z will also not be determined by CO2 concentration but only by their atmospheric specific heats, according to the standard lapse rate g/Cp formula on which the International Standard Atmosphere data is based.
David – “If the paper is correct claiming that CO2 is not a determinant of near surface temperatures..”
The paper doesn’t claim that or quote the actual page/paragraph.
What the paper does claim in conclusions p. 43 their analysis consisted of: “solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables and two temperature ratios as dependent variables….across a broad sprectum of atmosphere conditions and radiative regimes..”. The graph in top post shows specific Tna entry point calculated from applicable moon albedo, emissivity knowing the GMAT brightness temperature from Diviner ~197K.
Trick says, September 1, 2015 at 3:49 pm: David – “If the paper is correct claiming that CO2 is not a determinant of near surface temperatures..” The paper doesn’t claim that or quote the actual page/paragraph.
Trick, See Section 5 Conclusions, on page 30 where they say:
Our analysis revealed that the mean annual air surface temperature of rocky planets can reliably be estimated across a broad spectrum of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: TOA stellar irradiance and average surface atmospheric pressure.
@David C: Yes, but….
Both you and trick are being selective in your quotes. The authors also say that their two factor discovery may be an over-arching ‘physical law’ that nonetheless involves the other constituent elements of the climate systems; such as radiatively active gases, albedo, etc, which necessarily net-out to their two factor result.
Abstract:
“Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets
can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only
using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric
pressure. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic
relationship”
Section 4:
“Eq. (10a) describes an
emergent macro-level property of planetary atmospheres representing the net result of myriad
process interactions and feedbacks in real climate systems that are not readily estimable by
‘bottom-up’ mechanistic approaches”
Well, this would be why:
Click to access mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium
profile could be unstable;
convection restores it
to stability (or neutrality)”
For an atmosphere suspended off a surface against the force of gravity in hydrostatic balance the average effective radiating height would be at the centre of mass.
However, there are many varied atmospheric constituents that have radiative capability and there is no reason why each should not have its own discrete effective radiating height.
Nonetheless, if an atmosphere is to be retained the average effective radiating height must be at the centre of mass.
That implies that if one atmospheric constituent changes in quantity then any change in its effective radiating height must be offset by an equal and opposite change in the effective radiating height of one or more of the other atmospheric constituents.
In my humble opinion any radiative capability off the surface must reduce surface radiation to space so that any changes in the radiative capability of atmospheric constituents simply swap thermal effects between themselves or with the surface to retain atmospheric equilibrium.
Changes in convection are the mechanism whereby the effective radiative heights of individual atmospheric constituents negate or neutralise any radiative imbalances caused by those constituents:
Click to access mae578_lecture_06.pdf
The result is that surface temperatures below atmospheres and the average temperature at every height off the surface can be calculated simply by reference to top of atmosphere insolation and surface atmospheric pressure caused by atmospheric mass subjected to the force of gravity.
That seems to accord with observation of the various planetary atmospheres that have been investigated to date.
Stephen W: “Nonetheless, if an atmosphere is to be retained the average effective radiating height must be at the centre of mass.”
Sounds like you’re in accord with MS at Hockey Schtick with that statement? At what altitude is the ‘centre of mass’ of Earth’s atmosphere? What is the temperature there?
Ok David, I take from that you couldn’t find page/paragraph supporting your claim the paper says CO2 is not a determinate of near surface planet with atm. temperature. Your clip “reliably be estimated across a broad spectrum of atmospheric conditions” means across Venus, Mars, Earth et. al. atmospheres all with CO2 et. al. gas partial pressure, effects of which included by their analysis.
——
Stephen: “if an atmosphere is to be retained the average effective radiating height must be at the centre of mass.”
Mars and Venus atm.s center of mass each is far from their effective radiating height. Yet those atmospheres have been around awhile. The conclusion you imagine is not observed.
I’m not so sure of the centre of mass aspect.
If there is no radiative capability in an atmosphere the radiation to space all comes from the surface yet the atmosphere remains in hydrostatic balance.
Earth’s surface would still be at 288K and 255K would still get out to space but it would all be coming from the surface so the effective radiating height would be the surface and not the centre of mass.
I think the answer lies in separating the effective radiating height from the processes of conduction and convection such that the mass of the atmosphere is supported by conduction and convection with only the surplus radiating out.
Radiative capability within an atmosphere does raise the effective radiating height off the surface proportionately to the radiative efficiency of the atmosphere but appears to be unrelated to the centre of mass.
Convection would then be the process that reconciles any thermal imbalance arising as a result of the effective radiating height moving up from the surface.
Could it be that convection adjusts as necessary to arrange that the temperature at which radiation is emitted to space is found at the centre of mass regardless of where that radiation actually departs from ?
tallbloke says: September 1, 2015 at 9:38 pm
“Section 4:
“Eq. (10a) describes an
emergent macro-level property of planetary atmospheres representing the net result of myriad
process interactions and feedbacks in real climate systems that are not readily estimable by
‘bottom-up’ mechanistic approaches””
Roger,
Even if there is some “emergent macro-level property of planetary atmospheres”, What has that to do with the Earth’s atmosphere and the overwhelming variable effect of airborne water condensate on the operation if “this” atmosphere?i What is the significance of this paper? Why is it important? Why should it even be considered?
