Stephen Wilde: How conduction and convection cause a greenhouse effect arising from atmospheric mass.

Posted: June 15, 2017 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, general circulation, Gravity, Temperature, Thermodynamics

This guest post from Stephen Wilde offers a descriptive theoretical and qualitative perspective on the ‘gravito-thermal’ theory. It covers the vertical profile of the atmosphere as well as the surface temperature comprehensively quantified by Nikolov and Zeller’s latest paper.

How conduction and convection cause a greenhouse effect arising from atmospheric mass.
Stephen Wilde

Introduction

The current scientific consensus is that Earth’s so called ‘greenhouse effect’ is caused by the presence of radiating gases in the atmosphere but many years ago, I learned what  I then understood to be the consensus view that it is actually a result of atmospheric mass such that the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere are either wholly or largely irrelevant.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ is an apt description for the mass based phenomenon because warming, descending air (which is occurring over half the planet at any given moment) will inhibit convection in the same way as does a greenhouse roof and by dissipating clouds it increases incoming sunlight through that barrier to convection just like the transparency of a greenhouse roof.

If the greenhouse effect is attributable to atmospheric mass rather than radiative characteristics then the fact that the vast bulk of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of mass that is non-radiative is likely to mean that human emissions of radiative gases are not important as a regulator of surface temperature.

If correct, that calls into question the validity of many recent political decisions relating to global energy supplies.

I will tackle this issue in stages.

First I will briefly explain how conduction and convection within the atmosphere can raise surface temperature by 33K in the case of Earth.

I then refer to the radiative law that predicts that a body at a specific temperature must radiate at that temperature and will attempt to justify my assertion that the application of that law is not always appropriate for a surface beneath a convecting atmosphere.

I will conclude by referring to a number of problems for the theory that radiative gases cause the greenhouse effect.

 

1) The mass induced greenhouse effect.

i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.

Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.

On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.

After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.

The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.

There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.

At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.

During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.

Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.

ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.

On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space  initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.

On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.

One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.

That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.

That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.

The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.

ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K

Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.

In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.

 

2) The radiative ‘Problem’

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

“The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature

known as the S-B equation.

Having set out the above conduction/convection cause of the greenhouse effect there is an immediate and substantial problem in that basic physics clearly states that a body radiates according to its temperature but I have just described a scenario whereby a planet with a non-radiative but instead a conducting and convecting atmosphere produces a surface temperature of 288k, radiates from surface to space at 255k and conducts between surface and the mass of the atmosphere at 33k.

The dominant theory of the radiative Greenhouse Effect clearly relies on that above principle of radiative physics and deals with it by proposing a surface warming effect from downward infra-red radiation (DWIR) within the atmosphere, such DWIR being the cause of the ‘extra’ 33K of kinetic energy at the surface which then raises surface temperature from the S-B prediction of 255K to the observed 288K.

I am using those numbers for convenience though I am aware that some researchers dispute them. The actual numbers make no difference here.

So is it atmospheric mass returning kinetic energy to the surface (retrieved from potential energy in descent) or is it DWIR that causes the greenhouse effect. It cannot be both.

It must be the case that a body of a specific temperature isolated from all other influences would radiate at a rate commensurate with that temperature. No issue there.

But suppose such a body with an atmosphere were subjected to a flow of externally sourced energy onto the surface and then out again AND, that during the flow of energy through the surface / atmosphere combination, other processes within the atmosphere were going on that were slower than simple radiative transmission.

Would there not be a partitioning between the radiative flow and the other slower processes with a backing up of kinetic energy within the system leading to a higher surface temperature than that explicable by radiation alone?

Conduction and convection are slower processes of energy transmission than radiation so a planet experiencing a throughput of insolation and possessing a convecting atmosphere must be an exception to the simple radiative rule of thumb. I will now go on to explain the underlying physics.

 

3) The reason why the S-B equation does not adequately deal with surface temperatures beneath a convecting atmosphere

The conditions that must apply for the S-B equation to apply are specific:

“The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance or radiant exitance), j , is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:”

In summary, when a planetary surface with zero reflection is subjected to insolation the surface temperature will rise to a point where energy out will match energy absorbed.

During the very first convective overturning cycle a planet with an atmosphere does not act as an ideal blackbody because the process of conduction and convection draws energy upward and away from the surface thereby converting kinetic energy (heat) at the surface into potential energy (not heat) within the body of the atmosphere.  As above, the surface temperature when measured from space appears to drop from 255K to 222K. The rate of radiative emission during the first convective cycle is less than energy received and that ‘missing’ kinetic energy has been converted to potential energy within the atmosphere which effectively removes that energy from the radiation budget altogether since potential energy is not heat and cannot be emitted.  For a period of time the planet substantially ceases to meet the blackbody approximation implicit in the requirements of the S-B equation.

Due to the time taken by convective overturning in transferring energy from the illuminated side to the dark side the lowered emissivity during the first convective cycle causes an accumulation within the atmosphere of a large amount of conducted and convected energy and so for a planet with an atmosphere the S-B equation becomes far less reliable as an indicator of surface temperature. In fact, the more massive the atmosphere the less reliable the S-B equation becomes as a guide to final surface temperature during the formation of the first convective overturning cycle.

For the thermal effect of a more massive atmosphere see here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071279/abstract

“We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface
temperature mostly due to an increase in the heat capacity of the
atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower
layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by
eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further
near-surface warming.”

At the end of the first convective cycle there is no longer any energy being drawn into potential energy form from the incoming radiation because, instead, the energy required for the next convective cycle is coming via advection from the unilluminated side. At that point the planet as viewed from space reverts to acting as a blackbody once more with energy out equalling energy in.

But, the dark side is then 33K less cold than it otherwise would have been and the illuminated side is also 33K warmer than it ‘should’ be.

The S-B equation being purely radiative has failed to account for surface kinetic energy engaged in non-radiative energy exchanges between the surface and the top of the atmosphere.

The S-B equation does not deal with the scenario of ongoing recycling of kinetic and potential energy within convective overturning and the consequent effect on surface temperature, it only deals with the whole system as viewed from space so it would appear that AGW theory is applying that equation incorrectly to planets with atmospheres.

It is the incorrect application of the S-B equation that has led AGW proponents to propose a surface warming effect from DWIR (Downward Infra- Red Radiation) within the atmosphere so as to compensate for the missing non-radiative surface warming effect of descending air that is omitted from their energy budget. That is the only way they can appear to balance the budget without taking into account the separate non-radiative energy loop that is involved in conduction and convection.

DWIR exists but it has no additional surface warming effect since it emanates from any radiative  molecules in contact with or just above the surface rather than from the higher levels of the atmosphere. DWIR from those lowest molecules is a consequence of the initial conduction to those molecules from the irradiated surface and not a consequence of DWIR coming down from colder  radiative material at higher levels.

Note that the lapse rate structure of the atmosphere arises from non -radiative processes and higher, colder, radiating molecules cannot provide additional heating to the surface below.

