[update: Tyler Robinson has replied in comments — Tim /update]
Talkshop contributor ‘Cementafriend’ has emailed me with an interesting critique of parts the 2013 Robinson & Catling paper Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency
. He is an engineer and tells me that:
I have had actual experience with combustion and heat transfer. I have designed burners for coal, gas, oil and waste fuel materials. I have measured CO2 in exhaust gases, down coal mines and even in the atmosphere.
The presence of OH in the atmosphere is due to the reaction CH4 +O3 > CH3OH +O2 (of course other organics can also be oxidised by O3 but the quantity of these is tiny).
The reaction claimed CH4 +OH> CH3 +H2O is not correct. CH3OH (methanol or methyl alcohol sometimes known as wood alcohol which is poisonous) can exist as a molecule. In water this can form the ions CH3+ and OH-.
CH3OH is highly soluble in water at ocean/lake surfaces and also in drops of water in clouds. However, there is little O3 in the atmosphere up to 11,000 km and that is why CH4 persists in the atmosphere now at around 1.7 ppm.
It seems that just as there are “Climate Scientists” making up false relations in physics, thermodynamics & heat transfer (luckily they have not touched mass transfer), there also seem to be “astrophysicists” and “astrochemists” making up new chemistry & reaction kinetics.
Another point about the Catling paper is the assumption from a Karl and Trenberth paper of the contribution for clear sky greenhouse radiation of approx 60% from water vapor, 25% from CO2, 8% from ozone and 7% from other gases and aerosols. That ratio does not even occur in a combustion gas with say 12% CO2. In the atmosphere the radiation from 400 ppm CO2 at an average temperature of say 250K is so small it is insignificant and could not be measured. Water vapor in the atmosphere varies over different parts of the globe and is said to average about 2.5%. The range of e-m frequency of radiation for water vapor is at least 10 times that of CO2. So in a clear sky water vapor is by far the dominant (over 90%) radiation emitter from the atmosphere to space.
Two other problems which both have been neglected. Firstly, the radiation window which Trenberth has published as 40W/m2 has been calculated by the late Dr (Chemical Engineer) Noor Van Andel to be 66 W/m2 and it appears that Trenberth in email correspondence confirmed that in writing. (This means there is no need to have backradiation in the calculation of a global energy balance).
The second neglected point is that droplets of water and particles of ice in clouds also radiate to space. Both ice and water have high emissivities over the range of temperatures in the atmosphere (including the frequency range of around 14.8 micron in which CO2 can radiate). In the range of frequency around 14.8 micron satellite measurements can not distinguish how much radiation is from CO2 and how much of it comes from a) the surface or b) from droplets of water & ice particles in clouds.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
”Another point about the Catling paper is the assumption from a Karl and Trenberth paper of the contribution for clear sky greenhouse radiation of approx 60% from water vapor, 25% from CO2”
25% from CO2? Bwahahahaha!
Here “Travesty” Trenberth and Tom Karl (and his pet rat TOBy) are in direct contradiction with empirical experiment.
Cementafriend however is correct –
”The second neglected point is that droplets of water and particles of ice in clouds also radiate to space.”
– clear dry sky -50C
– clear humid sky -20C
– low cloud +15C
Water vapour and especially condensed water are the strongest radiators in the atmosphere. Remember that radiation is dependant on the fourth power of temperature.
Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the surface of the planet, and H2O is doing all the work. CO2 dos not rate. Could we even measure the cooling from a doubling of CO2? Can we measure the toenail clippings of an ant?
Nice work Cementafriend,
Surface EMR flux through this atmosphere is limited to about 32 W/m^2, all in the 8-12 micron window but that window is obscured 65% of the time by airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid in both semi-liquid (clouds) and semi-solid (microscopic snow) forms. So this leaves 42W/m^2 direct to space 1/3 of the time and 27W/m^2 to the clouds 2/3 of the time. All the rest of EMR exitance to space is generated by the atmosphere itself continually accumulating all the way to 120 km.
That ‘Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency’ is partially correct. Really tropopause is set only by pressure not radiation at all However even in the windows, 100km of teninesy emissivity/m can add up. Same thing on the input end atmospheric H20 absorbs like mad below 3 microns. Look at surface Solar spectral irradiance with low clouds or overcast. Fortunately the airborne water condensate converts to WV at 2400J/g H20 this is also all discarded to space with continious night time condensation back to airborne condensate, not precipitation. All this too is dispatched to space via EMR! That Karl and Trenberth paper is but a grand example of wilful incompetence!!!
All the best! -will-
Konrad says: September 7, 2015 at 2:37 pm
“Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the surface of the planet, and H2O is doing all the work. CO2 does not rate. Could we even measure the cooling from a doubling of CO2?”
Indeed! More CO2 than H20 in the stratosphere but no heat only low temperature.
“Can we measure the toenail clippings of an ant?”
Momma ant can and does, you betcha! 🙂
“In water this can form the ions CH3+ and OH-”
No. Sorry. That’s a bad fail in organic chemistry.
MH: Tell us more please.
konrad, I’m not disagreeing in broad numbers with your figures but I am with the attribution to atmospheric radiation. I reached the conclusion the returned radiation from cloud is a reflection from ground radiation.
Where you mention +15C I believe the figure tracks ground temperature, try it on a cold day. As a cross check this accords with broadband pyrgeometer data where under heavy cloud it reads zero, cancellation regardless of ground temperature conditions or likely cloud temperature. (whatever that is, ice lines (level) can be seen in radar sounding)
I think this will explain it.
Click to access Tutorial7.pdf
Here is a link to a presentation by R&C that includes some chemistry:
Click to access Catling.pdf
One slide I did not like was #35 (Hansen, 2013). Vintage Hansen BS.
I liked slide #28. I found the R&C model remarkably accurate for Titan:
With a chemist’s perspective can you comment on the rest of this presentation?
CEH says: September 7, 2015 at 7:11 pm
I think this will explain it.
Click to access Tutorial7.pdf
Very well done presentation! Easy for anyone to follow. Thank you
tchannon says: September 7, 2015 at 6:59 pm
“konrad, I’m not disagreeing in broad numbers with your figures but I am with the attribution to atmospheric radiation. I reached the conclusion the returned radiation from cloud is a reflection from ground radiation.”
If the two temperatures are the same, then same radiance</b) but absolutely no radiative flux in either direction. Why keep promoting the deliberate CAGW scam of opposing radiative flux?
tchannon says: September 7, 2015 at 6:59 pm
Whoops!!!
“konrad, I’m not disagreeing in broad numbers with your figures but I am with the attribution to atmospheric radiation. I reached the conclusion the returned radiation from cloud is a reflection from ground radiation.”
If the two temperatures are the same, then same radiance but absolutely no radiative flux in either direction. Why keep promoting the deliberate CAGW scam of opposing radiative flux?
M Hart -The book “Organic Chemistry” by (Dr) I L Finar says on p124 “this implies that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms exist as a univalent radical in methanol: the only possibility is as a hydroxyl group, OH” Maybe, you have a different understanding of organic chemistry. I go along with actual experimental evidence particularly that which I have performed myself.
A couple of other thoughts. Stefan’s original equation was based on measured temperatures of SURFACES in a vacuum. The Planck spectral distribution of energy flux relationship applies to black bodies in a vacuum. The S-B constant derived by Boltzmann from the Planck equation applies to blackbodies in a vacuum. The speed of light constant c m/s applies to light in a vacuum.
Albedo is normally related to light and refers to the proportion that is reflected but no one specifies the actual wavelength range of the “light” or the proportion that is absorbed. Clouds reflect light and absorb light eg note the difference driving at night in a) a clear dry sky, b) a “heavy” humid atmosphere c) raining d) a “thick” fog (I have tried to drive in a thick fog when it was necessary to open the door to look down at the lane marking on the road)
Water surfaces reflect light but also absorb light over some 100m of depth. Below that the velocity of light is zero.
I think it was Baron Fourier in his treatise on heat transfer who said when there is an atmosphere everything changes.
cementafriend says: September 8, 2015 at 1:25 am
“Albedo is normally related to light and refers to the proportion that is reflected but no one specifies the actual wavelength range of the “light” or the proportion that is absorbed.”
Another CAGW trick to confuse. Albedo is defined by astronomy as that portion of incident visible light diffusely reflected into the the hemisphere convex to the illuminating primary.
Via Gus Mie atmospheric scattering, 14% of visible insolation is forward scattered in the direction of the opposing hemisphere. This is why the Moon is still visible during Lunar eclipse.
“Water surfaces reflect light but also absorb light over some 100m of depth. Below that the velocity of light is zero.”
Reflection is highly dependent on angle of incidence. For visible total at angles from normal greater than 65°. Both light and velocity are absent after absorption.
“I think it was Baron Fourier in his treatise on heat transfer who said when there is an atmosphere everything changes.”
Along with Jimmy Maxwell, Max Planck, Luddy Boltzmann, Gus Kirchhoff, and any else important!
All the best! -will-
Something that is not generally known is what happens to water when it reaches its critical point
(374 deg,C;218atm) is that non-organic substances eg. NaCl that is dissolved in the water as ions no longer can be and falls out as NaCl again. The opposite happens to organic substances, they do not dissolve in normal water but dissolve in critical water.Someone tried to us this in some waste water treatment plant some years ago, I don´t remember what happened to that project.
This is a clip from Wikipedia on “Critical point (thermodynamics)”
“In water, the critical point occurs at around 647 K (374 °C; 705 °F) and 22.064 MPa (3200 PSIA or 218 atm).[2]
In the vicinity of the critical point, the physical properties of the liquid and the vapor change dramatically, with both phases becoming ever more similar. For instance, liquid water under normal conditions is nearly incompressible, has a low thermal expansion coefficient, has a high dielectric constant, and is an excellent solvent for electrolytes. Near the critical point, all these properties change into the exact opposite: water becomes compressible, expandable, a poor dielectric, a bad solvent for electrolytes, and prefers to mix with nonpolar gases and organic molecules.”
The combination CH3OH and H2O would probably behave differently under these circumstances.
tchannon says: September 7, 2015 at 6:59 pm
”I reached the conclusion the returned radiation from cloud is a reflection from ground radiation.”
/////////////////////////////////////
Tim,
I am taking these readings with a non-contact IR thermometer. (in terms of flux, radiation is actually leaving the instrument).
I agree that there is some IR reflection by clouds, water becomes increasingly IR reflective after 55 degrees radiation incidence, and clouds are 3D at macro and micro scales. However I have to conclude that most IR from clouds is a result of their temperature. Two observations support this –
1. The altitude of a cloud is highly correlated with its apparent temperature. This would rule against a strong reflection component.
2. When a cloud is forming the dramatic “heat pulse” during release of latent heat of evaporation can be observed. This is best observed on a still afternoon when scattered low cumulus clumps are forming. You can spot a forming cloud in IR before any condensate becomes visible.
cementafriend – “Stefan’s original equation was based on measured temperatures of SURFACES in a vacuum.”
That’s incorrect, the original Planck law tests were done at 1bar and room temperature with cavity radiation. Followup tests confirmed the same S-B results in a vacuum. Still trying to figure out where this urban myth originated about S-B surfaces require a vacuum. Not true from Page 199 Planck’s own test ref. can be found on line in English:
Click to access 40030-pdf.pdf
Room temperature & 1bar test setup google the title or the authors see Fig 1:
On the Heat Radiation of Long Wave-Length Emitted by Black Bodies at Different Temperatures
Rubens, H. & Kurlbaum, F. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 14, p.335 1901
Will – “Why keep promoting the deliberate CAGW scam of opposing radiative flux?”
Because there really is two way opposing radiative flux, as measured, and as my eyes around 98.6F can see the ice cubes being marinated in my expensive scotch just fine.
I’ll be as brief as possible, TB.
Pure methanol in pure water forms a solution of, primarily, methanol in water.
By many standards it does nothing, whatsoever.
A chemist may then say that a tiny amount can in fact dissociate to form (hydrated) H+ ions and (hydrated) (CH3)O- ions {note: but this is not the same reaction as indicated in the post}
This auto dissociation of methanol in water definitely occurs, but is a couple of orders of magnitude less than the auto dissociation of water (which gives only one part in ~10exp(-7) of dissociated (hydrated) H+ and (hydrated) OH- ions).