This whole exercise Is a huge farce by meteorology to make nonsense measurements of temperature somewhere, then afterwards, do statistical nonsense of curve fitting and aggregating the nonsense numbers to fit some political notion of this physical.
As I have pointed out, Newton’s laws, kinetic theory of gas, and statistical mechanics, give nary a clue as to how this atmosphere or any atmosphere may actually work. It is all the insane, leading the blind.
All the best! -will-
Stephen Wilde says:
September 1, 2015 at 11:03 pm
“Could it be that convection adjusts as necessary to arrange that the temperature at which radiation is emitted to space is found at the centre of mass regardless of where that radiation actually departs from ?”
No!
gallopingcamel says: September 1, 2015 at 4:39 am
(David Cosserat said: “I am aghast at the general quality and irrelevance (with a few notable exceptions) of the comments above. The peer-reviewed paper under consideration has been largely ignored by the commentators; or, where it had been briefly referred to, has been summarily dismissed (and in some cases abused) by armchair ‘experts’, many of whom show no sign at all of having read it.”)
Why is any reading required past the abstract, which indicates the paper is irrelevant to anything except some political POV!
“In our off-line correspondence we have generally been in agreement yet I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism on this occasion.
While Will Janoshka does not believe in adiabats (wet, dry, or in between) he seems to accept that the work of Robinson and Catling correctly predicts the temperature gradients in all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres. The R&C model works from the planetary surface, through the troposphere, through the tropopause and on to the top of the stratosphere.”
Peter,
R&C are trying to understand how atmospheres express their operation. This can be quite useful and also interesting. Can you or David point out any part of ‘this’ paper that may be scientifically relevant as to how atmospheres may regulate properties of the planet, atmosphere, composite?
Again the claim is that a minor gas specie concentration, severely distort these properties, yet earthlings have 200 years evidence of only incompetence on how this atmosphere operates.
All the best! -will-
Stephen: “If there is no radiative capability in an atmosphere..”
Then the sun can’t shine either, so there is a problem imagining conclusions from that too Stephen. Better to say Earth has optically thin atmosphere, doesn’t affect sun physics in your imagined scenario. Try radiative convective on for size…
Radiative convective atmosphere is the way to go Stephen, one size fits all. Then just drop convective for this paper’s “airless” objects.
Stephen: “Convection would then be the process that reconciles any thermal imbalance..”
Do you see that in this paper? No. Or quote the passage.
This paper knows the basics, authors being realists since if the parcel is a bit cooler they know it will absorb some radiation and conduct some from surroundings, become stable and hydrostatic again. Realism works. Convective radiative equilibrium is very fundamental, almost 1st principle.
If the parcel is a bit warmer, it will radiate some and conduct some energy TO surroundings, once again become hydrostatic. Stormy convection dies down this way, no? Well, along with some friction, cloud seeding, cool waters, wave action, trees..so on.
oldbrew says: August 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm
(TC says: ‘A generalised equation of two variables computes the actual surface temperature of the sphere.’)
“Three variables if you include density [oldbrew says: August 23, 2015 at 10:28 am]
From 0-11000 metres temperature varies by a factor of 1.33, but pressure varies by a factor of 4.477.”
Four variables if you include the DOF of atmospheric gas specie. CO2 being even more weird than water, especially about the critical point. This give you gamma, or isentropic exponent for that atmosphere. Surface pressure normalizes all of that as lapse rate. Earth- P/rho = 1.4!
I love that “dependence on the blah blah enhancement Ts/Tna” from Fig. 4 above,in order to sound new, intelligent, or in any way significant. Why not use the accepted lapse rate?
I guess the authors excluded Mercury, as it has no acceptable average surface temperature. Especially if one pole is in the direction of the Sun. Planetary environments in the Solar system my ass!
All the best! -will-
Trick says: September 2, 2015 at 12:37 am
(Stephen: “Convection would then be the process that reconciles any thermal imbalance..”)
“Do you see that in this paper? No. Or quote the passage. This paper knows the basics, authors being realist”
Trick,
You are very sharp, but ‘I’ cannot understand your concept of real, please explain!
To me, the real is everything, the physical (measurable), plus all the fantasy, religion, econometrics, and political policy. In this earthling ‘physical’, most all is extremely cyclic and mostly deterministic, with some small statistical limitation, called temperature.
Any single measurement of anything, must have infinite error bars. Accumulation of measurement reduces the error bars for some earthling fantasy called an “average”. Can that reduction go on for ever with more measurement? In no way! The rms error of measurement is always limited by temperature. The greater the temperature the greater the rms error of any physical measurements. Try that on, on for your fantasy, religion, or political.
Will – “Any single measurement of anything, must have infinite error bars.”
You are a softball plate umpire. You see a rise ball coming at about 68mph from less than 43′ toward your nose with mask. Do you analyze:
1) Not going to hit me – there are infinite error bars, it will miss by a mile so you pull your mask off and study the ball stitching?