The amount of DWIR from the atmosphere to the surface is in lockstep with the lapse rate structure which is a consequence of atmospheric mass conducting and convecting within the gravitational field. DWIR is a mere side effect of mass and gravity and not a cause of, or any sort of contributor to, the surface temperature. If radiative molecules do warm to a higher temperature than that appropriate for their position along the lapse rate slope then convective adjustments occur to neutralise the radiative imbalance in order to retain hydrostatic equilibrium.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

Thus radiative material within the mass of an atmosphere is not permitted to heat the surface. Instead, they merely cause air circulation adjustments that would be too small to discern against the background of chaotic climate variability.

 

 

4) Problems arising from the theory of the radiative greenhouse effect.

i) If greenhouse gases block outgoing radiation and route it back to the surface for a surface warming effect then the warmed surface sends up more radiation and those same gases send back down part of the added warmth in a never ending positive feedback. An additional positive feedback is proposed by the warming effect generating more water vapour which is also a greenhouse gas. No such positive feedback has ever been observed.

ii) The energy budgets that I have seen propose that convection has a net cooling effect on the surface by moving surface energy upwards ready for radiation to space from any greenhouse gases that capture it at a suitably high level. That is fine for the solely diabatic part of the process of energy transfer within the atmosphere but does not deal with the adiabatic aspect of convective overturning whereby kinetic energy taken from the surface in ascending air is returned to the surface in descending air for a zero net effect from pure (adiabatic) convection. I have heard objections that such warmed descending air cannot heat a solid surface by conduction due to the low density of air but as pointed out above a cold, solid surface draws heat from air very effectively.

iii) The concept of downward infra-red radiation (DWIR) is confused and flawed. The impression is often given that there is a discrete flow of radiation from all points of the atmosphere down to the surface but due to the lapse rate slope cooling with height that is not the case. The only location where the air radiates at 288K is where it is in contact with the surface and no additional warming effect is derived from any air above that point. If the air from which DWIR is emanating is only from the air in contact with the surface the very concept of DWIR is meaningless.

iv) The air temperature of 288k at the surface is a consequence of conduction from surface to air and it is such conduction that creates the entire lapse rate slope. As one moves up from the surface the molecules become spaced further apart due to the declining density gradient created by gravity so further upward conduction becomes more difficult as one goes upwards hence the cooling of the air with height in accordance with the Gas Laws. Radiative effects do intervene at various heights such as from ozone in the stratosphere but the rule holds well enough for the troposphere despite interference from the small amount of greenhouse gases of which the dominant one is water vapour. Hence the reliability of the US Standard Atmosphere used in aeronautics and rocketry.

v) It is correct that CO2 blocks the exit of certain energy wavelengths to space but there is good evidence for the proposition that such energy is rerouted and escapes at different wavelengths. When CO2 absorbs such energy it distorts the lapse rate slope so that convection is slowed, humidity builds up at lower levels, water vapour condenses out at a lower, warmer height and the blocked energy is emitted to space by water vapour instead. That process would prevent any surface warming from CO2.

vi) It is established science that for an atmosphere in hydrostatic (meaning fluid not water) equilibrium and suspended off a surface then radiative imbalances of any kind are corrected for by convective changes. That would apply to greenhouse gases which do interfere with the radiative balance.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

vii) There is evidence from other planets that the temperatures at the same pressures as for Earth are very similar after adjusting for distance from the sun despite vast differences in the radiative characteristics of the atmospheres. That tends to support the mass induced greenhouse effect rather than the radiative version.

viii) There is no upper troposphere ‘hot spot’ as predicted by the radiative theory.

ix) Global temperature trends are not proceeding as anticipated.

This is not an exhaustive list.

The currently accepted ‘consensus’ of the greenhouse effect as a product of radiative gases rather than of atmospheric mass needs to be reconsidered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
  1. p.g.sharrow says:

    @ Stephen; well done argument…pg

  2. Bill Marsh says:

    “Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.”

    So, pretty much Venus, then?

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    You are still quoting the 33 K GHE which is not even close.

  4. wildeco2014 says:

    gallopingcamel

    I twice indicated that the precise numbers are in dispute. The mechanism, however, is sound IMHO.

  5. TA says:

    Very interesting article.

    Those promoting the radiative greenhouse effect, have some explaining to do.

  6. A surface temperature of 286.7K has the emissive power equal to the power needed for the source to the force of gravity declining according to the inverse square law. If using units of Nm^2 for thermal resistance/stress/pressure.
    g=sqrt(384W/4)

    Surface temperature is close to the result from calculating a perfect absorber irradiated on half the surface area, transforming through two spherical shells, atmosphere and solid.
    1/2*(1361/(4/3)^2)=382.78W/m^2

    The difference between the perfect blackbody emission from irradiation of heat bath, and the emissive power of earth effective temperature found from heat transfer and the inverse square law, using the calculated surface T,
    (1361-382.78)/4=244,55W/m^2

    is 340.25-244.55=g^2

    Using units for thermal resistance, Nm^2, seems appropriate for an atmosphere and all energy can be included in the heat flow when doing so. Gravity in Nm/s is equal to W/m, so it can be converted to Nm^2 without problems in this scenario.

  7. Forgot to mention, an effective temperature of 255K needs a source power of 958W/m^2. if the core temperature is the same as the surface temperature of the sun, 5770K, then:
    4*sb255^4=(sb5770^4)/4^8

    The inverse square law used for 8 point sources balances effective temperature and core temperature equal to the suns surface. And earth happens to have 4 internal layers with volumes separated by “surfaces”. It almost fits too good, doesn´t it?

  8. Blob says:

    Regarding 255/33 K:
    “I twice indicated that the precise numbers are in dispute. The mechanism, however, is sound IMHO.”

    I agree, I found it quite jarring to see those values used. Is there even a dispute remaining though? Does anyone serious still believe those numbers are accurate?

  9. The Badger says:

    Taking 1. You say:
    “On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere.”

    Surely the sun is heating both the surface AND all of the many km depth of the gaseous atmosphere.

    In the orbiting rocks without an atmosphere the surface gets damn hot (e.g. moon). Therefore the atmosphere must be moderating the direct surface heating effect. Some of this moderation will be attenuation of the energy reaching the surface and some will be removal of part of that attenuated energy which is converted to heat via the heat transfer mechanisms of convection and conduction. There is outgoing radiation too but this is small compared to the other 2 mechanisms.

    The interesting thing is there is clearly a temperature difference between surface and atmosphere the wrong way round much of the time. The ground is not warmer than the atmosphere immediately in contact with it. I don’t even need any instruments to know this, I just walk round the outdoor swimming pool in my bare feet in the early morning. My feet (& brain) tell me that it is the nicely warm air that is helping to get my concrete up to “warm”.