Returning to the reaction given in the post, the formation of (CH3)+ is theoretically quite possible. Chemists have spent much time studying related carbocations and their thermodynamics, in the gas phase and solution phase, theoretically and experimentally. It’s in text books. It can indeed be observed in mass spectrometers, and good reason to think it occurs as a result of high energy impacts in space or near-vacumn conditions. (UV irradiation at the appropriate wavelengths will also break the bonds in methanol, but it is easier to break it up into free-radicals than into discrete ions). Synthetically, (CH3)+ cations can be made only under conditions of extreme acidity. Classically more extreme than 100% pure sulfuric acid, such as SbF5/FSO3H (so called “magic acid”).
But in water at ambient conditions, its equilibrium concentration is, I would guestimate, at least 10 orders of magnitude lower than that of (CH3)O-. Maybe 20 or 30 orders of magnitude. So low that the number doesn’t matter, and could not be detected by any instrument on God’s Earth (and I’m an atheist).
So low that the equilibrium concentration of (CH3)+ ions in water can be described as effectively zero, to all intents and purposes.
An analogy:
Consider: A sample of, say, methane or cellulose (wood), in excess air (i.e., an oxygen rich environment). It is thermodynamically unfavourable with respect to the oxidation products of water and carbon dioxide. Add the two, and you know the products will be, if you wait long enough or heat them up enough.
Conversely, how much methane (or cellulose) would you expect to be able to measure as a result of mixing carbon dioxide with water in excess air under ambient conditions? Answer: as close to zero as makes no difference.
Tim,
we had some scattered mid altitude cloud forming as it drifted overhead today, and I captured some readings –
– as it drifted overhead, this clump was rising slightly and building from the trailing edge. Here the temperature is dramatically higher than background, but the formed cloud then cools rapidly. The wide temperature distribution across the cloud would indicate release of latent heat followed by radiative / conductive cooling rather than ground reflection. I would note here that the temperature gradient along the formation line cannot be explained by adiabatic cooling as the cloud is not 2 km tall.
It would be interesting to capture formation in the IR from above. I believe the temperatures would be even higher.
” but absolutely no radiative flux in either direction. Why keep promoting the deliberate CAGW scam of opposing radiative flux?”
If it isn’t flux what is it?
konrad, I assumed that is what you were doing.
Try England dismally often, leaden, little wind, temperature the same day and night. Reckon you lot don’t know what cloud is. Oh and what the heck is wrong with your camera, wossat blue stuff, paint?
Reckon you’d need a calibrated bolometer array to make much of isolated cloud.
Something to consider. Clouds are able to direct solar radiation so this is reciprocal, are going to act even more reflectively at long wave. Now, a problem with bolometer imagers is blinding by cold sky images on the surface of water and some metal.
Konrad says: September 8, 2015 at 3:24 am
“Tim, we had some scattered mid altitude cloud forming as it drifted overhead today, and I captured some readings –”
What instrument are you using Konrad? Thanks!
“2. When a cloud is forming the dramatic “heat pulse” during release of latent heat of evaporation can be observed. This is best observed on a still afternoon when scattered low cumulus clumps are forming. You can spot a forming cloud in IR before any condensate becomes visible.”
There are two reasons for temperature increase in condensation. Besides the latent to sensible release, at those temperatures WV can contract by 1000:1 to condensate. For 1% WV by mass, to airborne condensate, a 10:1, not 10%, decrease in volume of the whole airmass. Many,many more intercepts per interval, also increasing temperature, with no work. Higher density makes it express at the low altitude end of the cloud. This is never a series of individual events, but continuum in time, location, and volume. The rate of condensation adjusts to just the correct lower temperature ‘up’. Simultaneously contracting and lowering in altitude to match temperature/pressure/density of surround. Claim is adiabatic, giggle. This can get rather violent. Cannot be done in a lab! How dey do dat? -will-
tchannon says: September 8, 2015 at 4:03 am
“Something to consider. Clouds are able to direct solar radiation so this is reciprocal, are going to act even more reflectively at long wave.”
No! Clouds are reflective at wavelengths less than 2 microns. In the 3-5 or 8-14 micron windows, clouds have high emissivity/absorptivity. At 10 microns invisible airborne water condensate over 90% of the sky. Rule of thumb, If you cannot see it (through it) in daylight, you ain’t gonna see it (through it) at night in the IR either! This is reciprocal, If you can’t see them, they can’t see you either. Having better equipment at more wavelengths is a huge advantage!!
“Now, a problem with bolometer imagers is blinding by cold sky images on the surface of water and some metal.”
Standard (cheating) nadir IR resolution charts are horizontal polished aluminum/aluminium with properly sized patterns painted in 3M black velvet. On a clear night painted = temperature of the aluminum, not painted 7Kelvin. Gotsta be careful with saturation. With the cheap slow imagers a variable aperture in front of the window does wonders.
All the best! -will-
Tim & Will,
the instrument I am using is a bolometer sensitive in the 8 to 14 micron bands. (Digitech QM7221) Viewing cone is 12:1, so precise spot measurement of higher cloud is difficult. It would be great to find LWIR video of cloud formation.
Tim the “blue stuff” is what Australians call “sky”. It occasionally has white bits. I understand in the UK you have predominantly grey with occasional blue bits 😉
tchannon says: September 8, 2015 at 3:49 am
(” but absolutely no radiative flux in either direction. Why keep promoting the deliberate CAGW scam of opposing radiative flux?”)
“If it isn’t flux what is it?”
Flux is power transfer per unit area W/m^2, measurable.
Radiance is the same as normalized electromagnetic field strength, a potential for emission or absorption in W/(m^2 x sr). The (sr) normalises out distance. m^2 normalizes the other two directions. Watts normalises out time from ENERGY! UN-normalising distance results in irradiance. This is still a field strength normal to that area (still a vector potential) but having the same units as flux W/m^2.
The CAGW scam is to invent back radiation and opposing flux. Never happens! It is the vector sum of all radiances at a location and frequency that allows the maximum single vector flux at that location. The actual S-B equation expresses this in a mathematically correct way. It helps a lot if you know what the symbols mean. Let me try in long hand:
Flux (vector) w/m^2 equals (assignment to flux) epsilon (dimensionless) x sigma (Stefan’s scalar constant 5.67×10^-8 w/(m^2 x T^4) x (Ta^4-Tb^4).
Now in order to do the assignment to a vector the right side must ‘be’ one vector expression.
That one vector expression is precisely (Ta^4-Tb^4). note the required parenthesis. must be evaluated fully before continuing.
Ta^4 represents the magnitude of normal (vector) field strength from one flat surface.
Tb^4 represents the magnitude of opposing normal (vector) field strength from other flat surface.
The contents of the parenthesis represents the vector sum of two electromagnetic field strengths.
Electromagnetic flux only emits only the value of the vector sum and only in the direction of that vector sum. Nothing else is allowed by Maxwell’s equations and this has nothing to do with thermodynamics or any law of thermodynamics .
I hope you can now see why there is so little EM flux originates at the surface. It is always limited by the radiance of the atmosphere. Fortunately that same atmosphere provides a higher efficacy in dispatching entropy to space via EMR than the surface. Thermal EMR is always spontaneous.
All the best! -will-
Konrad says: September 8, 2015 at 5:39 am
“Tim & Will,
the instrument I am using is a bolometer sensitive in the 8 to 14 micron bands. (Digitech QM7221) Viewing cone is 12:1, so precise spot measurement of higher cloud is difficult. It would be great to find LWIR video of cloud formation.”
There are such videos, likely still classified. The academics would not know what to do with such data. FLIR systems may have such! There is one of a cow in yonder field taking a crap. Tail goes straight out and horizontal bright Vesuvius happens. When the ‘stuff’ hits the ground little parts bounce up like in the milk drop photo. After we all got back up from the floor we found that Tech Ingrahm had indeed turned the recorder on! I don’t think he ever had to buy the next round! 🙂
I know the CEOs of four companies saw that video. Like y’all gots ta see dis!
Trick, you seem to not have read history or understand the time line of some of the developments in engineering science. Stefan developed his relationship in 1879. At that time Planck was a student at University and wrote a thesis on the so-called second law (or more correctly the fourth postulate) of Thermodynamics. It was 21 years later in 1900 that Planck published his spectral distribution of energy flux equation. Boltzmann found he could determine the S-B constant (previously determined from empirical results) from the Planck equation in 1907.
After Josef Stefan published his relationship many engineers pointed out problems such as there are no black bodies and suggested the introduction of emissivity factors which were then determined for many surfaces over a range of temperatures. The emissivities act as a correction factors at relatively high temperatures (eg over 900K) in situations where radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer (experience, however, shows that convection is an important mode of heat transfer which is often thought to occur at the same time as radiation while at lower temperatures around 300-350K convection can dominate). Emissivities factors vary with temperature and are related to but not necessarily equal to the wavelength absorption or emission of surfaces within a temperature range. Gases have to be treated differently to surfaces -emissivity factors here are related to partial pressures and path length as well as temperatures of the substance and the surrounds.
Scientists without actual experience in heat transfer clearly do not understand the assumptions around theory and equations. Further, they do not understand the errors in measurements and the limitations of instruments.
So Trick go and read engineering texts that have withstood peer review over decades such as Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook and not nonsense such as John Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres”
“Fortunately that same atmosphere provides a higher efficacy in dispatching entropy to space via EMR than the surface.”
A fact climastrologists just don’t seem to be able to grasp…
Tim and Will,
I haven’t found video, but I have found a recent paper providing full 2D LWIR imaging of what I was showing with a “1D” single pixel bolometer transect of clear sky and cloud.
Click to access physics_ircloudimaging_ejp2013.pdf
They use a recently produced microbolometer array camera – FLIR Photon 320 camera with 324 × 256 pixels viewing between 8.4 and 13.8 microns. These devices are relatively new and provide low cost LWIR imaging as they don’t require cryo-cooling of the imaging array.
While the paper still uses the incorrect terminology of emission from the sky, rather that reduced emission from the ground, figures 7 & 9 give a fuller picture of what was shown in my “1D” transect.
Obviously the still images provide little detail on cloud formation processes as they lack the extra dimension of Time. However the method they use to difference modelled zenith to horizon background from observed should also be applicable to LWIR video.
cementafriend says: September 8, 2015 at 7:18 am
“Trick, you seem to not have read history or understand the time line of some of the developments in engineering science.”
CF,
Before you get carried away trying to get Trick of Stephen Wilde to understand something, please understand their only reason for posting if to get someone, anyone, to respond especially if the response is an attempt to correct the stated nonsense!
Then they will bait you further so you respond further etcetera, etcetera, etcetera! Stephen does not even read what you write, just repeats. Trick you can suck him in if you are so inclined. He tries to make sense but without understanding and from a single source, often with symbols meaning nothing except those who wrote that article.
”There is one of a cow in yonder field taking a crap. Tail goes straight out and horizontal bright Vesuvius happens. When the ‘stuff’ hits the ground little parts bounce up like in the milk drop photo.”
Production of fresh “Climastrology”, viewed in the LWIR 😉
Will,
I feel you are wrong to group Stephen and “Trick” together.
Stephen acknowledges there is something very wrong with the Church of Radiative Climastology’s edicts. He just doesn’t get that you need both radiative physics and fluid dynamics to get the correct answer.
“Trick”, on the other hand, knows he is wrong, but tries to kick up dust and obscure the solution to delay collapse of the hoax in which he is so heavily invested.
But who is Trick? Do we know of anyone so heavily invested in the climate debate who is also someone who was involved in flight sim software but had never (unlike myself, Jeff Id and Watts) obtained a pilots licence? The Venn diagram circles condense…
Let’s indulge Trick’s crazed ideation about collectivist groupthink “Sceptic Central” 😉
Yes Trick, we are all eeeeevvvil! Bwahahahaha!!
Konrad says:
September 8, 2015 at 9:21 am
you need both radiative physics and fluid dynamics to get the correct answer.