2) Your experience is that the batter will a) Swing b) Not swing c) ?
a) You think any foul tip will miss you due the infinite error bars, mask is unimportant
b) Within reasonable future prediction, the catcher mitt will appear from nowhere, you will hear a big thock and make the call.
c) Something unexpected might happen per Nature’s grand plan so you firmly get ready for this to happen within the error bars, speakers up, watch the 1st pitch closely! Watch the defense manager before the next pitch while you listen to the crowd.
My point is there is reasonable error bar estimate for about anything, test & experience proves vital at its estimation. From this, I think that ump crew may have had prior experience. There are things you can learn to reduce the consequences of the error bars and you just need a reasonable analysis.
Trick says: September 2, 2015 at 3:38 am
(Will – “Any single measurement of anything, must have infinite error bars.”)
“You are a softball plate umpire. You see a rise ball coming at about 68mph from less than 43′ toward your nose with mask. Do you analyze:”
Never! while making measurement. If I survive I can analyse later!
You keep expressing the difficulty of measurement, never the error in the measurement!
What is your point Trick?
Will J: “Even if there is some “emergent macro-level property of planetary atmospheres”, What has that to do with the Earth’s atmosphere and the overwhelming variable effect of airborne water condensate on the operation if “this” atmosphere?i What is the significance of this paper? Why is it important? Why should it even be considered?”
The significance of this paper is that with a single formula which uses only surface pressure and insolation, the surface temperatures of highly varied planetary bodies are successfully calculated.
I fully agree with you that water is the dominant factor on Earth, but why does pressure and insolation correctly predict surface T of Earth as well as the other bodies where there is no water?
Clearly pressure will affect where clouds form, and thus albedo, ‘effective radiating level’ and other parameters considered important in meteorology and climate science. Clearly, distance from the Sun is an important factor too.
We should consider this paper because it poses a good question: If the fact that surface T can be predicted from pressure (atmospheric mass) and insolation (at the top of the atmosphere, regardless of albedo) is indicative of an emergent phenomenon, then how/why do pressure/insolation influence the other factor’s interactions to produce a surface T which matches the pressure/insolation prediction across a wide variety of atmospheric compositions?
I think it’s a good puzzle myself. 🙂
Trick says: August 31, 2015 at 1:45 pm
““..it is nowhere near the 270K Effective temperature..”
Your arguments backing this assertion are…?”
Simple radiative balance calculation for the moon with one side continuously facing the sun
(albedo .11, emissisvity 1.0) give an average surface temperature around 161K.
The very slow rotation will increase this temperature slightly. Add ~15K due to the geothermal flux at the dark side, and you are in the 190-200K range.
tallbloke says: September 1, 2015 at 8:54 am
“Probably because Mars doesn’t have a troposphere as such. The stratosphere extends from the surface.”
The stratosphere is the part of an atmosphere where the temperature increases with altitude.
Is the temperature on Mars increasing with altitude?
tallbloke says: September 1, 2015 at 9:02 am
” Subsidence, which largely defines the height of the tropospheres, doesn’t get a mention at all.”
Could you elaborate on how subsidence defines the height of the troposphere?
David Cosserat says: September 1, 2015 at 3:23 pm
” the temperatures at all heights z will also not be determined by CO2 concentration but only by their atmospheric specific heats, according to the standard lapse rate g/Cp formula on which the International Standard Atmosphere data is based.”
Pse stop this nonsense. g/Cp is the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and only valid for the internal temperature change of air that rises or sinks in the atmosphere that is assumed to be in Hydrostatic Equilibrium (process is also assumed to be adiabatic).
Ben W: The stratosphere is the part of an atmosphere where the temperature increases with altitude.
Is the temperature on Mars increasing with altitude?
I was thinking of comparative Earth/Mars densities/pressures rather than temperature. But you’re right, T falls with altitude on Mars to 80Km or so. From as cold as Earth’s tropopause to much colder.
Ben W: Could you elaborate on how subsidence defines the height of the troposphere?
Water condensing in cloud tops near the tropopause releases the latent heat of condensation, most of which is radiated to space. That causes cooling of the air mass, which then descends.
tallbloke says, September 1, 2015 at 9:51 pm:
“Stephen W: “Nonetheless, if an atmosphere is to be retained the average effective radiating height must be at the centre of mass.”
Sounds like you’re in accord with MS at Hockey Schtick with that statement? At what altitude is the ‘centre of mass’ of Earth’s atmosphere? What is the temperature there?”
Even more interesting is: At what altitude is the ‘centre of mass’ of the Venusian atmosphere, and what is the temperature there? How about Mars? Jupiter? Saturn? Uranus, Neptune?
This ‘centre of mass’ idea only sort of works – and only by coincidence – on Earth and Titan. It’s far from a precise match on either, but it’s in the ballpark. In the other atmospheres, however, it doesn’t work at all. Because those atmospheres are either much more or much less massive. And accordingly, the ‘centre of mass’ hypothesis ultimately comes crashing down.
I see The cowboy has had a go at this paper here
Willis says:
they have done their own computations for the temperature of Mars. One can only presume that is to give Mars a better fit to their results
One can only presume the arrogant cowboy didn’t bother to read Appendix B of the paper. I suggest Willis reads Appendix B of the paper and reports back with an apology for this ad hominem slur and any objections he has to the authors’ appraisal of the empirical data or method of integration. If he can do the math.