    There must be some direct radiation heating of the surface (a real greenhouse-with glass- does work) but the air appears to be transferring heat into the ground much of the time. We need to quantify how much of the sun’s energy goes into the atmosphere and how much goes as radiation to the surface. The amount that goes into the atmosphere gets pulled (or pushed?) to the surface end of the gases via gravity (a la Loschmidt). This gravity induced temperature gradient is a massive effect (gravity is a monster force field) and goes on all the time irrespective of the convection/conduction.

    While parcels of air, small or large, are going up or down then the gravity effect is still working on every single molecule and pushing the heat energy downwards. The very existence of the lapse rate being a nice linear figure indicates that generally this phenomena is the “main” one driving the system.

    If we look at Venus we can conclude that direct solar radiation is not warming the surface as the attenuation of the atmosphere is too large. There are still many difficulties and unanswered questions about Earth’s atmosphere and I think we can only now start to eliminate or confirm certain theories / explanations via experiments / measurements. I am particularly interested in hearing of suggestions for designs of experiments to help with this.

  10. wildeco2014 says:

    Badger
    In the simplified version there is no direct solar heating of the atmosphere because Nitrogen does not absorb solar radiation.
    My point being that it all happens without the need of any radiative material in the atmosphere at all which suggestion is anathema to the radiative theorists.

  11. Richard111 says:

    Layman question. Is the ‘overturning’ sufficient to prevent the kinetic energy of the nitrogen molecules escaping to space from the top of the atmosphere? A cooling effect?

  12. Ben Wouters says:

    Radiative balance temperature for the unlit side of the model will be ~3K.
    (Cosmic background radiation)
    With the melting point of nitrogen being ~63K on that side only solid nitrogen can exist.

  13. wildeco2014 says:

    Richard
    Since Nitrogen molecules do not absorb or emit radiation significantly they cannot release kinetic energy to space. In any event the molecules at the top of the atmosphere are very cold due to the vast majority of their energy content being in potential form which is not heat and so cannot be radiated away.

  14. wildeco2014 says:

    Ben
    No analogy is perfect.
    Instead of Nitrogen imagine simply imagine a non radiative gas that is capable of remaining in gaseous form on both sides of the sphere.
    The point is that even a non radiative atmosphere will produce a lapse rate slope set by mass and gravity whereas the radiative theory requires the development of an isothermal atmosphere (no cooling with height) in the absence of radiative capability.

  15. Richard111 says:

    Thanks Stephen. My layman knowledge is lacking. I read that ‘heat’ is molecular vibration so I assume the diatomic nitrogen molecule also vibrates proportional to its temperature even if it cannot absorb or emit radiation. Somehow this molecular vibration is shared through kinetic collisions as the gas rises and cools. My understanding is that temperature of the gas records cooling because the collision interval is longer in the less dense gas but no energy has been lost.
    My question as always is where does the energy go if there are no ‘greenhouse gasses’ to radiate to space?

  16. Ben Wouters says:

    wildeco2014 says: June 16, 2017 at 8:18 am

    No analogy is perfect.
    Instead of Nitrogen imagine simply imagine a non radiative gas that is capable of remaining in gaseous form on both sides of the sphere.

    Even if I did that, an atmosphere above a surface with temperature 3K would extend how many (centi-)meters above that surface. And the lapse rate would be what?

  17. Hi Richard.

    Unless heat (KE) can radiate to space from radiatively active material within the atmosphere it just gets returned to the surface from PE (not heat) reconverted to KE in descending columns. Hence the lapse rate slope.
    Once back at the surface it can either be radiated to space by the surface or taken up by conduction into the next ascent.
    In practice we can simplify it by saying that the adiabatic energy exchange between KE and PE is locked into a closed adiabatic loop so as to keep the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium against gravity whereas solar input effectively flows straight through the system once equilibrium has been reached at the end of the very first convective overturning cycle.
    Note that there is no energy loss or gain in ascent or descent, just a transformation of energy to and fro between KE and PE.
    All atmospheric molecules have the same total energy content but low down it is nearly all KE (heat)
    and high up it is nearly all PE (not heat).
    The Greenhouse Effect / Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement is all a matter of a gaseous mass conducting and convecting up and down within a gravity field. Not due to radiation at all.
    The observed radiation field is a consequence of the non radiative processes and not a cause of anything.

  18. Ben,

    The average height extent around the entire sphere would depend on the level of insolation on the illuminated side, the more the higher..
    The lapse rate slope would still be governed by mass and gravity.
    Note that descent within the atmosphere on the night side would raise the temperature there above that of the cosmic background of 3K.

  19. USteiner says:

    I’m sorry, but I see too many unfounded assumptions in the beginning as to go all the way to the end.

    Did you make the link to Nikolov and Zeller in the beginning yourself? This right away discredits your 33° assumption, as the two have elaborately demonstrated that the 33° is nonsense, and not just because the numbers may be a little bit different, but because the approach which leads to the 33° is fundamentally different.

    And, by the way, 33° has so far been explained by the presence of “greenhouse gases”, not by the mere presence of a non-radiating atmosphere.

    Then continuing with the redefinition of a greenhouse by identifying descending air as the greenhouse roof. That is not how a greenhouse is usually explained in connection with greenhouse gases. And while it is generally wrong, it is not righter by explaining it in completely different terms, which you only pretend to be correct, but have not given a good reason for it.

    OK to start with a non-rotating celestial object as a model, but the heating is not just “uneven”, it has a pronounced gradient from the equator to the poles, esily descibed by a cosine, which will create a significant overturning of the atmosphere. We’ll likely have as many cells, Hadley cells and the others;
    it is not just all rising on the bright side, and all coming down on the dark side.

    We won’t have “one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.” (And wouldn’t it be the other way round? I believe, another flaw due to improper discussion of convection)

    And why would a surface temperature of 255K seen from space as 222K? And 33K absorbed in the atmosphere? What? And the dark side has the same surface temperature as the bright side? Have you noticed that it almost always is colder in the night than during the day?

    Please. There is a balance between incoming and outgoing radiation, and temperature at any given spot, and over time is determined by this balance plus heat capacity, and conductivity. Your theory would have the poles at the same temp as the equator. And so on.

    Way too many flaws already in the first chapter.

  20. USteiner.

    i) I do not assume 33k. That is just used for illustrative purposes.

    ii) 33K is not adequately accounted for by radiative physics and section 4 supplies various reasons for such doubt.

    iii) A greenhouse suppresses convection from the ground and so does descending air. A greenhouse lets sunlight in as does the cloud free region under descending air. The analogy is very apt.

    iv) The complexity introduced by rotation is accepted but one does not need to include that in the illustration.

    v) High pressure cells contain descending warming air and low pressure cells contain rising cooling air. That is incontrovertible.

    vi) If 33k is being taken by conduction and convection then that 33k cannot be observed from outside.

    vii) The two sides are not the same temperature. Instead they are both the same amount warmer than they otherwise would have been.

    viii) The poles would not be at the same temperature as the equator. The entire sphere would on average experience the same temperature enhancement above what the temperature otherwise would have been.