The Fluid dynamics fundamental concept for analysis of the atmosphere is deliberately non-molecular, a packet.
The basic concept of radiative physics is non- molecular radiation.
Since Bernoulli 1738 we know that air pressure is caused by momentum of molecules not their weight.
The properties of gas in general and the atmosphere in particular can be understood using statistical mechanics( SM ) of 10^19 molecules/cm^3
mv^2 /2 = mgh v = velocity , g = acceleration of gravity h = height above surface, m = mass of a molecule
Kinetic energy = gravity energy
Directly and only using Laws of Motion I can calculate the atmosphere thermal enhancement ATE, also called GHE using only SM and Laws of Motion.
Trick: Because there really is two way opposing radiative flux, as measured
In reality, most of the emissions are going sideways, buzzing around, achieving very little. A minority of the emissions are going up or down, and near Earth’s surface, don’t get far before being re-absorbed anyway.
Roger Clague says: September 8, 2015 at 10:24 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Roger,
Will is correct in saying –
“Fortunately that same atmosphere provides a higher efficacy in dispatching entropy to space via EMR than the surface.”
I have confirmed this via empirical experiment.
When you work out that our radiatively cooled atmosphere is providing 24K of surface cooling you will have arrived. Not until then 😉
tallbloke says:
“In reality, most of the emissions are going sideways, buzzing around, achieving very little. A minority of the emissions are going up or down, and near Earth’s surface, don’t get far before being re-absorbed anyway.”
That is the key. Cloud radiation is absorbed in the layers immediately adjacent to the cloud, so radiation is not really reflected, but local thermal equilibrium at cloud level prevails. The net result is that under an overcast convection is suppressed and the atmosphere below the cloud tends toward thermal equilibrium with the cloud, and ultimately with the surface (isothermal conditions). The cloud creates a warm – above – cold temperature inversion which stabilizes the atmosphere below against convection.
tallbloke says: September 8, 2015 at 10:28 am
(“Trick: Because there really is two way opposing radiative flux, as measured”)
“In reality, most of the emissions are going sideways, buzzing around, achieving very little. A minority of the emissions are going up or down, and near Earth’s surface, don’t get far before being re-absorbed anyway.”
Roger,
Go ahead and feed the troll,if you like! You have no evidence of your claimed reality. There are no emissions at all except in a direction of lower radiance. Outward, radiative flux is never absorbed it is accumulated outward. The rest is Tricks CAGW scam. 😦
pochas says: September 8, 2015 at 10:49 am
(tallbloke says: “In reality, most of the emissions are going sideways, buzzing around, achieving very little. A minority of the emissions are going up or down, and near Earth’s surface, don’t get far before being re-absorbed anyway.”)
“That is the key. Cloud radiation is absorbed in the layers immediately adjacent to the cloud, so radiation is not really reflected, but local thermal equilibrium at cloud level prevails. The net result is that under an overcast convection is suppressed and the atmosphere below the cloud tends toward thermal equilibrium with the cloud, and ultimately with the surface (isothermal conditions). The cloud creates a warm – above – cold temperature inversion which stabilizes the atmosphere below against convection.”
Can you possibly supply any evidence to support your claim of an inverted lapse rate? Trolls everywhere. 😦
cementafriend – “So Trick go and read engineering texts that have withstood peer review over decades such as Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook and not nonsense such as John Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres”
Perry concurs S-B works as well in a vacuum as at 1bar room temperature as Perry uses the original cites. Perry & I prefer the original words of the earliest practitioners as one encounters huge error propagation otherwise as in ” Stefan’s original equation was based on measured temperatures of SURFACES in a vacuum” and “There are no emissions at all except in a direction of lower radiance.” Apparently Will can’t observe ice cubes et. al. cooler objects than his eyes.
Oh, and humans not tested close 98.6F might be in need of a Dr. so avg. temperatures do have an everyday use with thermometers not IR detectors.
For an interesting history of the beginnings of thermodynamics as a field, cementafriend, I recommend you get a copy of C. Truesdell’s “The Tragicomic History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854 “.
So far as I observe cementafriend doesn’t have a valid, tested counter argument v. R&C or specifically Houghton for that matter.
Trick says: September 8, 2015 at 1:43 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Little problem Trick. All claims that our radiatively cooled atmosphere is warming the surface of our planet depend on the misuse of the S-B equation.
For “surface without radiative atmosphere” Konrad and empirical experiment says 312K. Trick and the climastrologists say 255K.
You have never defeated me in open debate Trick, and you never will. I got it right and the climastrologists you believed got it wrong. No amount of flawed maths is an answer to empirical experiment. You are so very owned. Now and forever.
Roger Clague says: September 8, 2015 at 10:24 am
Konrad says: September 8, 2015 at 9:21 am
(“you need both radiative physics and fluid dynamics to get the correct answer.”)
“The Fluid dynamics fundamental concept for analysis of the atmosphere is deliberately non-molecular, a packet.”
There are no packets in fluid dynamics! Packets are in meteorology, no comparison.
“Kinetic energy = gravity energy”
Kinetic energy = d(mv)/dt From Newton’s Laws of Motion. Gravity is a field, never energy!
“Directly and only using Laws of Motion I can calculate the atmosphere thermal enhancement ATE, also called GHE using only SM and Laws of Motion.”
You calculated a lapse rate that from numbers mistakenly calculated the other way, for a fictitious lapse rate on a fictitious planet. That stuff has nothing to do with this thread. You could have used the same fake numbers to get the same fake answer, but with correct physics/chemistry with no change in average molecular velocity, , for any atmosphere as in:
You need both radiative physics and fluid dynamics to get the correct answer, for actual atmospheric situations! You can use whatever, to justify your fake “ATE, also called GHE” !
Above I mentioned Planck was studying Thermodynamics. For interest I downloaded his book “Treatise on Thermodynamics” (published 1914), In it is a proof of the second law of Thermodynamics at any level down to quantum level for gases and surfaces. Trick might argue (as a defender of back radiation and AGW) but then he will be arguing with Planck the inventor of Quantum dynamics along with Boltzmann.
Will thanks for warning about Trick one should not feed trolls, maybe he will now go away.
Will Janoschka says:
“Can you possibly supply any evidence to support your claim of an inverted lapse rate?”
I made no such claim.
“In reality, most of the emissions are going sideways, buzzing around, achieving very little. A minority of the emissions are going up or down, and near Earth’s surface, don’t get far before being re-absorbed anyway.”
Agree! So many “errors”
Konrad – “For “surface without radiative atmosphere” Konrad and empirical experiment says 312K.”
Diviner measured moon brightness Tmean ~197K Konrad, radio telescopes from Earth confirm the same answer long ago within reasonable CI. The moon is “surface without radiative atmosphere” in same orbit as Earth. Somewhat cooler than Earth Tmean 288K, demonstrating by test moon is not 24K warmer on avg.
“You have never defeated me in open debate Trick..”
The bulk of historical empirical measurements defeat Konrad, I’ve only done a couple. All the ones I’ve done confirm Diviner & CERES radiometers science is fundamentally correct & test based as is R&C radiative physics.
——
“Trick might argue (as a defender of back radiation and AGW) but then he will be arguing with Planck..”
No argument with Planck, cementafriend. I argue against you writing that Planck referenced tests in a vacuum. I demonstrated otherwise. R&C radiative physics are correct, test based.
pochas says: September 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm
(Will Janoschka says: “Can you possibly supply any evidence to support your claim of an inverted lapse rate?”)
“I made no such claim.”
Ok hocus pochas neophyte troll! 😦
pochas says: September 8, 2015 at 10:49 am
“That is the key. Cloud radiation is absorbed in the layers immediately adjacent to the cloud, so radiation is not really reflected, but local thermal equilibrium at cloud level prevails. The net result is that under an overcast convection is suppressed and the atmosphere below the cloud tends toward thermal equilibrium with the cloud, and ultimately with the surface (isothermal conditions). The cloud creates a warm – above – cold temperature inversion which stabilizes the atmosphere below against convection.” My bold!
Now, will you please learn to become a proper troll, or go away
cementafriend says: September 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm
“Will thanks for warning about Trick one should not feed trolls, maybe he will now go away.”
Haha! Trick says: September 8, 2015 at 5:16 pm
“No argument with Planck, cementafriend. I argue against you writing that Planck referenced tests in a vacuum. I demonstrated otherwise. R&C radiative physics are correct, test based.”
Trick is so easy. You have to invest a bit, look at what he is currently reading, and how little he understands. You can try, or I can give example if I think it would be fun! Wait for Tricks reply to this puppy! 😉
Should not respond to Trick but for others information
In the book “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Planck 1912, authorised translation Masius 1914 Planck refers to Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation and states “since the radiation in air is approximately identical with the radiation into a vacuum” (P64) in deriving the S-B constant from more recent test results..In otherwords Planck assumed a vacuum -he did not consider radiation absorbing atmospheres or convection occurring at surfaces. Also, he assumed black bodies which he thought could be represented by a cavity (without considering a cavity must have internal surfaces which can absorb and emit -see also Robitaille & Crothers Progress in Physics vol11 Apr 2015)
cementafriend – Yes, that’s good research, quoting Planck’s exact words adding to understanding the originations.
Also, when discussing the atmosphere Planck: “However, most gases, e.g., the air of the atmosphere, have, at least if they are not too dense, to a sufficient approximation the optical properties of a vacuum with respect to waves of not too short length.” Your “in other words” is not accurate. The tests Planck referenced in the Rubens&Kurlbaum title I quoted above were performed in the atmosphere in a lab, no vacuum, Planck: “Experimental tests have so far confirmed equation (276).” See R&K fig. 1 for details of setup.
A vacuum was not found necessary to be assumed, Planck again: “the absolute vacuum, which to be sure cannot be produced in nature except approximately” so was not what Planck assumed in producing his law “to a sufficient approximation”.
cementafriend says: September 9, 2015 at 12:13 am
“Also, he assumed black bodies which he thought could be represented by a cavity (without considering a cavity must have internal surfaces which can absorb and emit -see also Robitaille & Crothers Progress in Physics vol11 Apr 2015)”
First of all Both Planck’s spectral equation, and the S-B equation are for a theoretical maximum. Neither says anything of what may happen in this physical. If your calculation leads to higher numbers you can throw “your numbers” in the toilet. Please do not consider that P.M. Robitaille understands anything of a black body cavity! He is a NMRI MD. He “may” know something of resonant cavities, but I even doubt that. He obviously knows nothing of electromagnetic fields, or thermal radiation. Absolutely no one but Pierre-Marie has said or wrote anything of all cavities. A failed MD turned into actor.
Black body cavities, typically a long grooved conical cavities in graphite fronted by a internally reflective hemisphere (integrating sphere), are designed, and tested to have no resonances. A small circular aperture in that reflector is the closest thing you will get to a bb surface. With no real surface it will produce into PI steradians and a similar opposing apparatus at a different temperature, the flux as the S-B equation predicts. The higher temperature cavity needs to supply just that power to ‘maintain’ its temperature against that difference in potential, while the lower temperature cavity needs to sink the exact same power to ‘maintain’ its lower temperature. How many decimal digits you gots money for?
All the best! -will-
“The cloud creates a warm – above – cold temperature inversion which stabilizes the atmosphere below against convection.”
No.
Reason: pyrgeometer change is too fast, no delay.
Please look carefully at the contents of this zip
This is the daily data grab from Chilbolton Observatory.
In this case there is lidar and radar and a water signal as a small occluded front passes over.
See the notch in IR out. Cloud thumbnails are poor but there.
A vast amount of other data could be accessed. Lot of work.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/chilbolton-2015-07-07.zip
I don’t *know* the answer. That’s why I wall sit.
tchannon says: September 9, 2015 at 1:44 am
“I don’t *know* the answer. That’s why I wall sit.”
I hope you do not think I originated such garbodge! I was but chastising ‘pochas’ for trolling.
tchannon says: September 9, 2015 at 1:44 am
“No.
Reason: pyrgeometer change is too fast, no delay.
Please look carefully at the contents of this zip
This is the daily data grab from Chilbolton Observatory.
In this case there is lidar and radar and a water signal as a small occluded front passes over.