Willis says: In other words, when they say they only use two variables, “TOA stellar irradiance and average surface atmospheric pressure”, that is simply not true. The complete list of variables is:
TOA stellar irradiance
Surface atmospheric pressure
Albedo
Heat storage coefficient
Longwave emissivity
So my third objection is that they are claiming that the model only uses two variables, when in fact it uses five.
What a wanker Eschenbach is. These last three ‘variables’ are in fact constants for airless bodies (Tna) defined by EMPIRICAL data.
Didn’t read the paper, bad Willis, no cookies.
Will – “What is your point Trick?”
I wrote it. Even with “never” error bars the future can be reasonably predictable from tested science, the ball hit the mask without catcher mitt. The paper shows including radiative convective balance of an atmosphere, the exoplanets surface temperature will reasonably hit the prediction from applicable radiative balance by observed emissivity, albedo, surface pressure et. al. even with unknown error bars. Do have to buy their Mars Ts=190.56K App. B being substantially different from all other published papers (as they write).
——
Ben – “The very slow rotation will increase this temperature slightly.”
So you imply the energy of moon rotation is being converted to “increase this temperature slightly”? Interesting, how does that work exactly?
“emissivity 1.0”
The emissivity of Apollo moon regolith samples has been measured in the lab on Earth at various view angles at and below 0.6. This could easily increase the 161K (assumed emissivity 0.95) calculation to Diviner brightness temperature of 197K. Once diffraction, polarization is properly included, maybe Ts much higher. The moon thermometer Ts surface temperature global field is unknown, sparse Apollo thermometer measurements indicate a result for Ts much higher than brightness T=197K. Before dark side thermal flux.
The science progresses. Will be faster progress when we get close to putting people into the thermal environment.
tallbloke – ”(Tna) defined by EMPIRICAL data.”
Yes “airless” radiative balance applicable for moon, & which includes albedo, see eqn. 4a. Simplified Tna in top post plot vs. surface P using moon’s albedo they record as .132.
Haven’t read Willis’ 9/1 post yet, will be interesting
“Will be faster progress when we get close to putting people into the thermal environment.”
I see.
Burn at stake?
tallbloke – LOL. Nowadays it’s just burn on blogs, higher level of civility humans have achieved to date. Along with Burning Man, which is good evidence of space aliens having already arrived from exoplanets.
Trick: The emissivity of Apollo moon regolith samples has been measured in the lab on Earth at various view angles at and below 0.6.
Does that take into account the stronger compaction and thermal conductivity of the sample due to higher Earth gravity and humidity? I doubt it.
““airless” radiative balance applicable for moon”
And other airless rocky planets (Tna)
Trick wrote at September 2, 2015 at 5:18 pm”
‘Ben – “The very slow rotation will increase this temperature slightly.”
So you imply the energy of moon rotation is being converted to “increase this temperature slightly”? Interesting, how does that work exactly?
“emissivity 1.0”’
It is because the faster rotation means the dark side gets to cool less and the lit side warm less, evening out the temperature difference. This leads to a higher average temperature. Do the math for yourself instead of missing the whole basis for this paper and what I attempted explaining to you upthread.
tallbloke – Tna used in top post graph is only from “applicable” moon data, presumed to be “applicable” for all “airless” bodies no matter the compaction and thermal conductivity. Not sure emissivity fn(stronger compaction, thermal conductivity). Save me time if you have a ref. The one I had for regolith disappeared behind a paywall.
The gravity environment isn’t normally discussed with surface emissivity nor is stronger compaction of natural materials – water emissivity being very close to terra firma over all view angles.
Oops I see Tim C. posted the stake burning comment.
I did read thru Willis 9/1 post, the paper’s results are “similar” with and without Titan. He makes too big a deal imo on “snooping” so, ok, include Titan then Willis – they do plot it in top post & include in Model 12 curve fit. However, the Mars GMAT Ts issue is a bigger existential problem for this paper – seems more calculated than “observed”, it is hard to be convinced of the 190.56K GMAT based on all the other published papers much higher than App. B. Would have to go read the papers they list, I’m not that interested.
By the way, the Volokin 2014 paper shows the top post curve shape same as in fundamental potential temperature. That discussion is necessary to more fully understand top post plot fundamentals (i.e. to support the nature of the curve fit) which Willis doesn’t mention.
Blob – “This leads to a higher average temperature. Do the math yourself..”
I have, many times. Where does the higher energy come from Blob? Rotation rate can’t supply it, the sun does and insolation is ~constant.
Venus rotation is slowest of any planet and retrograde with diurnal range thought to be 0.05K, the moon’s diurnal range much higher, paper’s same eqn.s (3), (4c) working both places. Rotation doesn’t add or subtract avg. brightness temperature Blob, it does affect the max./min. temperatures from the thermal storage of the surface as mentioned in this paper p.13 in eqn. (4a). Do the math yourself showing cooling rates. They are on the web
To Trick, this is from the paper:
“Due to Hölder’s inequality between integrals (Beckenbach and Bellman 1983), one always finds Tna << Te when using equivalent values of stellar irradiance and surface albedo in Equations (3) and (4b) (Volokin and ReLlez 2014)."