  21. Roger Clague says:

    The crucial question to explain is why density/height (d/h) and pressure/height (p/h ) are exponential and temperature/height(T/h) is a straight line
    Steven Wilde says the gas laws explain this. Please explain how.
    I think the gas law predicts T/h is also exponential.
    Joseph Postma has an alternative explanation using Kinetic theory instead of fluid dynamics used in the hydrostatic model
    https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/04/07/r-w-wood-had-it-right-sun-heats-earth/
    Starting at Not the Whole Story.
    d/h is derived by applying conservation of matter in a gas in a gravity field.
    T/h is from conservation of energy
    mgh =mcpT
    T/h = g/cp

  22. ferdberple says:

    good article. a couple of points.

    assuming gravity: without convection there would be no lapse rate. conduction surprisingly yields an isothermal atmosphere, because energetic molecules are slightly more likely to “bounce” upwards towards the reduced density. somehow this preference exactly balances the conversion from KE to PE to more decimal places than matlab tracked.

    the 33K figure can be calculated from the lapse rate. wet air lapse rate is about 6.5K/km. So if the center of mass is 5km, this yields a surface warming of 6.5*5 = 32.5K.

    Interestingly 5km is the effective radiation height of the atmosphere under ghg theory. the 1/2 atmosphere below this point is warmer than average, the 1/2 atmosphere above this point is colder than average.

    it is way to coincidental that the numbers for conduction/convection match the numbers for ghg theory.

  23. ferdberple says:

    ps: forgot to mention, use 5 km as the center of mass of the convecting atmosphere, then the conversion of PE to KE, less condensation of water yields 5*6.5 = 32.5K surface warming.

  24. Ned Nikolov says:

    Stephen,

    Your proposed atmospheric heating mechanism essentially works with redistribution of energy both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal energy redistribution can only in principle account for a small portion of the overall atmospheric thermal enhancement! This is due to a non-linearity between radiative flux and temperature (this is explained in Volokin & ReLlez 2014). However, in your hypothetical case, the entire energy transport occurs through sensible heat fluxes, which are linearly related to temperature. Therefore, the energy redistribution in your case should not be able to produce any thermal enhancement at the surface… The key problem is that your model is conceptual (verbal) and has no actual quantifiable energy-flux interactions. In general, the heat transport (including radiative, sensible and latent-heat fluxes) is non-linear in nature. When you have non-linear interactions, the overall outcome cannot be predicted by simple verbal reasoning, but needs to be described through mathematical equations, which have to be solved in order to understand the complete phenomenon.

    Furthermore, you have some unphysical assumptions in your concept. For example, you state:

    The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.

    If your hypothetical atmosphere has zero IR emissivity, it means that it would be completely transparent to LW radiation emitted from the surface. Therefore, the surface would cool radiatively directly to Space. This radiative cooling is not accounted for by your conceptual model.

    Finally, your overall idea seems to be that the descending air somehow slows down the convective cooling of the surface in a fashion analogous to the blocking effect of the glass roof and walls of an actual greenhouse. In other words, according to your concept, the overall thermal effect of the atmosphere (i.e. the ‘greenhouse effect’) is due to trapping of heat, which is very similar to the current ‘Greenhouse’ theory. The only difference is that, in your model, heat is being trapped through the descending phase of the overturning circulation, while the Greenhouse theory believes that heat is trapped via absorption and re-emission of outgoing LW radiation by certain gases in the atmosphere…. However, the results from our analysis (Nikolov & Zeller 2017) clearly show that the notion of heat trapping of any kind by a free atmosphere is fundamentally wrong! The thermal effect of a planetary atmosphere is due to an enhancement of the supplied solar kinetic energy by the force of atmospheric pressure. The key point to realize here is that pressure being a force directly impacts the kinetic energy of the system. That’s because (by definition) energy cannot exists without a force; hence adding force to a system changes its internal energy and temperature.

    As a side note, there cannot be any dispute in regard to the incorrectness of the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’. The 33 K GE estimate is the product of a mathematically wrong formula for calculating the average temperature of an airless sphere. If an estimate is mathematically wrong, it cannot possible be physically correct! This is a fundamental rule in physical sciences that we should never forget!

  25. Richard111 says:

    Nice one Ned. You’ve covered what was bothering me and said it for more clearly than I could.

  26. Kristian says:

    Roger Clague says, June 16, 2017 at 5:20 pm:

    The crucial question to explain is why density/height (d/h) and pressure/height (p/h ) are exponential and temperature/height(T/h) is a straight line
    Steven Wilde says the gas laws explain this. Please explain how.
    I think the gas law predicts T/h is also exponential.

    P/ρ = RT

  27. Ned.

    i) I don’t consider the horizontal component as adding much at all to the ATE. It is all in the vertical component. The horizontal component just closes the loop between rising and falling columns at top and bottom.

    ii) My verbal reasoning simply describes that which is observed and implied in the Gas Laws and the laws of thermodynamics. The relevant equations are all there already and your own work covers much of what is neeeded for planetary bodies.I do not need to reinvent the wheel.

    iii) With zero emissivity it is indeed correct that the surface exclusively will receive radiation from and transmit radiation to space. However the surface cannot transmit to space energy that is being constantly recycled between surface and atmosphere via non radiative processes. Otherwise the atmosphere would collapse to the surface.Radiative cooling to space is accommodated in my description because it is taken as a given. The ATE only involves the ADDITIONAL KE returned to the surface in descending air which warms adiabatically as it descends.

    iv) The slowing down of convective cooling beneath descending air is not the critical issue. The ATE comes not from that slowing down but rather from the reconversion of PE to KE in the descending column.In that respect I accept that you can quibble with the greenhouse analogy but that does not detract from the validity of my general submission.

    v) I do not use the word ‘trapped’ but if one were to use it I suppose one could regard the energy tied up in the conduction / convective overturning process as ‘trapped’ in the discrete adiabatic energy loop that I first proposed many years ago.

    vi) Linking my work to yours I would agree with your words that “the thermal effect of a planetary atmosphere is due to an enhancement of the supplied solar kinetic energy by the force of atmospheric pressure. The key point to realize here is that pressure being a force directly impacts the kinetic energy of the system”.
    Those words are perfectly correct by my account.
    Atmospheric pressure at the surface forces molecules closer together so that conduction increases relative to radiation. That conduction is inevitably uneven so convection results. Once the first convective overturning cycle completes you have to ADD the KE reconverted from PE in descending columns to the supplied solar kinetic energy.
    The energy that creates your ATE is derived from KE reconverted from PE in descending columns and then spread across the surface by advection between convecting cells.
    I see no inconsistency between your work and mine nor between my work and that of Hans Jelbring who described the mass induced effect back in 2003:

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

    The difference between your work and his on the one hand and mine on the other is that you two simply state that the phenomenon exists.

    I provide the first ever description of the physical process that occurs in order to produce the outcome that you both identified.