See the notch in IR out. Cloud thumbnails are poor but there.”
“I don’t *know* the answer. That’s why I wall sit.”
You have much more patience than I “See the notch in IR out. Cloud thumbnails are poor but there.” What is the writing above the thumbnails? With IR out, what ever do they think they were measuring? That notch is the notch in insolation.! What is such supposed to mean except expensive data? -will-
tchannon says: September 9, 2015 at 1:44 am
“Reason: pyrgeometer change is too fast, no delay.
Please look carefully at the contents of this zip
This is the daily data grab from Chilbolton Observatory.
In this case there is lidar and radar and a water signal as a small occluded front passes over.
See the notch in IR out. Cloud thumbnails are poor but there.”
“I don’t *know* the answer. That’s why I wall sit.”
OK.
Temperature: how high?
r: 300 what?
sun: You got 1000w/m^2 at 10:0 at the surface? please!
Pressure: high but drops in the pm
rain: 1.5 what at 11:30 Ah mm/hr. time resolution?
rh: 100% how high?
water: 0.48 mm or cm in that cloud?
water vapour: peaks at 32 what?
wind_direction: from north
wind_speed: m/s
air_SB_unity: 430 what?
net_IR_out: 70 what? where? how? Is this measured somehow? Fake radiance calculation? Down looking pyrgeometer with rain?
AH,Derived numerical data.
‘Two additional data values are computed.
1. Theoretic blackbody emission in Watts/sqm for the air temperature (which is not ground temperature nor pyrgeometer body temperature, both of which are unknown)
2. Above subtract pyrgeometer, giving a notion of outbound IR’
Notion indeed: Air temperature blackbody emission in Watts/sqm.
Author: Tim Channon, …
Thank you Tim!
Trick says: September 8, 2015 at 5:16 pm
”Diviner measured moon brightness Tmean ~197K Konrad, radio telescopes from Earth confirm the same answer long ago within reasonable CI. The moon is “surface without radiative atmosphere” in same orbit as Earth. Somewhat cooler than Earth Tmean 288K, demonstrating by test moon is not 24K warmer on avg.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sorry Trick, no way out there. The moon does not have deep SW translucent oceans.
Oh and that 197K lunar regolith average? How does that compare to what was initially estimated by the use of the S-B equation? ~90K out wasn’t it?
You can’t use the S-B equation on superfine sharp edged vacuum insulated lunar dust. Nor can you use it on SW illuminated water.
Konrad says: September 9, 2015 at 6:01 am
“Sorry Trick, no way out there. The moon does not have deep SW translucent oceans.
Oh and that 197K lunar regolith average? How does that compare to what was initially estimated by the use of the S-B equation? ~90K out wasn’t it?
You can’t use the S-B equation on superfine sharp edged vacuum insulated lunar dust. Nor can you use it on SW illuminated water.”
Kristain,
The S-B equation has only one use, and that is never a way of getting to some temperature!
That procedure is complex involving several integrals and lots’a guessing! However if you are like me repeatedly putting PI on the top rather than on the bottom where it belongs. The S-B equation can save your young ass. If you ever get a value greater than what the S-B equation allows, quickly flush your work and start over. Before anyone important notices! 🙂
All the best! -will-
Konrad – You can’t use the S-B equation on superfine sharp edged vacuum insulated lunar dust.”
Very good Konrad, you are making significant progress, negligible diffraction agrees with Planck writings in the ref. cementafriend uses & measured samples show regolith diffraction isn’t negligible. The moon brightness temperature Tmean 197K is indicated lower than the sparse surface thermometer temperatures and calculated S-B with surface emissivity assumed = 0.95 to 0.98 or so. Tests show ~0.95 assumed regolith emissivity is not observed, its emissivity is lower for much of the surface powder.
Planck: “Only the phenomena of diffraction, so far at least as they take place in space of considerable dimensions, we shall exclude on account of their rather complicated nature.”
However sea water diffraction has been measured negligible so sea water brightness temperatures compare reasonably close to thermometer temperatures in all my testing along with many others.
Since the first math was done about the net incoming and net outgoing amounts of heat transfers, there is no way that math could ever be correct. The amount of heat build up would be obvious and we wouldn’t be debating it 18 or 19 years later. Based on the IPCC s numbers they would be correct, however they arent. The amount of heat buildup would be simply staggering. First, they had Temps increasing if we had stopped ALL emission of co2 years ago. And as we all know co2 emissions have not only continued but increased. ( which leads to another question as to why the number of co2 molecules per year hasn’t increased ) Second, why are we still debating the clear sky emission rates when obviously the IPCC is wrong. The only question now is what are the real numbers. As far as I can tell co2 is background noise in the cycle. On record and being generous, only 3% of any increased warming…. and is probably so low as to be unmeasurable on the low side. The fact that they are continuing on as if the last 19 years hasn’t happened indicates to me this is a political and not scientific issue. Scientific, they don’t have a leg to stand on. Wrong calculations do not a scientific fact make.
Maybe some people remember the amount of ppm of co2 that we would be past the tipping point and we’d be in a runaway global warming situation. CAWG isn’t saying anything about that anymore, n est pas?
Will, that was a thumbnail of serious data. The bottom right plot is a corrected long wave out. (the story is on the Talkshop (got rid of the AGW fraud)). Incoming short wave can sometimes go above the simplistic maximum. (also been explained)
A bank of heavy cloud went over, visible in the lidar and two radar images. Might have been a few drops of rain, nothing of note. A bucket tip at mid-day is normal even if the bucket is bone dry.
Insolation is notched out by the bank of cloud. The point I am making is that outgoing long wave does the same. Lot of humidity around so the readings are a but vague, nevertheless there it is.
You are asserting the change in outgoing is because the atmosphere has stopped convecting, stirring, etc. I am asserting the instrument can see radiation returned from the cloud and that this is mostly a reflection of ground emission.
This article is accusative.
I cannot see confirmation of the assertion that named individuals are in error.
Where is this?
tchannon says: September 9, 2015 at 1:34 pm
“Will, that was a thumbnail of serious data. The bottom right plot is a corrected long wave out. (the story is on the Talkshop (got rid of the AGW fraud)). Incoming short wave can sometimes go above the simplistic maximum. (also been explained)”
OK! a killowatt/sqm at the surface this time of year at your latitude is highly suspect. I think the calibration of the pyranometer is off.
“A bank of heavy cloud went over, visible in the lidar and two radar images. Might have been a few drops of rain, nothing of note. A bucket tip at mid-day is normal even if the bucket is bone dry.”
OK! even the pyanometer shows the huge dip in surface insolation.
“Insolation is notched out by the bank of cloud. The point I am making is that outgoing long wave does the same. Lot of humidity around so the readings are a but vague, nevertheless there it is.”
EMR exit flux is far greater, and increasing, from the top of that cloud than you can imagine!
Tim, please the air temperature or surface temperature has nothing to do with surface exit flux as I tried to explain at your question “if not flux, what is it?” You keep, pushing the CAGW nonsense that stuff radiates flux just because of its own temperature. It never has, and does not do so now!
“You are asserting the change in outgoing is because the atmosphere has stopped convecting, stirring, etc. I am asserting the instrument can see radiation returned from the cloud and that this is mostly a reflection of ground emission.”
I made no such assertion ‘pochas’ did. I was scolding him. Your instrument is registering the increase in radiance from the bottom of the cloud. The WV latent heat converted to sensible heat within the condensing cloud stays with the water condensate collecting at the bottom of the cloud as the condensate is more dense yet still airborne. There is a measurable vertical temperature gradient in any condensing cloud. this gradient is always higher than the lapse rate. This rate can be as high as -20 Celsius/km. Always higher temp at the bottom. The fool meteorologists call this super-adiabatic and instability. Clouds always condense and are always un-stable. The whole thing descends as its density increases.
Your instrument is measuring higher radiance and indicating higher temperature because the bottom of the cloud is physically at a higher temperature than the surrounding atmosphere. This higher temperature is one of the reasons for little precipitation. The water condensate from higher in the cloud is re-evaporating in the lower cloud. There is no reflection of ground emission as there is no ground emission.
tchannon says: September 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm
“This article is accusative. I cannot see confirmation of the assertion that named individuals are in error. Where is this?
The named individuals are indeed in error! The 2013 article tries unsuccessfully to pin thermopause, namely 10 kPa on some fake radiative convective equilibrium or conversion. This is the only error.
From the surface convective heat transfer does decrease because of lowering density. EMR exit flux accumulates continually all the way to 120 km. The greatest accumulation is at an altitude of 5-6 km, way below the tropopause.
The tropopause begins where atmospheric pressure drops below 20kPa on any planet. This is not because of radiation. It is the transition pressure where molecules start to loose the constraint of nearby other molecules and start to go into orbit. This is just as F. Miskolczi, and the Connolly family describe this Earth’s atmosphere. That is the accusation, and deserves very serious consideration. Someone’s theory needs to be falsified.
All the best! -will-
Will – “The named individuals are indeed in error!”
The top post is incorrect in many ways by test Will, R&C are correct as they base their paper all on test observations. Will has no test to support his willful nonsense assertion: “There is no reflection of ground emission as there is no ground emission.”
Will even contradicts this himself: “EMR exit flux accumulates continually all the way to 120 km.” Astronauts contradict Will also when they report seeing Earth L&O surface. They even have photographs proving such Will! In the IR and visible bands!
Any fool can see clouds are bright – in visible range – as that is all any fool can see. Highly polished (clean) aluminum and silver are highly reflecting at IR, MW and radio wavelengths. But what is true for those metals is not true for clouds. Although thick clouds may have high reflectivities for visible solar radiation, these same clouds are nearly black (little reflection) at IR wavelengths emitted by the L&O surface. Test for this assertion: Clear sky is always radiatively much colder than cloudy sky. Tested conclusion: Clouds mostly emit and absorb LW radiation from the surface and reflect solar SW.
“The tropopause begins where atmospheric pressure drops below 20kPa on any planet. This is not because of radiation. It is the transition pressure where molecules start to loose the constraint of nearby other molecules and start to go into orbit.”
Eye roll, please. Thank you.
Trick says: September 9, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Konrad – You can’t use the S-B equation on superfine sharp edged vacuum insulated lunar dust.”
Trick -Very good Konrad, you are making significant progress
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Back to the Alinskyite condescension again Trick? That won’t work.
Back when GallopingCamel and Tim were working on the regolith problem, just who worked out the vacuum insulated dust issue? Oh wait…that was me. It’s not enough to know that the regolith is acting as a SW selective surface, you need to know why.
Now how did the Diviner engineers check their instruments before launch? Empirical experiment –
– They put a regolith sample in vacuum, killed all background IR with a cryo-cooled “sky” and illuminated the sample with SW.
Now how would we check “surface without radiative atmosphere” for the oceans? Empirical experiment –
– suppress conductive and evaporative cooling from a water sample, and kill all background IR, then intermittently illuminate with SW.
Did the climastrologists do anything like this before declaring 255K for surface without atmosphere? NO!. Those fools just stuck 240 w/m2 into the S-B equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. You can’t say they didn’t, there are too many papers showing that is exactly the mistake they made.
And this?
”However sea water diffraction has been measured negligible so sea water brightness temperatures compare reasonably close to thermometer temperatures in all my testing along with many others.”
That just proves you don’t even begin to understand the problem. This has nothing to do with correlating IR observation with measured temperature. The oceans absorb SW well below the surface, but they can cool only from their surface. Energy absorbed is is delayed in exiting the oceans because of the slow speed of internal conduction and convection. This allows energy to accumulate. This is an actual greenhouse effect. If the oceans could only cool by direct emission of LWIR to space, they would average 335K or beyond.
If you want to argue that “surface without radiative atmosphere” should be below 288K for this ocean planet, you will need to produce comparable empirical experiments or evidence of CFD modelling. But you can’t do that because the climastrologists never did that.
Pyranometer off, no[1] Date is 7th July, not long after annual peak. There is probably a slight excess, two sun effect of cloud. I’ll be posting some data on this in a planned article.
I’m finding your assertions troubling.