Why do they claim Tna << Te? What is the reason that would be so? I did the math, and agree with them. Ceteris paribus, anything that smooths out temperature differences raises the average temperature. You can find more discussion of this in Part III.B here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324.
Blob – Earth albedo NH and SH remarkably similar, Part III discussing max./min due rotation.
So like for all planets/moons your ref. writes for rotation & internal dynamics Tmean is unaffected: “As a result the planet may experience natural periods of warming or cooling as (the net rate of change in energy of the planet at time t) goes positive or negative, respectively. On average, however, over time, this rate of energy change should come very close to zero as long as all the input parameters are reasonable stable over the long term. If it didn’t average to zero for a long period of time, the energy of the planet would cumulatively build or decline.” p. 2 last paragraph.
Blob – 2nd attempt, 1st went to internet heaven, MS Edge or wordpress filter.
See your own link p. 2 last full paragraph: for rotation and internal dynamics no effect on planet/moon Tmean:
“As a result the planet may experience natural periods of warming or cooling (the net rate of change in energy of the planet at time t) goes positive or negative, respectively. On average, however, over time, this rate of energy change should come very close to zero as long as all the input parameters are reasonable stable over the long term. If it didn’t average to zero for a long period of time, the energy of the planet would cumulatively build or decline.”
Sec. III discussing max., min. as I wrote.
Trick: ” the Mars GMAT Ts issue is a bigger existential problem for this paper – seems more calculated than “observed”, it is hard to be convinced of the 190.56K GMAT based on all the other published papers much higher than App. B”
The empirical data from the Viking landers is unequivocal! Look again!
The authors of the other published papers would also get a higher than real GMAT for the Moon using the same erroneous methods they use for Mars, long ago debunked. It is they who are producing figures “more calculated than “observed””.
Trick, first your quote is from section II, not III. Second, it is not relevant to the effect of comparing slow vs fast rotation which we are discussing. That quote explicitly assumes stable input parameters. We are discussing the effect of increasing rotation rate, which you claim would have no effect.
Here is a relevant quote from the section III.B I suggested as a reference:
“So no matter the rotation rate, no matter the surface heat capacity, the average temperature of the planet in this rotating example, with only radiative energy flows and no absorbing layer in the atmosphere, is always less than the effective radiating temperature. For very slow rotation or low heat capacity it can be significantly less; for parameters in the other direction it can come as close as 1% (i.e. up to 252 K on a planet like Earth).”
I am open to understanding what is incorrect about the reasoning or math, but this has nothing to do with energy from the rotation. That criticism is not helpful. I am far from perfect or an expert in this subject.
Blob: “anything that smooths out temperature differences raises the average temperature.”
Many say so, but it ain’t necessarily so in the case of rotation rate. See the author’s discussion “Effect of planet’s rotation rate on regolith heat storage” in their previous 2014 paper starting above Eq24.
Click to access 2193-1801-3-723.pdf
The Cowboy Climateer definitely needs to read it.
Blob, Arthur P. Smith does the mental jump trick.
He omits the case of a non-radiating atmosphere, hand waves it away.
On several occasions I have tried to explain so maybe it is hard to understand.
The gas will not sit there being fried at the surface it will convect and that will heat up all the gas. Now comes the twist, darkness but the gas it still hot. We hit a problem, surface is cold but there is no cold convection process. The hot air will layer, a temperature inversion will form as we see quite often on earth. In practice winds will arise partly mixing things up.
Search hits in the PDF on convection, zero.
Tim C.: I get 2 hits on convection, one in abstract, one on page 5 1st para., 2nd sentence. And hits on rotation: 0.
——
tallbloke: “The empirical data from the Viking landers is unequivocal! Look again!”
I didn’t look first. Here from the paper p. 19 I relied on: “Existing sources report Mars’ GMAT being anywhere between 200 K and 240 K with most frequently quoted values in the range 210 K – 220 K”. This pretty much matched my memory (sometime faulty).
Ok if interested I will, which ref. in the paper or otherwise discussing Mars lander thermometer GMAT projections would you recommend (so I won’t pick Lacis…)? Probably their 190.56K provenation is going to be a crux of the matter. I will google see if any available not paywalled, then hit the library if not.
—–
Blob – Again, sec. III is discussing max. min, the clip from II applies as is basic. See III Fig. 2. These are for actual planets. Observe the straight across line? That’s for Tmean. Various rotations observed and: ” The numerically computed average value of y4 is also shown; this should always be exactly 1.” Only the max. min. is shown as varying with rotation. At the equators, the most extreme.
Trick: Appendix B is a good read for the empirical Mars data and its integration to obtain the GMAT. I don’t know which of the other authors’ papers is most representative, I haven’t had time to dig into those.
Trick, the Smith paper which purports to show radiative gas is necessary for heating.
Tim – Oh, ok. My confusion so noted.
——
tallbloke – App. B did not impress me with any fundamental reason for Mars 190.56K GMAT. Will reread. I haven’t read the other papers so I don’t know if they are any better at giving fundamental reason, I may sample one or two, not Lacis as you apparently had a run in with that author.