    The actual value or scale of the ATE is not an issue for me. 33K is just used for convenience. You can plug in any number you think appropriate to my description and it still works.

  28. Blob says:

    Ned Nikolov wrote:
    “As a side note, there cannot be any dispute in regard to the incorrectness of the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’. The 33 K GE estimate is the product of a mathematically wrong formula for calculating the average temperature of an airless sphere. If an estimate is mathematically wrong, it cannot possible be physically correct! This is a fundamental rule in physical sciences that we should never forget!”

    The 255 value is an upper bound on the mean temperature for an object without an atmosphere and uniform albedo = .3. It will only be reached for one that has a large heat capacity (heats/cools slowly) relative to rotation rate. I shared this model in an earlier post but didn’t get any response:
    https://pastebin.com/rW4FUV2E

    If you run it the object will start at 0 K and heat up as it rotates until reaching equilibrium at ~ 271 (the moons “equilibrium temperature”).

    1) You can download R from here: https://cran.r-project.org/

    2) Then you will need the “geosphere” library. You get that by running install.packages(“geosphere”), this can just be added to the top of the script if you want.

    3) Then just run it, and watch the upper left chart.

    4) Play with the C (heat capacity) and W (rotation rate) parameters to see that by lowering the heat capacity or rotation rate it will heat/cool slower resulting in a larger range of temperatures and lower mean temperature. Eg change C to be ~1e4.

    I could clean it up more (eg some graph labels) and speed it up (rewrite in c++) but not if there is no interest in checking it here.

  29. “During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.”

    But the compression means work, and the work being done must be accounted for at any point in time. Even though we think of it as a process of sinking air, any change in temperature must be explained by an equal input of energy through the force of gravity each second. Which is 96W/m^2. I would say that the compression comes from the warming, not that the warming comes from compression.

    “In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space.”

    I guess you mean that the incoming radiation minus albedo averaged over the whole surface area equals emission to the vacuum?
    I think that there is a problem in using insolation on half the surface area for an average over the whole sphere. Because the average includes 12 hour darkness, and the instantaneous power of heat can not be treated like energy over time. If it is done that way the maximum power of insolation is 340W/m^2 which means that solar heat equals only 4-5 celsius.

    The power in a heat flow is instantaneous and can´t be averaged over time where there is no heating. If I put a glass of water in the fridge at a temperature of 4 Celsius, it is irradiated from all directions with instantaneous power of 340W/m^2. If it was irradiated by an equal point source on one side, it would have the intensity 4*340W=1360W/m^2. The problem with averaging over the whole surface area is obvious if I take the glass out of the fridge and heat it with a heat gun on one side with the intensity of the heat flow set at 1360W/m^2, about 105 celsius. The instantaneous power can boil the water in the glass when heating it on one side, the average value can not even get it to room temperature.

    I´m not sure why everyone accepts the models using averages over the whole surface. The power of a heat source can not be treated that way unless the heated body sits in a heat bath, evenly heated from all sides. The blackbody model uses a cloud of heat surrounding the body, that is why emission is equal to heating. The latest cartoon from the wizard Trenberth showing the “budget” use 160W/m^2 for irradiance at the surface, which is ridicolous. That would mean that the heat flow from the sun is -40C and the sun would cool earth.

    From my point of view, earth temperatures must be calculated from the instantaneous power of solar irradiation at the surface, and emission to space must be balanced instantaneously. Insolation at any given point in time must balance both emission from the surface and the atmosphere at the same time. By using the temperature distribution we can see that it actually does that. Irradiation through concentric shells equals emission from the surface, mean emissive power of the troposphere and emission at the tropopause. 1361/1.7777…=383+244+139. In a furnace where heat transfers from a constant flow, the amount of heat that is transferred can be increased by placing a steel plate inside the furnace. When it is heated by the heat source and radiate according to its emissive power, more heat is transferred than without it. If we add a volume(atmosphere) to a planet surface, more heat is transferred than what only the surface transfer. Emission from the depth of a volume is added to twodimensional emission from a surface. They share the energy. Therefore an atmosphere can´t make earth hotter, it adds more mass at a lower temperature to a constant limited heat flow. If earth had no atmosphere solar irradiance would be absorbed by a spherical volume 4/3pi*r^3, from irradiation on the disk pi*r^2 which distributes over the hemisphere 2pi*r^2:

    (1/2*1361)/(4/3)=510W/m^2, the surface temperature would be 308K, 34Celsius.

    “Would there not be a partitioning between the radiative flow and the other slower processes with a backing up of kinetic energy within the system leading to a higher surface temperature than that explicable by radiation alone?”

    The answer to this must then be: No.
    The difference between a planet without an atmosphere and a planet with an atmosphere, both irradiated with the same amount of heat, is that the planet with an atmosphere gets an addition of a low density, low temperature layer which transfer heat from the surface through conduction via convection and radiation.
    Instead of only a twodimensional emission from a spherical surface, a low temperature spherical volume is added as another emitter, while heat flow is constant and limited. More mass of lower density, at lower temperature, with added modes of transfer from an added dimension, can not mean anything else than lower temperature of the whole system.

    A strange thing about the greenhouse heating earth with water vapor and dry ice, is that it is explained as some sort of insulation. Insulation is what we use to reduce heat loss by decreasing conduction/convection that leads to absorption in the colder surroundings, the air. This can be done by wrapping yourself in a blanket(the favourite analogy of greenhouse preachers). The blanket prevents absorption of heat in the colder surrounding air. The stupidity of greenhouse alarmism using a blanket analogy for the GH-effect is painful, because the blanket does the opposite of what the atmosphere does, and to “retain” heat you need to do the opposite of what GHG:s does. In a system heated by a constant and limited flow of heat, adding more heat absorbers to the limited heat flow can only mean less heat per heat-absorbing molecule, and that is the definition of lower temperature. The GH-theory is built exclusively on claims that violates physics. Every single argument of the blanket-people is a contradiction to proven and applied thermal physics. It is the biggest deception in human history.

  30. Brett Keane says:

    @lifeisthermal says: June 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm: Could be a good point there.

    I notice discussion of Stephen’s thought-construct seems to ignore his conduction basis. That un-irradiatable Nitrogen ( not quite in practice IIRC), still warms by conduction quite well enough to remain a gas. Though that needs testing too, like all things. Anyway, time differences between initial radiant and conductive heating are less than minute in 4 billion years……

  31. Ned,

    “If your hypothetical atmosphere has zero IR emissivity, it means that it would be completely transparent to LW radiation emitted from the surface. Therefore, the surface would cool radiatively directly to Space.”

    Most of the gases in the atmosphere is transparent to terrestial emission. So that would mean that most of the radiation from the surface is emitted directly to space. On top of that some potent heat absorbers are added to the mixtures, like methane and co2. On top of that we have water which carries energy internally in molecules when it exceeds what the liquid can hold. The oceans acts as a massive cooler with a heat excanger in the thermocline and an almost infinite sink in the deep, compressed slow flowing circulation globally. The major parts of the oceans water volume are at constant temperature with some really large ice cubes in polar areas. If I wanted to maximize cooling of a glowing ball with a thin crust, heated by a blackbody star, floating in an infinite heat sink of 3K vacuum, I would copy the earth system.