There is emission from the ground but this is not an AGW problem. This emission is cancelled to varying degrees by something coming in the other direction. A warm cloud base? This is where I’m not clear on reality.
1. It is serviced to schedule, not that anything changes. Replacing the desiccant is the main service item.
tchannon says: September 10, 2015 at 3:13 am
“Pyranometer off, no[1] Date is 7th July, not long after annual peak. There is probably a slight excess, two sun effect of cloud. I’ll be posting some data on this in a planned article.”
I have been measuring at lower latitude, and cannot get to surface 850w/m2 even on the brightest clearest noontime! I heard your skies are always grey. Is your instrument measuring insolation or whole sky radiance?
“I’m finding your assertions troubling. There is emission from the ground but this is not an AGW problem. This emission is cancelled to varying degrees by something coming in the other direction.”
Radiative flux is only detached from an emitter in a direction lower radiance and limited by the value of that radiance. This is what the actual S-B equation demands!
Consider two gas tanks with the same gas at different pressures. Connect the two and open both valves! Gas mass flows only from the higher pressure until the pressures equilibrate. Then mass flow stops!!! Do some molecules still swish? Yes but this is not mass flow. You and the CAGW nuts claim that both tanks have mass flow against zero pressure, and some mass returns from zero pressure to what was the lower pressure tank, for some fantasy NET. Not only that but the more rabid ClimAstrologists, like Trick, insist that there is always a mass flow in both directions proportional only to the pressure of each tank although both pressures are the same.
I ‘hate’ to use the gas analogy for EMR flux because that is also somewhat misleading, and something needing ‘unlearning’ for understanding. Please use it only to get an idea of how EMR ‘may’ actually work, then flush it, or get tied up in different knots! 😦
“A warm cloud base? This is where I’m not clear on reality.”
See Konrad’s graph September 8, 2015 at 3:24 am
Notice the temperature range for that one cloud! 15 Celsius for 600 meters.
All the best! -will-
Tim,
I believe what you are asking is “ground reflection or warm cloud base”.
From observation I can say no to ground reflection. (or at least ground reflection plays only a minor role). Today I have a full “UK” sky, with full high overcast. The cloud has been in place long enough to cool to ambient and is reading around -1C (e=0.9). Ground temp however remains around 22C. This would indicate I am reading cloud temp at 3000m rather than ground reflection.
My earlier IR observations of cloud formation indicate initial warming to above ambient for formation altitude, followed by rapid cooling (presumably through conduction / radiation) to ambient.
The cloud drifting over your sensor may be old and at ambient temp for its altitude, but it reduces LWIR emission from your sensor as it is far more IR opaque than the surrounding clear air. Even air fully saturated with water vapour is no match in the IR for condensed cloud.
As to the initial warming above ambient, while this can be observed in the IR, there are very few radiosonde measurements. The only two I have found are Bluestien 1988 and this –
Click to access anvil.pdf
both these relate to fortuitous radiosonde penetration of towering cumulus, where the initial heat pulse of cloud formation is sustained for far longer than other formations. Both of these rare transects managed to find zones within cloud where temperatures were ~10C higher than clear sky ambient at the same altitude.
Konrad says: September 10, 2015 at 5:43 am
“As to the initial warming above ambient, while this can be observed in the IR, there are very few radiosonde measurements. The only two I have found are Bluestien 1988 and this –
Click to access anvil.pdf
both these relate to fortuitous radiosonde penetration of towering cumulus, where the initial heat pulse of cloud formation is sustained for far longer than other formations. Both of these rare transects managed to find zones within cloud where temperatures were ~10C higher than clear sky ambient at the same altitude.”
Konrad,
Do you know what they mean by dilute air, and undilute air? These guys certainly talk funny! 🙂
”Do you know what they mean by dilute air, and undilute air? These guys certainly talk funny”
Yes, strangely I understand what they mean, although their language is somewhat obscure. (they are trying to find new words for new concepts in meteorology).
Back in 2010 Makarieva et al released a discussion paper. But the “knights of consensus” rode out to do battle. The warmulonians tried to destroy Anastasia Makarieva and her colleagues, even though their paper was on horizontal circulation in meteorology not climastrology. They were doing something valuable, trying to account for missing energy in cyclonic/hurricane formations, something that would benefit the world. Something that would advance science. Something that could protect communities and save lives.
But they were viciously attacked by the warmulonians. I wanted to know why (the actions of Steve Mosher and others looked (and is permanently recorded) as being totally foul). Being skilled in empirical experiment (wind tunnel / fluid dynamics / radiative damped chamber), in 2010 I set out to find what was so distressing the warmulonians. Why did they want M2010 destroyed?
Didn’t take me long to find it. (1 day). Radiative /conductive cooling of moist airmasses after the initial heat pulse of latent heat release after dew point. Makarieva et al were right. Smaller cloud formations can cause horizontal suction. The warmulonians demanded that “radiative cooling of the atmosphere” be written out of history. “ThoughtCrime” they shrieked. Did I listen?
So what is this “dilute air, and undilute air” nonsense about? What they mean is trying to track a rising moist airmass without considering radiative cooling or edge turbulent conductive cooling. (an imaginary “clean” adiabatic mass). A rare circumstance, hence I only had 2 radiosonde transects to offer Tim.
Here’s another way of putting it Will –
Imagine a 1000m sphere saturated airmass rising 2000m above the surface. Picture it? Good!
Now at 2000m altitude, how much of the 1000m sphere’s outer surface needs to cool to ambient or below to kill buoyancy? Radiative cooling? Conductive turbulent cooling? Who cares? It’s only the outer 25m of a 1000m sphere.
Have you ever heard of a warmulonian talking of our atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability? No? Well that’s how you know they are scum!
Konrad, I think it was discussion on M2010 when Dr Gavin Schmidt admitted he did not know of the Schmidt number or how it was used see here http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng402/proj02/jessica7/sccalc.html how it is used in evaporation. How did Schmidt ever get to lead NASA -GISS and fiddle with recorded temperature data.
Konrad 2:59am: Can you post up a ref. for those regolith test pictures? That’s a good find & you have not done so previously iirc. You came up with it AFTER I pointed out how much lunar surface was dust with particle size on order of wavelength of interest in a NASA report.
“Those fools just stuck 240 w/m2 into the S-B equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. You can’t say they didn’t.”
The long recorded ref.s didn’t, R&C don’t & R&C paper is observation based.
Actual inspection instead of assumption shows standard ref.s used emissivity 0.95-0.98 for Earth L&O surface emissivity found from many in situ tests and around 0.8 emissivity for global atmosphere looking up, arctic to tropics, check the discussion of Earth atm. optical depth in R&C paper top post. Both are not unity. Actually check the ref. cite I gave you long ago. And many others. R&C are correct from actual test.
“suppress conductive and evaporative cooling from a water sample”
There is no such natural suppression. Konrad continues to be wrong about that. No such sheet of LDPE grows on the ocean surface overnight during cooling periods. R&C get the radiative physics correct supported by numerous tests.
“If the oceans could only cool by direct emission of LWIR to space, they would average 335K or beyond. If you want to argue that “surface without radiative atmosphere” should be below 288K for this ocean planet, you will need to produce comparable empirical experiments”
And oceans wouldn’t be around very long radiating directly to space like arid Mars & moon.
See the Diviner (moon brightness Tmean=197K) and c. 1970 radio telescope (moon facing Earth Tmean=230K) empirical experiment data. The radio telescope data show moon regions where the surface powder is sparse brightness T avg. 255K – isn’t that interesting Konrad? The radio telescopes also worked for Mars, Venus, Mercury…
Will,
I’m reported the data from Kipp & Zonen instruments operated by a major cloud research site. The figures are for the hemisphere, standard stuff.
These figures agree very well with computed insolation, whole things fits together, including from other parts of the world. (patience on not being shown excess data, don’t want to spoil a later article)
If you email me an exact location lat/long, (less important, altitude, temperature, pressure), and the day I’ll plot the expected clear day insolation.
Interesting stuff Konrad. I’ll cogitate.
One of the keys I have been seeking but never found is an excess of down IR in pyrgeometer data. Nor does an indirect IR tool ever show above ground temperature.
All about getting a clear situation in mind.
Konrad says: September 10, 2015 at 9:55 am
Will Janoschka says: September 10, 2015 at 8:56 am
(”Do you know what they mean by dilute air, and undilute air? These guys certainly talk funny”)
Yes, strangely I understand what they mean, although their language is somewhat obscure. (they are trying to find new words for new concepts in meteorology).
I will leave out the warmulonian talking (trying not to through up on my new keyboard) BUT:
What property of the local atmospheric mass is being un-diluted, in what way?
1. mass: Mass reduces with precipitation to the surface only?
2. local mass distribution of clouds: More dense at the bottom?
3. density: Spontaneously less at higher altitudes (logarithmic)?
4. pressure: Spontaneously less at higher altitudes (logarithmic?
5. temperature: Spontaneously less at higher altitudes (troposphere linear):
6. P/rho proportional to temperature via molecular kT (constant gamma)?
7. local column water?
8. local absolute humidity?
9. local relative humidity?
0. something else that must remain undefined?
“So what is this “dilute air, and undilute air” nonsense about?”
“What they mean is trying to track a rising moist airmass without considering radiative cooling or edge turbulent conductive cooling. (an imaginary “clean” adiabatic mass). A rare circumstance, hence I only had 2 radiosonde transects to offer Tim.”
So is this just more meteorological fantasy with no meaning? Or is there some significance?
“Here’s another way of putting it Will –”
“Imagine a 1000m sphere saturated airmass rising 2000m above the surface. Picture it? Good!
Now at 2000m altitude, how much of the 1000m sphere’s outer surface needs to cool to ambient or below to kill buoyancy? Radiative cooling? Conductive turbulent cooling? Who cares? It’s only the outer 25m of a 1000m sphere.”
OK Saturated sphere centered at 2km altitude lowest 1.5km highest 2.5km. Assume surface 30 C.
Rh 100% WV 4% by volume 2.4% by mass at the surface. For “Earth’s” atmosphere, another 0.6% by mass of water condensate Column water 3 gm/100gm. A 1 sqcm column. Other things claimed by meteorology, Lowest 7.5 C below surface, Center 10 C below surface, Top 12.5 C above surface, No radiative flux to space, No radiative decrease in temperature.
This could only be in this earth’s atmosphere if your 1 km sphere were surrounded by a 4Km saturated sphere just touching the surface with the outer 200 meters everywhere different, unless that is contained in an even larger very similar semi-sphere intersecting the surface. What are the measurements of everything. Has anyone ever measured what this physical atmosphere actually is/does? The atmosphere does remain a isopotential statically. But not ‘that’ statically.
So what is this “dilute air, and undilute air” nonsense about? In your reference ‘they’ wrote of undiluted air high in the tropopause. Just what of that air was undiluted? While you are at it, is there an actual definition of the meteorological “entrained”, that is used consistently in just that way in meteorology? Can’t we just flush Meteorology, and start reasonably?
All the best! -will-
tchannon says: September 10, 2015 at 10:54 pm
“Will,I’m reported the data from Kipp & Zonen instruments operated by a major cloud research site. The figures are for the hemisphere, standard stuff.”
OK model outputs, or actual calibrated measurements of something measurable?
“These figures agree very well with computed insolation, whole things fits together, including from other parts of the world. (patience on not being shown excess data, don’t want to spoil a later article). If you email me an exact location lat/long, (less important, altitude, temperature, pressure), and the day I’ll plot the expected clear day insolation.
No thanks, I would prefer to be surprised, rather than disappointed, by whatever is expected. Clear day insolation has never happened anywhere. Were those Chilbolton Observatory measurements called “sun”, direct insolation normal to a 68 micro-steradian source, (tracking), or from whole sky radiance 2PI sr? 🙂
Measured.
Whole sky.
Pyrheliometer data is available but decoding netcdf and dealing with sampling at probably 2 seconds is not something I want to do without a specific reason.
There is plenty of detail argument possible, such as over the calibration methods. I find this quite amusing. WRC is full of wry smile stuff, how many PhD take their pet instruments on a jolly, all the best there is you understand, scull around and all declare different figures. Mandatory group photo of course.