Paper App. B: “Hence, one could reliably estimate a latitudinal temperature average on Mars using point observations from any elevation by applying an appropriate lapse-rate correction for the average terrain altitude of said latitude….These simple calculations suggest…”
I don’t buy this. Too simple. Try it on Earth for similar amount of 2 annual locations (a. and b.), I do not buy that you could get Earth 288K from “appropriate lapse-rate correction”. My goodness, if that is all the locations HCN ever measured imagine the uproar above the EXISTING uproar.
Then they add Curiosity and MGS occultation data “assuming a lapse rate of -4.3 K km-1” calculated (somehow by the ref.s) plotted B2 & another curve fit. I don’t buy “fully consistent” with moon here either. Their consistency explanation is hand waving imo as they just write: “it is unlikely that Mars’ global average temperature would equal to or be greater than 213 K”. How unlikely? Put your politics to work.
To improve my buy-in or not, will have to spend time reading other specialist papers.
——
NB: I did look into p. 41 “According to our model, Mercury is 123 K cooler than NASA’s current estimate of 440 K based on Eq. (3) (Williams 2013).”
Bingo. 440 – 123 = 317K. Mercury brightness temperature TB = 317K from Earth published 1972, data from Table 1 p. 26, 1/1/71 and 1/7/71.
Click to access Cuzzi_jn_1973.pdf
Oh, and btw, from the ref.s in that link, Mars brightness temperature had already been measured from Earth, near Ann Arbor, by then as: “New measurements of the microwave temperature of Mars are reported. The brightness temperatures measured during the planet’s close approach in 1967 were 182°K +- 15°K (m.e.) at 1.85 cm, and 200°K +- 11°K (m.e.) at 3.75 cm.” Table 1 also.
Diviner results were not news, in the radio telescope uncertainty range & I bet were celebrated somewhere by an aging post-Doc:
Klein, M.J., 1971, “Mars: Measurements of Its Brightness Temperature at 1.85 and 3.75 cm Wavelength.”, Icarus, 14, 210.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/33679/0000191.pdf?sequence=1
Raises the question why NASA was simply reporting eqn. 3 results. I know, science is a cluttered house kept by a sloven.
tallbloke says: September 2, 2015 at 11:53 am
(“Ben W: Could you elaborate on how subsidence defines the height of the troposphere?”)
“Water condensing in cloud tops near the tropopause releases the latent heat of condensation, most of which is radiated to space. That causes cooling of the air mass, which then descends.”
That’s pretty backwards. How can the latent heat released by condensation powering EMR to space cause any cooling, whatever you may mean by cooling? The slightly more dense airborne water condensate can initiate decent of the cloud. Why are folk applying the gas laws to this atmosphere? The gas laws “require” a single specie of gas and a “container” to provide both pressure and density. The gas laws at constant temperature and pressure predict a single rms velocity that is different for each molecular mass! How badly is all this overlooked for this atmosphere? Does a canned answer via formula, give any insight as to how an atmosphere may work? When will anyone even try to start to understand?
Trick wrote:
“Blob – Again, sec. III is discussing max. min, the clip from II applies as is basic. See III Fig. 2. These are for actual planets. Observe the straight across line? That’s for Tmean. Various rotations observed and: ” The numerically computed average value of y4 is also shown; this should always be exactly 1.” Only the max. min. is shown as varying with rotation. At the equators, the most extreme.”
Thank you tallbloke and tchannon. I am looking into your helpful comments.
Trick,
In the 1971 paper by M. Klein you quoted above:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/33679/0000191.pdf?sequence=1
note the statement on p. 212
“The two brightness temperatures measured in 1967 are in good agreement with previously published data, which indicate that the Martian brightness temperature at wavelengths between 1 and 21 cm is approximately 190 K (Hobbs, McCullough, and Waak, 1968). The weighted average of the 1.85- and 3.75-cm temperatures reported in this paper is 193 K ± 10 K. ”
In other words, microwave observations of Mars conducted in 1960s revealed a mean surface temperature in the range 190 – 193 K. Volokin & ReLlez came up with 190.56 ± 0.7 K (in Appendix B), which seems to agree pretty well with earlier studies quoted by Klein. The fact that Volokin & ReLlez arrived at essentially the same estimate for Mars’ global temperature using very different data sets compared to those available to Klein, Hobbs, McCullough, and Waak in the 1960s , might be significant …
Trick: And similarly for Mars:
“/The two brightness temperatures measured in 1967 are in good agreement
with previously published data, which indicate that *the Martian
brightness temperature at wavelengths between 1 and 21 cm is
approximately 190 K* (Hobbs, McCullough, and Waak, 1968). *The weighted
average of the 1.85- and 3.75-cm */*(waveband)*/*temperatures reported
in this paper is 193 K ± 10 K*./ ”
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/33679/0000191.pdf?sequence=1
Willy Wonky the cowboy climateer even refers to this paper in the comments on his post attempting to trash the paper.
The thesis you found has a section on Mars which was published as a paper the previous year.
(Cuzzi and Muhleman, 1972)
“The Microwave Spectrum and Nature of the Subsurface of Mars”
Their results agree with a GMAT of around 193K.