    The non-radiative gases are transparent, so we have the radiative transfer of emissive power according to temperature, with addition of heat transfer to absorbing molecules and a massive water-cooling system with Icecaps that never thaws fully.

    “The thermal effect of a planetary atmosphere is due to an enhancement of the supplied solar kinetic energy by the force of atmospheric pressure. The key point to realize here is that pressure being a force directly impacts the kinetic energy of the system. That’s because (by definition) energy cannot exists without a force; hence adding force to a system changes its internal energy and temperature.”

    When you write “enhancement of the supplied solar energy” my thermal alarm goes off.

    Earth is heated by a constant and limited heat flow, the temperature is limited to what a maximized heat flow can accomplish. The maximized flow is determined by what temperature a perfect absorber would have, which is defined by minimized heat flow losses. When the heat flow is maximized, inflow and outflow are equal at any given point in time.

    To find the state where earth heat flow is maximized we need to build a model with minimal constrictions, and that would be a massless spherical cavity with the same geometrical configuration. Two concentric spheres where the flow is undisturbed by the redirection from the point source irradiation into emission in all directions. This is what I started with when analyzing the heat flow from the sun through the system: Irradiation of a massless cavity with two shells and no interaction except the geometric necessary transformation. To not repeat myself, you can find the result here;
    https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

    I was very surprised when I found that earth behaves as a massless cavity that doesn´t have an effect on the heat flow other than what is caused by the observed geometric differences to the perfect blackbody. Earth IS in a state of maximized flow, the interaction of mass can be neglected, at least when considering the out- and in-flow above the surface. There is no loss except from the shape .

    Thinking about it a little more erased the surprise, because earth has been heated by the sun for a long time. The steady state of optimized flow is the only logical result over time. The flow of heat will perform work on anything constricting the heat flow, always towards optimization with the least amount of restrictions. Think about what happens to a piece of wood when heated, it gets darker and darker ending up as a piece of charcoal, with much better emissive characteristics. Or when trying to get a tan, your body darkens from pigmentation into a better radiating body. All the processes involved are work caused by heat. So, internal energy and temperature is the only totally independent relationship I know of in the univers, and everything around it is transformed by that relationship from the work being done.

    So when you write “enhancement” of the heat flow, it sounds like energy is added inside the system. The first law can be seen in heat transfer from solar heating to the surface. Where the heat(Q) is the solar constant, work(W) is the surface emission-gravity loop, and effective temperature emission is the change in internal energy from being heated. 971/4=1361-390/4. Gravity cancels the surface emission when the force compress the atmosphere with the same rate as heat expands it at the surface. Nothing can get added to the heat flow inside the earth system unless the internally generated heat rise to a level where it exceeds what the sun supplies. This is confirmed by the sb-equation, which shows that the sun will transfer less radiative heat to the system if earth temperature increase. Earth float in the infinite heat sink of space, and nothing interacts with the energy on its way from the sun. This is optimal conditions so the sb transfer equation applies. This leads to the strange conclusion that earth cannot have an increasing global temperature unless it is from an incredibly massive increase of internal generation of heat.

    That conclusion leads to a disturbing question: what the f**k is going on with the global temperature data sets? Why do they show increasing temperatures when it is not possible?

    That question leads to a disturbing feeling: a strong urge to punch Michael Mann in the face by holding Bill Nye in the ancles and swinging him at lightspeed like a sledgehammer towards Mann´s nose.

    Based on the wall of text above, “enhancement” of the heat flow sounds dangerously much like “creation of energy”, and when considering the fact that the “enhancement” is supposed to be caused by a much colder body, the fluid atmosphere at a mean temperature of -18C, I see a clear violation of both the first and second law of thermodynamics.

    Pressure is the result of the work being done by the force of gravity on the atmosphere, pressure is not a force. Don´t you agree?

    A force can not exist without energy, that is what I would say. The internal state and its relation to Energy/heat/radiation is the only observed independent part, it exists independently of everything else. Adding heat to a system will cause forces to act on matter towards optimized flow with the least amount of resistance. Adrian Bejan developed a theory called constructal law from thermodynamics that describes this. I didn´t know about it before, but I came to similar conclusions.

    Heat is in itself a force, since heating of matter is defined as increasing the kinetic energy of particles. When something is heated, what happens is a displacement at the microscopic level inside a flow at light speed. Heat is a force doing work on the very fabric of reality, everything is a result of heat, and the relationship between emission and temperature of the emitter is independent of everything else. Gravity, pressure, convection, circulation, forces, work, heat etc. They all depend on temperature as a measure of flowing heat. Remove heat and temperature drops to 3K. At such a low uniform temperature there is no meaningful definition of any physics involving forces or anything else. Don´t you agree?

  32. Blob says:
    June 16, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    “I could clean it up more (eg some graph labels) and speed it up (rewrite in c++) but not if there is no interest in checking it here.”

    You wouldn´t be interested to build a model according to my calculations? I have applied the model to Mars and Venus and it works there as well. There are some interesting details, like how the breaking point for absorption that cause surface temperature varies from venus to mars with number of atmospheric shells, 4/3^3, 4/3^2 and 4/3. The similarity between the solar system and the atomic model doesn´t look like a coincidence to me anymore.

  33. wildeco2014 says:

    Unfortunately, lifeisthermal’s ‘walls of text are just confusing the basic simplicity of the issue by not distinguishing adequately between the differing behaviours of a mobile mass of gases heated by conduction and convection and surfaces heated by radiation.

  34. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    June 16, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    P/ρ = RT

    That is pressure/density =RT
    The pressure/height and density/height curves are the same
    Pressure/density is constant. So T will be constant

    Gas Laws predict T constant, not T linear,

  35. tallbloke says:

    Lifeisthermal: “enhancement” of the heat flow sounds dangerously much like “creation of energy”, and when considering the fact that the “enhancement” is supposed to be caused by a much colder body, the fluid atmosphere at a mean temperature of -18C, I see a clear violation of both the first and second law of thermodynamics.

    I’ve told Ned a hundred times not to use this word. The “enhancement” is not caused by a colder body transferring energy to a hotter body but by the fact that PV=nRT. A higher pressure on one side of the equation means the temperature will be higher on the other side of the equation, all else being equal.

    lifeisthermal: Pressure is the result of the work being done by the force of gravity on the atmosphere, pressure is not a force. Don´t you agree?

    If gravity does work, when will it all be used up? Work is accomplished by the transfer of energy. Gravity and pressure are forces, not energies. If work is done by the kinetic energy of the molecules comprising a volume of gas, the pressure will drop. So for example if an ice cube is placed in volume of warm gas, the volume of gas will warm the ice-cube and reduce in pressure as it does so.