Olde Englishe term, or thereabouts. Most of this stuff is +-5% of absolute excluding various conditions.
Amuses me too how megabucks puts up satellite hosted instruments yet still there is considerable error.
1% error in the solar constant is +-3K on earth temperature. 0.1% is precision but that’s still +-0.3K, now figure how it has changed since 1880, when we barely were able to put a figure on things.
tchannon says: September 11, 2015 at 3:40 am
“Measured. Whole sky. Pyrheliometer data is available but decoding netcdf and dealing with sampling at probably 2 seconds is not something I want to do without a specific reason.”
Thank you Tim,
Some of the best measurements of what is actually received by Earth’s surface in W/m^2, are from clean, large area solar panels mounted parallel to the surface, even in polar regions. They have repeatable response below 2 microns (96% of solar integrated spectrum) and angular absorptivity similar to soil or thin ground cover; high for water, high reflectance at angle. (Tree leaves have unknown surface area). Some of the manufacturers carefully measure the efficiency between short circuit current out to EMR power in. They have competitors!!
Watch what happens with those puppies with overcast or low cloud cover! Does anyone care about the measurable absorption of insolation by the atmosphere? The models say!!!! The biggest problem with measurement is: “Tell me again just what I am trying to measure!”. Sometimes takes 3 years after the measurement. The World Radiation Centre is full of academic bull shit. Ask JPL for actual information.
All the best! -will-
Trick says: September 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oh please Trick! Still defending 255K for surface without radiative atmosphere for Earth? And worse using data from other planets and moons that don’t have deep SW translucent oceans?!
Show me the empirical experiments showing the oceans without radiative atmosphere would only warm to an average of 255K due to direct solar illumination. Otherwise you fail. Again.
NO! It’s no good bleating about lack of evaporative or conductive cooling, “surface without radiative atmosphere” precludes that. The climastrologists clearly didn’t include evaporative or conductive cooling in deriving their hideously wrong 255K figure. (Their failed calculation did not include a non-radiative atmosphere either, claim that it did and you would be lying). So your mindless warbling about LDPE film is just that. Mindless.
And R&C?. Would you, in your foaming panic, run to sceptics? As a sceptic, I happily claim R&C to be wrong, on the basis of empirical experiment. Sceptics attack sceptics. The science is not settled and we, unlike warmulonians, are not collectivists.
Now Trick, just where are your empirical experiments to counter mine? Just where is your empirical evidence that land and ocean surface without radiative atmosphere would only average 255K? You don’t have any do you? Might as well imitate the last bin you turned over, you’re empty!
Will Janoschka says: September 11, 2015 at 2:03 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Will,
you are being too harsh. Un-dilute just means “Hooray! We got a transect of a forming cumulus cloud through the centre not the edges!” They’re happy little bunnies. There is no need to discuss the efficacy of wire wound fragmentation grenades!
Most meteorologists are paid to launch weather radiosonde balloons before weather systems develop. (and make reasonably accurate predictions. Ie: not climastrology).
Now if you want more accurate data on cloud formation you may require “smart balloons” –
http://www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/smartballoon/smartballoon.htm
These can control their buoyancy and track within a rising airmass, unlike old radiosondes that just transect.
NOAA was funding the development of these, but their priorities have changed. Apparently Obamaclese the Great One has demanded “Lashings of climate propaganda”. (Smart balloons,and indeed ginger beer, now appear surplus to requirements).
Konrad says: September 11, 2015 at 6:06 am
“Will, you are being too harsh. Un-dilute just means “Hooray! We got a transect of a forming cumulus cloud through the centre not the edges!” They’re happy little bunnies. There is no need to discuss the efficacy of
Do you mean they actually found an air parcel somewhere? Hooray indeed!! “wire wound fragmentation grenades!” I much prefer the one ton hyperbaric puppies the USAF has that when they fail to detonate, the Taliban sells to Sir Putin for good money! Was that enough words to get on THE LIST?
“Most meteorologists are paid to launch weather radiosonde balloons before weather systems develop. (and make reasonably accurate predictions. Ie: not climastrology).” They are OK except for the brainwashing, i.e. Anthony Watts! It is the Academics of this religion that I wish flushed! 🙂
“Now if you want more accurate data on cloud formation you may require “smart balloons” –
http://www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/smartballoon/smartballoon.htm
These can control their buoyancy and track within a rising airmass, unlike old radiosondes that just transect.”
Can you imagine adding 6-3phase motors with 9″-5 pitch props. Three each at 120 degree outward lateral intervals to both nominal top and bottom? Whee!! hang around anywhere for about $200 with gryo stabilisation. Chinese hexa-copter parts!! LiPo batteries extra! Nude beach folk moon you!
“NOAA was funding the development of these, but their priorities have changed. Apparently Obamaclese the Great One has demanded “Lashings of climate propaganda”. (Smart balloons,and indeed ginger beer, now appear surplus to requirements).”
Obamaclese the Great One, after John Cleese of dead Parrot fame? John is funny!
Konrad says: September 11, 2015 at 6:06 am
“Will, you are being too harsh. Un-dilute just means “Hooray! We got a transect of a forming cumulus cloud through the centre not the edges!” They’re happy little bunnies. There is no need to discuss the efficacy of wire wound fragmentation grenades!”
Do you mean they actually found an air parcel somewhere? Hooray indeed!!
Just checking!!!
“Most meteorologists are paid to launch weather radiosonde balloons before weather systems develop. (and make reasonably accurate predictions. Ie: not climastrology).”
They are OK except for the brainwashing, i.e. Anthony Watts! It is the Academics of this religion that I wish flushed! 🙂
“Now if you want more accurate data on cloud formation you may require “smart balloons” –
http://www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/smartballoon/smartballoon.htm
These can control their buoyancy and track within a rising airmass, unlike old radiosondes that just transect.”
Can you imagine adding 6-3phase motors with 9″-5 pitch props. Three each at 120 degree outward lateral intervals to both nominal top and bottom? Whee!! hang around anywhere for about $200 with gryo stabilisation. Chinese hexa-copter parts!! LiPo batteries extra! Nude beach folk moon you!
“NOAA was funding the development of these, but their priorities have changed. Apparently Obamaclese the Great One has demanded “Lashings of climate propaganda”. (Smart balloons,and indeed ginger beer, now appear surplus to requirements).”
Obamaclese the Great One, after John Cleese of dead Parrot fame? John is funny!
Will J: Whee!! hang around anywhere for about $200 with gryo stabilisation
Ah, those crazy Brits
Konrad says: September 11, 2015 at 6:06 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you mean they actually found an air parcel somewhere? Hooray indeed!!
Just checking!!! What next
“Most meteorologists are paid to launch weather radiosonde balloons before weather systems develop. (and make reasonably accurate predictions. Ie: not climastrology).”
They are OK except for the brainwashing, i.e. AW! It is the Academics of this religion that I wish flushed! 🙂
“Now if you want more accurate data on cloud formation you may require “smart balloons” –
http://www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/smartballoon/smartballoon.htm
These can control their buoyancy and track within a rising airmass, unlike old radiosondes that just transect.”
Can you imagine adding 6-3phase motors with 9″-5 pitch props. Three each at 120 degree outward lateral intervals to both nominal top and bottom? Whee!! hang around anywhere for about $200 with gryo stabilisation. Chinese hexa-copter parts!! LiPo batteries extra! Nude beach folk moon you!
All the best! -will-
tallbloke says: September 11, 2015 at 7:04 am
(‘Will J: Whee!! hang around anywhere for about $200 with gryo stabilisation’)
‘Ah, those crazy Brits’
Roger,
Not that many motors!! Kitten and I have all the parts for hexa-copter! Ran out of will to build!!
Lipo batteries ’bout 20 gm each and run motor for 30 minutes when lifting. On a variable density balloon in this atmosphere! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If they used lotsa much smaller He balloons, even shootdown proof! Your guy needs a better Chinese gyro module $15, flip over proof!!
All the best! -will-
Konrad 5:34am – No ref. for your 2:59am regolith test pictures? Writhing around name calling won’t help Konrad’s political cause only proper science test that R&C used will do so.
Proper Diviner test of the global moon is now available confirming radio telescope data; moon wasn’t found Tmean 312K or even 325K “without radiative atmosphere” by either. The addition of a radiative atmosphere to Earth doesn’t cool its surface Konrad, nor of any object observed by R&C, as Konrad has incorrectly claimed for years. Earth surface mean is not thermometer observed below 197K.
Actually the Earth’s atm. thick opacity at surface allows for oceans & vegetation/dirt and warms Earth surface above moon global surface Tmean 197K by a GTE of some 91K; further analysis may refine that result. No way around the tests Konrad, even sparse moon thermometer data (indicated higher than 197K mean) doesn’t show 312K.
Konrad’s Earth “without radiative atmosphere” surface Tmean 312K theory is finished, a Diviner test result demonstrated failure after all these years.
The Earth with optically thin 1bar atm. and oceans would test somewhere between global 197K mean (albedo .11) and 255K (albedo 0.30) based on these tests and nowhere near 312K. Konrad’s 312K theory needs that sheet of LDPE covering the oceans creating a solar pond effect not observed in nature.
Will,
PV cells are not stable against time, are non-linear, etc. (retired design engineer writes that)
The purpose designed instruments are inherently compensated (or read intrinsic) producing a linear output, nothing more than reading or recording is required. This includes the angular compensation. This includes the spectral high pass. (not very good).
It could be done with a servo cavity radiometer.
Full instruments including spectral, very expensive, dubious reliability, I doubt good enough is available.
So far as I can tell proxy workarounds are used to get a handle on spectral variation. Old technique, how the following data was produced. If you have never seen this before it’s probably the only plot on the ‘net. Data is ignored by the rest. Data 1915 to 1923 is more problematic, not touched it.
We’ve been measuring TSI for 100 years from up mountains on earth. This doesn’t deal with solar linkage not making it through and maybe a few other details.
tchannon says: September 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm
“Will, PV cells are not stable against time, are non-linear, etc. (retired design engineer writes that)”
Tim,
No argument! Still,they have repeatable response below 2 microns (96% of solar integrated spectrum) and angular absorptivity similar to soil or thin ground cover; high for water, with its high reflectance at angle from normal. The response of short circuit current to solar irradiance W/m^2 is most linear. Power output even with the most efficient regulator is quite nonlinear because 1/2 the power converted is dissipated as heat in the cell itself wearing the thing out. Remaining shorted or open and well cleaned they are both stable, and more easily recalibrated than even a bolometer, and quite insensitive to self temperature variance under a quite wide range. I am not questioning some high altitude TSI measurement, but instead measuring what the ground and flowers currently get under all weather conditions. Lots less than what is claimed! Such a well behaved lapse rate from such a stable atmosphere. What a nice planet!!
All the best! -will-
Not sure what you are trying to say, I think it is that the purpose design instruments are wrong.
See the old data, I computed the values from the measured data, took some figuring. The 1AU TSI value is not in general dispute at the 0.5% level.
Compute the effect of atmospheric mass etc.
Compute the effect of solar azimuth.
This gives a figure.
I took a supposed to be good published insolation code and that doesn’t agree so I use a scale factor. Not certain, is 0.782 or 5% less than that, can’t remember, would need to check.
It might be I misunderstand something, this scale factor shouldn’t be necessary but has no effect on my usage since the results match published data from a variety of instruments. (I can compute for the exact time and location of the reading)
Doing this stuff is a way to get a real understanding.
Friends at the Talkshop,
It is straightforward to demonstrate that the accusations (and insults) presented in the primary post above are either baseless, irrelevant, or stem from a failure to read (and critically digest) my work (done in collaboration with others, of course). I’ve engaged in interesting, thoughtful, and, sometimes, fruitful dialogue with many Talkshop members since the publication of Robinson and Catling (2012). Unfortunately, the above post, and most of the ensuing discussion, falls well short of this standard for dialogue and critical thinking, all while sitting beneath a personally damaging title.
The statement that our modeling work contains an “incorrect” reaction between methane (CH4) and the hydroxyl radical (OH-) is both wrong in a narrow view and in a broad view. Narrowly, chemical modeling in no way appears in Robinson and Catling (2014). Thus, it is impossible to have our chemistry “wrong”.