Regarding the latitudinal averaging from limited in-situ measurements at varying altitudes:
Mars has a much thinner atmosphere with much less regional variation in surface conditions than Earth. So temperature can be reliably calculated from the lapse rate.
I see the cowboy climateer’s arms are waving vigorously this morning:
Kirk C asks: What is the formula for planetary rotaion period and average temperature?
It’s stated by you as obviously important …yet It’s not ever calculated or accounted for in earths planetary heat equation.
Willis pontificates: There is no general equation [That Willis knows of]. This is because in the absence of an atmosphere, the night-time heat loss is dependent on how much heat is left unradiated at the end of the day. And this in turn is dependent on the specific heat of whatever the sunlight is warming, along with a variety of other factors.
And this is in a situation with no atmosphere. With an atmosphere plus water vapor, the energy is constantly being redistributed by sensible and latent heat transfers. As a result, both the water vapor and the atmosphere act to reduce the day-night swings in temperature.
Finally, every temperature difference causes a drop in average temperature. The problem is that there are several temperature differences at play—day/night, summer/winter, and pole/equator. As a result, it’s difficult to disentangle all of those to give us a total. [Too difficult for incompetent cowboys anyway.]
However, it’s not important in the usual range of climate questions, as whatever it is it would be relatively constant. Since we are concerned mostly with changes in temperature, such a constant temperature depression would drop out of any relevant equation. [Arms rotating faster than a quasar by now]
All the best,
w.
My followup is still in moderation:
tallbloke Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 2, 2015 at 11:42 pm
The authors discuss the rotation question extensively in their previous paper:
http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723
See the section starting above Eq24
Takeaway summary: Rotation rates within the range found in the solar system make negligible difference to surface T.
For a body with a surface regolith in vacuum – I should add.
Will J: “How can the latent heat released by condensation powering EMR to space cause any cooling, whatever you may mean by cooling? The slightly more dense airborne water condensate can initiate decent of the cloud. Why are folk applying the gas laws to this atmosphere? “
Well, OK, I’m guessing a bit. You could well be right that the temperature won’t change much, as the latent energy released is absorbed in the change of state. So I should have said that the water vapour radiates energy to space, cools, and then condenses. The extent to which the cooled condensate cools the other species of air molecules around it, causing contraction and a corresponding increase in density compared to the contraction caused by the process of condensation I don’t know. Anastasia Makarieva would be the person to ask.
More on her in a new post imminently.
Trick: Diviner results were not news
Mars is not the Moon.
Cheers.
tallbloke says: September 3, 2015 at 10:37 am
I don’t know. Anastasia Makarieva would be the person to ask.More on her in a new post imminently.
Thanks Roger, I’ll look forward to that. Spelling/pronunciation Anastassia Makarieva one smart lady!
@Will Janoschka:
Can you lose the insults to folks like S. Wilde, please.
I’m about 1/4 of the way through the (very long…) comment thread, and have tried to figure out your points, only to be distracted by insult rant (and then lose the plot of anything reasoned you were starting to say).
At this point I am about to just say S.Wilde is probably right and blow off reading the rest of the thread (while thinking your presentation rather like the cranky guy shouting “hey! Kids! Get off my lawn!”… ) Probably not your goal….
E.M.Smith says: September 3, 2015 at 12:37 pm
@Will Janoschka:
“Can you lose the insults to folks like S. Wilde, please.”
Sure! S.Wilde is the KE + PE = (constant) guy for an atmosphere. Irritating!!
“I’m about 1/4 of the way through the (very long…) comment thread, and have tried to figure out your points, only to be distracted by insult rant (and then lose the plot of anything reasoned you were starting to say).”
“At this point I am about to just say S.Wilde is probably right and blow off reading the rest of the thread (while thinking your presentation rather like the cranky guy shouting “hey! Kids! Get off my lawn!”… ) Probably not your goal….”
My point “in this thread” is that folk that do dimensional reduction on symbolic algebra are only throwing away any understanding of what the symbols may mean. If science is only getting a correct value without any meaning, like average global temperature, then please so state! Values for a symbol are of no use without a good appreciation of how that symbol applies to this physical. Understanding of an atmosphere is nowhere to be found! Chemistry and the IGL, without mass, is about as close as any, with the only energy R— Boltzmann’s constant x Avogadro’s number. Nothing kinetic or potential.
tallbloke says: September 2, 2015 at 11:53 am
Ben W: Could you elaborate on how subsidence defines the height of the troposphere?
“Water condensing in cloud tops near the tropopause releases the latent heat of condensation, most of which is radiated to space. That causes cooling of the air mass, which then descends.”
Since the tropopause is the top of the troposphere, why not use its definition?
Normally the temperature decreases going in in the troposphere.
The tropopause is the altitude where the temperature starts to rise due to solar UV heating higher up in the stratosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause
Trick says: September 2, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Ben – “The very slow rotation will increase this temperature slightly.”
“So you imply the energy of moon rotation is being converted to “increase this temperature slightly”? ”
Not really. Due to rotation the surface will not reach the peak temperature that radiative balance would give in the non rotating case (actually one rotation/orbit).