    Stephen: Please do not dismiss reasoned arguments with dismissive phrases like “wall of text”. Especially when someone has a quantified model to discuss. Speaking of which, I think lifeisthermal should re-edit his comments into an introduction and we’ll post it as a separate thread for discussion.

  36. I see no problem with both points of view!

    Neds theory give the ‘base’ value of the planetary temperature, Stevens gives a view on how the base temperature can change.

    Both concepts are needed as the ‘Ned’ temperature fit across the solar system is very good, but we do know that the temperature on our surface does vary.

    There is room for multiple supportive theories to work on both solar and planetary scales.

  37. wildeco2014 says:

    Rog,
    Did you notice that he used the term ‘wall of text himself?

  38. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: I did. I wonder if someone else used it earlier. Apologies.

  39. Ned Nikolov says:
    June 16, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    “As a side note, there cannot be any dispute in regard to the incorrectness of the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’. The 33 K GE estimate is the product of a mathematically wrong formula for calculating the average temperature of an airless sphere. If an estimate is mathematically wrong, it cannot possible be physically correct! This is a fundamental rule in physical sciences that we should never forget!”

    I have been thinking about that for some time. I can´t understand how the GH-theory was constructed. I assume that the blackbody calculation of effective emisssion was the starting point. The really weird part is that when the idiot that calculated the blackbody temperature got a result that wasn´t in line with observation, the conclusion was that: Earth doesn´t follow the known, proven and applied 100% consensus physics of thermodynamics. My conclusion would have been that I must have made a mistake when analyzing or calculating. Their conclusion was: let´s throw Boltzmann, Planck, Prevost and all the other smart people out the window. Instead of using physics that we know is true, let´s have a look at the least probable solution to explain surface temperature.

    Good idea! The solution must be that the coldest part of the whole system, the atmosphere, must provide most of the heat to the surface.
    The people behind the GH-theory must have been either really stupid or they had bad intentions. When taking a closer look, the theory is just a long list of violations of physics. My opinion is that you can´t make that many errors even if your blindfolded and lobotomized. The alternative, that someone is trying to deceive people, is much more probable. But then, why?

    People seems to think that GH-theory is 200 years old or something, that Fourier was the first to come up with the idea. Not true. Fourier did not make the same claims and the theory was practically ignored up until the 60´s when there was a couple of new defect brains that started to push the theory. It was explained with an analogy of windowpanes in a greenhouse up until the
    70´s or something when radiative transfer was introduced.

    Another thing I don´t understand is, why has everyone, both scientists and laymen, accepted a theory which claims that water vapor and cold air has the opposite effect on hot surfaces in an atmosphere, to what everyone experience in everyday life?

    If I put a rock next to a fire and let it get heated, then i blow air across its surface, then I pour water on it and put it in a shallow water bath, It doesn´t make it hotter!
    If I sprinkle some dry Ice on it, there is no sign of a runaway burning hell either.

    No matter how hard I try, I can´t understand how anyone could come to those conclusions as a solution for surface heating. I imagine these mentally disabled people had a meeting brainstorming about the surface temperature problem:

    -The surface is too hot, Stefan and Boltzmann was wrong, it doesn´t add up.
    – Yeah those guys were retards, f**k Boltzmann and f**k Planck. We need to find another solution, but what could it be?
    -Wait a minute, look at all that freezingly cold air and water vapor, that must supply more heat than the sun. Just look how cold and wet it is.

    And then follows cheering and high fives.

    Even a child can identify a heat source. Spray them with water and dry ice then put them in the sun and ask which one of the three is hottest. We should not have left the problem of surface temperature to the blanket people. Big mistake.

  40. Kristian says:

    Roger Clague says, June 17, 2017 at 6:30 am:

    Kristian says:
    June 16, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    P/ρ = RT

    That is pressure/density =RT
    The pressure/height and density/height curves are the same
    Pressure/density is constant. So T will be constant

    Gas Laws predict T constant, not T linear,

    The gas laws don’t really “predict” anything about the rate of change of T with altitude in an atmospheric column. They only predict the T in a particular situation where both the air pressure and the air density are known.

    So, let’s say pressure decreases exponentially from surface to tropopause, but the density stays constant over the same range. Then the formula above implies that T also decreases exponentially with altitude. At the other end of the spectrum, let’s assume that the density decreases at the exact same rate from surface to tropopause as pressure does. This would imply a constant T over the height of the troposphere.

    However, we know that neither of these scenarios are the case in the real world. The density falls off with altitude in an exponential manner, just like pressure, but it doesn’t fall off AS FAST. And the reason for this is the fact that T decreases with altitude. The air density at any particular tropospheric altitude level is directly affected, not just by the amount of air lying on top of that level, compressing the air, but also by the temperature of the air at that level.

    Example:

    At the surface, the pressure P is about 100,000 Pa on average (that’s 1000 mb). The specific gas constant of air (R_spec, or just R) is about 287 J/kg K. The average global, annual surface temperature T of the Earth is about 288 K. So what would the average air density ρ at the surface be?

    P/ρ = RT =>

    ρ = P/RT => 100,000 J/m^3 / (287J/kgK * 288K) => 100,000 / 82,656 =>

    ρ = 1.21 kg/m^3

    If we then were to move up to the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is exactly halved, 50,000 Pa (500 mb), at 5.5 km above the surface, what would it take for the atmospheric density to be half of its surface value at this altitude as well? It’s not so hard to work out. The air temperature would have to be exactly the same at 5.5 km of altitude as it is at 0 km:

    ρ = P/RT => 50,000 J/m^3 / (287J/kgK * 288K) => 50,000 / 82,656 =>

    ρ = 0.605 kg/m^3

    That’s half the surface value. But in the real world, the air is in fact denser than this at the 5.5 km level. Why? Because the temperature 5.5 km above the surface isn’t the same as it is at the surface. It is much lower. And a lower air temp leads to a higher air density. Because the two are inversely related. Colder air contracts …

    In reality, the average (global, annual) air temperature 5.5 km above the surface of the Earth is about (6.2 K/km * 5.5 km =) 34.1 K lower than at the surface, that is, ~ (288 – 34 =) 254 K.

    Which gives an actual average air density at the 500 mb level of:

    ρ = P/RT => 50,000 J/m^3 / (287J/kgK * 254K) => 50,000 / 72,898 =>

    ρ = 0.686 kg/m^3

    And so you see that the atmospheric density reduction rate with height is fairly close to the atmospheric pressure reduction rate with height (both follow an exponential path), but it isn’t QUITE there, and the reason for this is simply the parallel tropospheric drop in T with altitude. Which has an independent cause – the large-scale circulation (overturning, turbulent mixing) of the air masses within the troposphere, driven fundamentally by differential heating and cooling, across the globe, across the diurnal and annual cycles, and from surface to tropopause.