More broadly, the quoted reaction of methane with the hydroxyl radical is well-studied and well-known. In atmospheric chemistry, it is the largest known sink for Earth’s atmospheric methane. This information is straightforwardly obtained from easily accessed sources, like plain-old Wikipedia.
The discussion in the primary post on the attribution of radiative fluxes to different gases also demonstrates a failure to even skim our work. Our treatment of radiative transfer is gray, meaning that we average our gas opacities over the full thermal infrared spectral range. (This is a common assumption made when studies attempt to derive simplified climate models.) So, our model in no way makes any assumptions about which gases provide what fluxes. In brief, as our model is typically used to fit observed temperature profiles, the gray radiative fluxes in our model are whatever they need to be to reproduce observed planetary surface (or deep atmosphere) temperatures.
Finally, the primary post mentions that we neglect water droplets and ice crystals. This, again, is mostly untrue. The solar radiative fluxes absorbed in our model atmospheres are designed to reproduce the correct, observed planetary albedos. Insofar as clouds and hazes (not just water clouds) are a major influence on the albedos of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, and Neptune, then we are certainly including cloud effects. The same statement is true for our gray atmospheric opacities—they are designed to capture whatever combined gas and cloud thermal radiative effects are needed to fit observed surface temperatures.
Taking a step back, it is important to note that the analytic model used in Robinson and Catling (2014), which is published in the freely accessible Robinson and Catling (2012), is based on a very simple set of atmospheric physics. We include a parameterized treatment of how solar flux is absorbed in/at planetary atmospheres and surfaces. We have a straightforward, gray, two-stream treatment of the exchange of thermal radiative fluxes. Finally, we adjust the regions of our atmospheric models that are convectively unstable to an adiabat that includes a simple treatment of latent heating effects. We ensure energy conservation, radiative flux continuity, and temperature continuity. These are all broadly accepted physical models, and each of you can check the equations and math yourself.
Finally, while I appreciate Cementafriend’s extensive (and, likely, very useful!) background in engineering and combustion, we all must realize that details of chemistry and physics will work very differently in varying regimes. It seems obvious that the specific elements of physics that describe the thermal chemistry of combustion, and the advective and radiative transfer of heat in a combustion system, will be markedly different from the key elements that describe planetary atmospheric photochemistry and heat transfer. I wouldn’t walk into Ford to interrupt a meeting of their combustion engineers to tell them that, in my understanding of planetary atmospheric physics, I know that they are wrong. Great ideas and good criticism can come from anyone with any background, but we must be careful when applying ideas from one field as proof of error in another field.
Most sincerely,
Tyler Robinson
Tyler Robinson,
Thank you for a gentle reply under the circumstances.
For your information I’m a moderator but it is Tallbloke’s blog. I think Tallbloke had an off moment, should have toned down what he wrote into a questioning.
For the moment I’ll insert a link to your comment in the article.
Tyler Robinson says: September 11, 2015 at 7:51 pm
“Friends at the Talkshop,
It is straightforward to demonstrate that the accusations (and insults) presented in the primary post above are either baseless, irrelevant, or stem from a failure to read (and critically digest) my work (done in collaboration with others, of course).”
Dr. Robinson,
Please let me echo the words of Tim Channon, Thank you for a gentle reply under the circumstances.
Tim has now changed the title and made reference to your post. Do you find that more should be done? I feel your paper was very good and necessary for pointing out the commonality of planets with atmospheric pressures above 200 kPAa having a most linear lapse in temperature increasing with decreasing altitude from that point. Cementafriend was likely incorrect in his characterization of CH4 in reference to your paper. Outside of that, could you please point out the other posts that you claim are ‘baseless, irrelevant, or stem from a failure to read (and critically digest) my work’. I have read and found emphasis on atmospheric radiative effects including the two stream approach, that have no basis in this physical world. I would enjoy discussing with you my observations of your work!
All the best! -will-
Dr Tyler Robinson
The chemical equation that I mentioned above as being incorrect is equation 73 in Catling DC 2015 Planetary Atmospheres. I did not know my comment would be posted under that heading which is refers to the Catling & Robinson presentation. I have no argument about the photochemical reactions in the later. So I apologise.
When I see methane mentioned as a supposed “greenhouse gas” with respect to earth’s atmosphere I get concerned. The statement, that methane is 21 (or some other near multiple) times more radiant absorbing (or greenhouse equivalent) than CO2, is not true. It is a lie that somehow without scientific evidence got into IPCC reports. That has coloured my response to a great extent. As a professional engineer I look always at facts and take into account my own experience. I have experience with heat & mass transfer including experience with combustion of methane. I know the limitations and errors with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. I know something about errors of measurement and sampling. My experience tells me that CO2 at the present concentration in the atmosphere has an insignificant role in heat transfer on the Earth. Methane which is very much less radiant heat absorbing at temperatures in the atmosphere than CO2 and is more of a trace gas has zero effect. I will read your presentation again.
Thank you for coming to this blog and commenting. It is always good to discuss ideas and presentations from informed persons.
cementafriend says: September 12, 2015 at 3:42 pm
“Dr Tyler Robinson
The chemical equation that I mentioned above as being incorrect is equation 73 in Catling DC 2015 Planetary Atmospheres. I did not know my comment would be posted under that heading which is refers to the Catling & Robinson presentation. I have no argument about the photochemical reactions in the later. So I apologise.”
CF,
So glad you cleared that up! What do think of the other comments in this re-named thread? I was also concerned, of sections 13.3.4, 13.3.5 of the Catling DC 2015 Planetary Atmospheres, which use many of the same concepts and equations. Do you think Dr. Robinson will reply? Many, many questions remain about the physical significance and correctness of both papers. Will Dr. Catling defend ‘his’ paper in public? Are we all here at the Talkshop to lowly for consideration? 🙂
Will, yes there are a few problems with the Catling paper. For a start he references and takes data from the likes of Houghton, Karl, Trenberth and Pierrehumbert -that says much. I did mention elsewhere that Trenberth admitted his figure for the “radiation window” of 40 W/m2 was wrong and should be 66 W/m2 but he had not got around to sending in a correction. Trenberth also featured in the Climategate emails in attempting to stop some publications which he did not approve. Houghton was a leader in starting the IPCC scam. Houghton’s book contains many wrong assumptions and shows lack of understanding.
Anyway, a couple of figures for Titan to put things into perspective. The melting point of methane is -182.6C and the boiling point is -161.4C. If the surface temperature is -179C is likely during maximum insolation that CH4 can evaporate and then as it rises nd cools with the lapse rate that it can condense and even freeze to form clouds nd even rain. The latent heat of evaporation is about one fifth of water. Ethane and ethylene have melting points of -172C and -169C respectively. So they could be in lakes on Titan’s surface.
cementafriend says: September 13, 2015 at 10:26 am
“Will, yes there are a few problems with the Catling paper. For a start he references and takes data from the likes of Houghton, Karl, Trenberth and Pierrehumbert -that says much. I did mention elsewhere that Trenberth admitted his figure for the “radiation window” of 40 W/m2 was wrong and should be 66 W/m2 but he had is thatnot got around to sending in a correction.”
CF,
You are rightfully finding nits, and picking on nits. However the Effalump stomping ’round in the China shop is that all of R’s and C’s papers strictly defend some “greenhouse effect due to in/out EMR flux in Earth’s atmosphere.
Such is ‘fraud’ coupled with opportunistic religious and political propaganda for obvious financial gain. These folk are “NOT” amateurs. They completely anticipated your objection to the fraud, way before they started spouting. The atmospheric ‘lapse rate’ that the shysters call GHE, has nothing to do with EMR flux as that EMR flux is proportional to 1/r^2 from the primary.
The inflection from linear lapse, to zero, to the other way is from 20kPa to 10kPa on all planets with atmospheric pressures higher than that. There is no connection of lapse rate and EMR flux. We should all be screaming that the R&C papers clearly demonstrate no GHE ever! That Catling 2015 paper is complete BS about atmospheric anything.,
All the best! -will-
Forgot to mention on P441 of the Catling paper the rubbish guess from Schmidt GA et al 2010 “the greenhouse effect on Earth, water vapor is responsible for ~50%, clouds ~25%, CO2 ~20%, and other gases the remainder” Gavin has admitted he does not know about the Schmidt number and he has been found out fiddling USA and global temperature records. It does not matter how complicated calculations are (even if right or wrong) the results can not be taken seriously if the input data are guesses supporting a doubtful theory.
Will Janoschka says, September 13, 2015 at 11:11 am
“That Catling 2015 paper is complete BS about atmospheric anything.,”
1. Did you mean the2014 paper mentioned at the head of this thread?
2. If so you are entitled to your opinion but if you want to persuade others you should offer a hypothesis that does a better job of explaining what is observed.
Here are some links that may help:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1833
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6859
Tyler is unlikely to comment in public for reasons you should be able to mostly work out. With this in mind I suggest toning down criticism.
If you want engagement the environment and trust has to be right. Is it?
Worth keeping in mind… could you have written a major part of that paper? (there was a co-author)
We should also remember the majority of papers published are makeweights whereas this is real content even if it is imperfect.
gallopingcamel says: September 14, 2015 at 2:46 am
Will Janoschka says, September 13, 2015 at 11:11 am
(“That Catling 2015 paper is complete BS about atmospheric anything.,”)
“1. Did you mean the2014 paper mentioned at the head of this thread?”
No Peter,
Reference to that paper was a mistake, read above.The Catling DC 2015 Planetary Atmospheres was the one cementafrend was referring.
“2. If so you are entitled to your opinion but if you want to persuade others you should offer a hypothesis that does a better job of explaining what is observed.”
The R&C 2012,2014 paper was good in that the 10kPa tropopause seems independent of magnitude of EMR in/out (distance from Sun)! What is wrong with that paper is the emphasis on the two stream radiation concept that is nonsense!
I have expressed that alternate here at TB’s many times. The 20kPa pressure is where all atmospheric molecules begin to cease the constraint of banging into nearby molecules. Above and a lower pressures the molecules and clusters of such, are in Keplerian elliptic orbit about the Earth. The linear P/rho lapse rate ceases above this level. Such formation of linear tropospheric lapse rate has nothing to do with EMR, is not a ‘greenhouse effect’, and does not even require convection to exist. Convection modifies the gravity induces lapse rate. Why??
From the R&C paper:
‘Given γ, n, and other inputs (Table 1), our model computes radiative-‐convective
equilibrium by solving for infrared optical depths at the radiative-‐convective boundary (τrc) and a reference pressure (τ0, determined at either the surface or 1 bar where the atmosphere is optically thick in the infrared). The greenhouse effect necessary to maintain temperature T0 at p0 is related to τ0. Consequently, the tropopause pressure,ptp,weakly declines with increasing greenhouse effect according to pt p∝ τ0−1/n∝τ0−1/, consistent with studies of Earth’s contemporary warming.‘
My bold is the Robinson standard CAGW pitch which is nonsense!
All the best! -will-
tchannon says: September 14, 2015 at 3:25 am
“Tyler is unlikely to comment in public for reasons you should be able to mostly work out. With this in mind I suggest toning down criticism. If you want engagement the environment and trust has to be right. Is it?”
Yes it is Tim! Have you even read what cementafriend was writing of? His coments were of something used in the university to brainwash innocent children with true BS of this atmosphere! This crap must be flushed ASAP!
“Worth keeping in mind… could you have written a major part of that paper? (there was a co-author)”
Yes and correctly! Getting such published with the current environment would be impossible.
The equations in the Supplementary information are guaranteed to create a migraine and have no scientific basis whatsoever! Dr. Catling is very good at that! However, reporting on observations and measurements is fine! Making up unsupportable fantasy as some reason behind such observations strictly for political purpose is not acceptable.
“We should also remember the majority of papers published are makeweights whereas this is real content even if it is imperfect.”
In a sense! Mostly it is deliberately misleading about both troposphere and tropopause!