The heated surface is ‘carried’ to the night side, increasing the night temperature.
Result is a higher average temperature.
Imagine a body rotating once every second. Incoming solar is now spread equally around each latitude. But using earth numbers the result will still be below 255K due to the difference between equator and poles.
Same for SB calculation. For earth spreading incoming solar over the entire sphere gives the well known 255K.
More realistic spreading over half the sphere and using 0K for the nightside gives ~151K.
Basically all due to the fourth power in SB.
JSadell, tallbloke – Be careful to realize which discussion is thermometer temperature and which brightness temperature. The paper in the top post in App. B is discussing thermometer temperature for Mars (landers, MGS occultation) and the much earlier paper(s) found brightness temperature. Sorting that out for a better opinion means reading the bulk of Mars papers (210-220K Ts) critically to see which is based on thermometer and which brightness.
There is data showing both Mars and Earth moon global thermometer field Ts could be higher due the emissivity, polarization, diffraction of the surface material being much different than for which radiometers were designed.
“In other words, microwave observations of Mars conducted in 1960s revealed a mean surface temperature in the range 190 – 193 K. Volokin & ReLlez came up with 190.56 ± 0.7 K (in Appendix B), which seems to agree pretty well.”
The 190-193K is brightness T and the 190.56 is thermometer T. It would be cool if they are the same but that only happens if the surface is emissivity = 1. I do not buy their Mars Ts 190.56K, the method was too simplistic, hand waving, not shall we say, precise. It presents an existential issue for top post paper. Have to read the other specialist papers to form a better opinion.
Ben – “Imagine a body rotating once every second. Incoming solar is now spread equally around each latitude. But using earth numbers the result will still be below 255K due to the difference between equator and poles.”
Ben – Your imagination is not proof. The data and 1LOT analysis show otherwise. The mean will be 255K no matter the rotation speed. The very different rotations of the objects in the top post is not a factor (even retrograde!). Max and min will be much closer for fast rotation, much further apart for slow or no rotation, global surface Tmean unaffected. Rotation in and of itself does not add or subtract energy, if it did as Smith writes, energy would accumulate.
Perhaps Ben can put up a ref. that supports his imagination.
Ben Wouters says: September 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm
“Since the tropopause is the top of the troposphere, why not use its definition? Normally the temperature decreases going in in the troposphere. The tropopause is the altitude where the temperature starts to rise due to solar UV heating higher up in the stratosphere.”
Prefix. tropo-. Combining form used in forming words relating to something for which changeability is a defining characteristic.
Below the tropopause is where changeability is a defining characteristic.
Trick,
Your argument about the zero effect of a planet spin rate on the average surface temperature seems to be very similar to the arguments presented by Volokin & ReLlez in their 2014 paper (http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723).
In regard to Mars’ temperatures of 210-220 K often quoted in the literature, I looked at some of the references provided by V&R in their Appendix B, and none of these values appear to be based on any thermometer measurements. They are all ‘hand waiving’ as you would qualify them … I re-read Appendix B and noticed the authors’ discussion about the Viking record (which comes from actual near-surface thermometer measurements) not providing an empirical support for the widely cited Mars’ GMATs over 210 K. Indeed, the VL data appear to back up such a conclusion …
–Ben Wouters says:
September 3, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Trick says: September 2, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Ben – “The very slow rotation will increase this temperature slightly.”
“So you imply the energy of moon rotation is being converted to “increase this temperature slightly”? ”
Not really. Due to rotation the surface will not reach the peak temperature that radiative balance would give in the non rotating case (actually one rotation/orbit).
The heated surface is ‘carried’ to the night side, increasing the night temperature.
Result is a higher average temperature.–
Earth’s average temperature is largely about, the tropical temperature [40% of earth’s surface]. And tropics average night time temperature does not lower much at night. Deserts [whether in tropics or not] are a small portion of Earth’s total surface area, and deserts have wider swing of temperatures and so faster rotation would be able to cause night time temperature of deserts to be warmer.
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.
JSadell – “none of these values appear to be based on any thermometer measurements.”
No lander data, no MGS occultation data at all? At all!? I’m surprised, can you briefly list which recent papers you found on line or otherwise. I haven’t made time to look yet. Won’t for some time, my R&R going into other things.
Again, the Viking data Volokin discuss are from only two points. With assumed lapse. In no way a GHCN thermometer record. Curiosity only a 3rd point. Sparse data, same for Apollo surface data.
Ben W: Since the tropopause is the top of the troposphere, why not use its definition? The tropopause is the altitude where the temperature starts to rise due to solar UV heating higher up.
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. That’s why I chose to characterise the height of the troposphere in terms of thermo-dynamic physics rather than meteo-book definitions.
Trick: The 190-193K is brightness T and the 190.56 is thermometer T. It would be cool if they are the same but that only happens if the surface is emissivity = 1.
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.
tallbloke – “Mars is not the Moon.”
No kidding, nice catch; 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. They also use the term Mars & moon “consistent”. Ts thermometer should not be assumed equal to Ts brightness (unless emissivty = 1, diffraction & polarization negligible). There is sparse data indicating that is not the case, that diffraction, emissivity, polarization could be found material.
Of course, more research needed, send $$.