All the best! -will-
cementafriend says: September 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm
“Forgot to mention on P441 of the Catling paper the rubbish guess from Schmidt GA et al 2010 “the greenhouse effect on Earth, water vapor is responsible for ~50%, clouds ~25%, CO2 ~20%, and other gases the remainder” Gavin has admitted he does not know about the Schmidt number and he has been found out fiddling USA and global temperature records. It does not matter how complicated calculations are (even if right or wrong) the results can not be taken seriously if the input data are guesses supporting a doubtful theory.”
I cannot find where Dr. D.C. Catling University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, has any hard science education whatsoever. Why he is writing of electromagnetic radiation at all, let alone in an atmosphere, is beyond me. In his writings he completely mangles most all terms photometric or radiometric! His lack of electromagnetic field theory is quite obvious. Keep up the good work! 🙂
tchannon says: September 14, 2015 at 3:25 am
“Tyler is unlikely to comment in public for reasons you should be able to mostly work out. With this in mind I suggest toning down criticism.”
Tim,
In an engineering context, of companies that do make profit for minor stockholders. Recent engineering graduates are striped of all but shoes, then thrown into the pool, Only ‘some’ few quickly shuck the shoes and float to the surface holding nose! Those are the infant precious! to be coddled and nurtured! All the rest get the return ticket home. 🙂
Friends at the Talkshop,
Not to shock any of you, but I am, indeed, still paying attention and preparing responses! My current position funds me to study models of cloud formation in brown dwarf and exoplanet atmospheres, so reading/posting here must wait for spare moments during evenings and weekends. I’ll try to address most of the concerns you have all posted, although there has been a lot of activity in the last few days.
For starters, the two-stream approach to radiative transfer used in Robinson and Catling (2012) (RC12, hereafter) is, ultimately, the same physics derived by Schwarzschild in his classic 1906 work, “On the Equilibrium of the Sun’s Atmosphere”. These relations have underpinned over 100 years of research in astrophysics and planetary science.
Briefly, a horizontal slab of atmosphere, with a gray absorption coefficient ‘a’ (with units of 1/length), will attenuate both upwelling and downwelling thermal radiation (the differential change in flux for this process is just dF ~ – F x a x dz, where ‘F’ is the radiative flux and ‘dz’ is the layer thickness). This is fairly intuitive – the fractional flux change (dF/F) is just proportional to how strongly the layer absorbs and the layer thickness.
The slab also emits radiation into the two streams, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the layer absorptivity (the differential flux added is just dF ~ a x dz x sigma x T**4, where ‘sigma’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and ‘T’ is the slab’s temperature). Again, I feel that this is fairly intuitive — more flux is generated by warmer layers (all else being equal), and the flux generated is proportional to the layer thickness and absorptivity.
These relations are expressed as differential equations in RC12 [Equations (1) and (2)], where the absorption coefficient and differential thickness are combined into the dimensionless “optical depth” (dtau = -a x dz).
As mentioned in my previous post, we only need to adopt a few more pieces of physics to assemble a simple radiative-convective climate model. We assume that solar radiative energy is deposited in the atmosphere and at the surface [Equation (15) of RC12]. Heating from solar energy deposition can cause convective instability, so the lower portions of our atmospheres follow a convective adiabat [Equation (10) in RC12]. Implicit, then, is the assumption of the ideal gas law and vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. We find a steady-state solution (i.e., no net gain or loss of heat anywhere in the atmosphere), and require that the vertical profiles of temperature and radiative flux be continuous. That the math may be tedious, headache causing, or difficult is by no means a valid criticism of the expressions we derive.
The temperature profiles that come out of our models are excellent matches to observed thermal structures for all the worlds of the Solar System with thick atmospheres. Inputs to the model are simply a world’s surface and stratopause temperatures, and a few pieces of information about how much shortwave solar energy is deposited in the upper and lower atmosphere. The rest of the profile — the near adiabatic decrease in temperature to a radiative-convective boundary, the minimum in the temperature profile, and the structure of the stratospheric inversion — all follow from our adopted physics. Excitingly, these results have been verified by gallopingcamel, and, as he notes, no physically based alternatives have been here proposed that achieve such excellent quantitative results.
[As a brief aside, I cannot agree with Will’s proposed atmospheric structure model. At 20 kPa in Earth’s atmosphere, the air temperature is about 220 K (in a 1-D average sense). Using the Ideal Gas Law, there are, then, 6.6e18 molecules/cm**3. Using kinetic gas theory, these molecules are moving at ~430 m/s. Taking an “air” molecule to be 3.7 Angstroms in size, then the average molecule is experiencing a collision rate of 1.2e9 per second. This is, by no means, a set of molecules that are beginning to cease to bang together. Furthermore, taking the altitude at 20 kPa to be ~12 km, the Keplerian orbital speed here is about 8,000 m/s. This is over an order of magnitude larger than the mean gas speed — orbits have nothing to do with atmospheric structure.]
Finally, as our thermal radiative transfer is gray, our model cannot directly address the issues related to the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and methane raised by cementafriend. What I can say is that the downward thermal flux at the surface (in our Earth model) is 330 W/m**2. Doing some quick Googling, this agrees with NASA’s Earth’s energy budget poster (which has the infrared back radiation at 340 W/m**2). I also ran a sophisticated model of radiative transfer in Earth’s atmosphere, which includes high-resolution gas opacities (i.e., non-gray), and found a back radiation of 330 W/m**2. (Note: The tool I used for this is extensively validated against spacecraft observations of Earth. I’ve posted a link below to one example, which is from my dissertation research.)
Cheers!
-Ty-
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2011.0642
Tyler Robinson says: September 14, 2015 at 9:30 am
“Friends at the Talkshop, Not to shock any of you, but I am, indeed, still paying attention and preparing responses! My current position funds me to study models of cloud formation in brown dwarf and exoplanet atmospheres, so reading/posting here must wait for spare moments during evenings and weekends. I’ll try to address most of the concerns you have all posted, although there has been a lot of activity in the last few days.”
Dr. Robinson,
Again, thank you for your polite and measured response. We all hope to continue that with little or no rancour. However please get your bulletproof skivvies on, be near to someone you like, for hugs, and accept challenge to “all” that you have been indoctrinated into!
“For starters, the two-stream approach to radiative transfer used in Robinson and Catling (2012) (RC12, hereafter) is, ultimately, the same physics derived by Schwarzschild in his classic 1906 work, “On the Equilibrium of the Sun’s Atmosphere”. These relations have underpinned over 100 years of research in astrophysics and planetary science.”
OK here we go! The Schuster-Schwarzschild approximation has been accepted as valid for the luminous intensity of far away celestial objects. The 1906 solar nonsense has never been accepted, nor has any such application to non luminous bodies ever been accepted.
Any claim of opposing electromagnetic flux at any frequency thermal or not is a direct contradiction to Maxwell’s equations and has never been demonstrated.
“Briefly, a horizontal slab of atmosphere, with a gray absorption coefficient ‘a’ (with units of 1/length), will attenuate both upwelling and downwelling thermal radiation (the differential change in flux for this process is just dF ~ – F x a x dz, where ‘F’ is the radiative flux and ‘dz’ is the layer thickness).”
What total intentional deception!! Any attenuation of EMR flux by mass at any or all frequencies or directions is entirely dependent on the radiative potential of that mass. In this Earth’s atmosphere
All atmospheric temperature is above that required for radiative equilibrium because of convective heat transfer. No EMR flux from a lower altitude is ever absorbed and thermalized by any molecule in the atmosphere. The flux from below simply becomes part of the outgoing and accumulating EMR exitance to space!
“The slab also emits radiation into the two streams, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law”
Sir, you have been intentionally brainwashed into accepting some Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is no such physical law, there is no actual flux in any direction via the S-B equation.
The S-B equation, like Dr. Max Planck’s equation/integral are only then expression of the maximum possible power transfer in the direction of lower electromagnetic potential.
The S-B equation includes terms within parenthesis that must be resolved before any other mathematical operation. The two T^4 terms within the parenthesis represent then difference in electromagnetic potential. The only flux is between potentials and always in the direction of lower potential. With EMR there is no transfer to zero then back to equilibrium.
Dr. Robinson – In discussions with Will, coming to grips with the incorrect world view of photons interacting with each other is necessary. This is why Will writes a mass has only a potential to radiate. In tests, photons do not interact with each other as Will claims.
In Will’s view photons from a warmer object interact with photons from a cooler object so that the cooler object flux is totally overpowered, thus Will’s view is the cooler object cannot radiate an EM flux at all hence: “The S-B equation includes terms within parenthesis that must be resolved before any other mathematical operation.”
Will has used the faulty EM analogy of the stream from a higher pressure fire hose overpowering the stream from a lower pressure hose. Will incorrectly claims this results due to Maxwell’s EM field eqn.s. Thus Will does not accept (at all) the two stream existence verified from numerous tests developing both Planck and S-B laws post-Maxwell.
When Earth surface is warmer than the atm., Will then applies the incorrect view – emitted photons stream away from the surface interacting with and overpowering any possible stream from a cooler object toward the surface thus in Will’s view: “No EMR flux from a lower altitude is ever absorbed”. Will’s incorrectly imagined EMR photonic higher pressure fire hose overpowers “always in the direction of lower potential.”
Tyler Robinson says:
September 14, 2015 at 9:30 am
Friends at the Talkshop,
Not to shock
Thank you again for polite response, Why can us mombacs not leran polite vs arrogant? to the media folk
“As a brief aside, I cannot agree with Will’s proposed atmospheric structure model. At 20 kPa in Earth’s atmosphere, the air temperature is about 220 K (in a 1-D average sense). Using the Ideal Gas Law, there are, then, 6.6e18 molecules/cm**3. Using kinetic gas theory, these molecules are moving at ~430 m/s. Taking an “air” molecule to be 3.7 Angstroms in size, then the average molecule is experiencing a collision rate of 1.2e9 per second. This is, by no means, a set of molecules that are beginning to cease to bang together.”
What total bS As a Gas each molecule has a personal volume proportional ‘somehow’ to pressure! each gas molecule has a velocity composed of speed and direction. The speed is part of temperature
Tyler, all of your calculations are correct for gas in a bottle some damed Cv. that can never exist in any atmosphere At quiescence in this atmosphere the statistical average molecular velocity, part of heat, and its temperature is constant with regard to up and down (lapse rate) but very much dependent on heat added at any atmospheric location.
No earthling or group of earthlings can discover the temperature of anything anywhere without admitting that temperature ‘is’ the differential expansion of different matter, with respect to some illusion of temperature which must be the differential expansion of different matter, with respect to some illusion of temperature which must be the differential expansion of different matter, with respect to some illusion of temperature which must be the differential expansion of different matter, with respect to some illusion of temperature, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!~
“Furthermore, taking the altitude at 20 kPa to be ~12 km, the Keplerian orbital speed here is about 8,000 m/s. This is over an order of magnitude larger than the mean gas speed — orbits have nothing to do with atmospheric structu”
So the fuck what? Please tell us of your experience as a group of CO2 molecules wandering about in earth’s stratosphere, also cavorting about as molecules, wanna go mess around yonder with lower pressure? OH ya!!!
Tyler Robinson says: September 14, 2015 at 9:30 am
“Friends at the Talkshop,
The temperature profiles that come out of our models are excellent matches to observed thermal structures for all the worlds of the Solar System with thick atmospheres. Inputs to the model are simply a world’s surface and stratopause temperatures, and a few pieces of information about how much shortwave solar energy is deposited in the upper and lower atmosphere.’
What total insane output from models that have no relevance to this ‘is’ but only relevance to that computer model
The rest of the profile — the near adiabatic decrease in temperature to a radiative-convective boundary, the minimum in the temperature profile, and the structure of the stratospheric inversion — all follow from our adopted physics.
All of your adopted physics. of EMR has no relevance whatsoever.
Excitingly, these results have been verified by gallopingcamel, and, as he notes, no physically based alternatives have been here proposed that achieve such excellent quantitative results.
Indeed, like Peter, I was impressed by the 10 kPa 20kPa secession of lapse rate of all bodies nomater of distance^2 from the radiative primary!
Nomore from insane Tyler Robinson says:
Admin have closed comments for the time being.