    The observed T gradient in the troposphere isn’t really linear at all. It is highly variable from place to place, from level to level, and from time to time. What IS linear (or so close to linear within the troposphere as to be considered essentially linear) is the DRY ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE (DALR). It is determined ONLY by Earth’s ‘gravitational acceleration’ (g) AND the ‘specific heat’ at constant pressure (c_p) of the air:

    Γ = – dT/dh = g/c_p = 9.81 m/s^2 / 1.01 kJ/kg K

    As long as these two quantities stay virtually unchanged, the DALR will remain linear: -9.71 K/km.

    But the thing you should never forget: The dry adiabatic lapse rate [-dT/dh = g/c_p] ONLY describes the rate of temperature decrease (increase) with altitude WITHIN a rising (falling) parcel of air, inside which no phase change of water takes place.

  41. tallbloke says:

    lifeisthermal: I can´t understand how the GH-theory was constructed

    Use a flat earth calculation for incident solar radiation, reduce by .3 for albedo, establish an equivalent average emission temperature, calculate an ‘effective altitude of emission’by tracking the environmental lapse rate from actual surface temperature.

    Here’s the word from the horse’s arse mouth:

  42. Ben Wouters says:

    Kristian says: June 17, 2017 at 11:50 am

    But the thing you should never forget: The dry adiabatic lapse rate [-dT/dh = g/c_p] ONLY describes the rate of temperature decrease (increase) with altitude WITHIN a rising (falling) parcel of air, inside which no phase change of water takes place.

    Very nice to see someone actually agreeing with me. First time in over 5 years.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/comment-page-1/#comment-13413

  43. Ben Wouters says:

    Good idea! The solution must be that the coldest part of the whole system, the atmosphere, must provide most of the heat to the surface.

    Very nicely worded, expresses my feelings prett accurate. (the entire comment)
    I worded it this way:

    Some observations:

    – Earth is basically a planet consisting of molten stone, with a core of molten metal,
    covered with a very thin crust barely able to contain all that heat
    – Our atmosphere has a heat storage capacity equal to that of ~3 meter of water
    – The oceans have a heat storage capacity well over 1000 times that of the atmosphere
    – Oceans cover over 70% of Earth’s surface

    Considering the above, the atmosphere is not the most obvious place to look for an explanation why Earth’s surface is more than 90K warmer than the Moon’s.

    From https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

  44. Ben Wouters says:

    Above quote is from
    lifeisthermal says: June 17, 2017 at 11:26 am

  45. @tallbloke

    “If gravity does work, when will it all be used up? Work is accomplished by the transfer of energy. Gravity and pressure are forces, not energies. If work is done by the kinetic energy of the molecules comprising a volume of gas, the pressure will drop. So for example if an ice cube is placed in volume of warm gas, the volume of gas will warm the ice-cube and reduce in pressure as it does so.”

    I´m not sure what you mean by “used up”?

    My conclusion is that gravity is a side effect of heat flow, and that it will be present as long as there is heating. This side effect comes from the one sided heating combined with spherical emission. The concentrated beam of heat into the “bowl” can be described like directing a flow of water into a bowl. Imagine a somewhat high flow of water from a hose into a bucket, the flow is intensive enough to create a “push” which creates a standing wave inside the boundaries of the bucket. Not just a dribble that overflow. A hard flow where the water dominates the bucket, creating a wave strong enough to create the same effect used by surfers. That is how I imagine the flow of heat, it is a strong enough force to dominate mass.

    At the surface we experience a two-way flow. Incoming solar heat and outgoing terrestial heat. This means that on the surface there is inflow at the speed c, and outflow at the speed c.
    The difference between them is a lump of mass getting heated, giving cause to excitement of the surface that rise into a standing wave of atmospheric gases. Standing on the surface, this means that you are standing in a point where the flow turns from one direction into all directions. This point I imagine is like the wave under a surfboard, the wave and the surfer travels in direction towards the beach, but the watermolecules just beneath the board goes in the opposite direction. The energy of the wave determines the movement of mass. The suction experienced when standing in front of a breaking wave is similar to the force of gravity.

    An interesting detail is that standing on the surface with mass m, surrounded by a two-directional heat flow that each has the speed c, means that we live inside a field in a point at the surface where the energy can be summed up as E=mc^2.

    So, I don´t think gravity will use up all work, as long as there is a heat flow.

    “Stephen: Please do not dismiss reasoned arguments with dismissive phrases like “wall of text”. Especially when someone has a quantified model to discuss. Speaking of which, I think lifeisthermal should re-edit his comments into an introduction and we’ll post it as a separate thread for discussion.”

    I apologize for my love of whisky and late night internet-crawling resulting in way to many words. It is a hobby of mine. More or less compulsive.

    Tell me what you want the introduction layout to look like. I have a paper including Mars, Venus and Earth, all three with quantized heat flow including gravity. But that paper is submitted for review to a journal, and it is being reviewed as we speak. I am just a hobbyist, self-learned physicist, not a professional scientist. My driving force is a gut feeling about something retarded in the GH-theory. So I don´t know how these things work, but I guess its a bad Idea to publish that paper here before the journal has made a decision. At least this time it went out to peers for review. I´ve made a number of versions which I submitted, all of them rejected. This version is the most conservative one, focused on heat flow and the laws of thermodynamics. Earlier versions included more assumptions, but also some really intriguing connections to the energy density of vacuum and the speed of light. But now I trimmed it down to exclude every possible trace of assumption, basing it on only logic, 100% consensus physics and an uncomfortable level of determinism. It doesn´t include anything new or makes any assumptions. It takes thermodynamics literally and it is based on numbers from simple calculations only.

    @Stephen

    I fully understand if you dismiss it as “wall of text”. Think of my posts as writing equal to babble from a drunk guy in the bar. Too much words coming out of a numb mouth to be an effective way to reach the point I´m trying to make. Repeating myself because I forget that I already wrote that shit a few minutes earlier. Hitting the post-button like there is no tomorrow.

  46. tallbloke says:
    June 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm
    “lifeisthermal: I can´t understand how the GH-theory was constructed

    Use a flat earth calculation for incident solar radiation, reduce by .3 for albedo, establish an equivalent average emission temperature, calculate an ‘effective altitude of emission’by tracking the environmental lapse rate from actual surface temperature”

    Yes, yes, I am aware of this. This is not my native language so things get lost in translation sometimes. What I really meant was, how did anyone manage to go all the way completing the theory, avoiding all logic and proven physics along the way?

    The albedo thing is amusing. Albedo was never a part of the theory of thermal radiation or thermodynamics, we had emissivity for that. I think albedo originally comes from optics or something. Anyway, my point is that albedo relates to the receptors of the human eye more than thermal physics. But in the greenhouse everyone use it like the human eye controls what fraction of thermal radiation is absorbed in planetary bodies. The stupidity of removing 30% of the heat before even starting to calculate, and then come whining about there not being enough heat to explain surface temperature, is mindblowing. On top of that, emissivity is also used. The message is: let´s just fudge the f*ck out of everything until nobody understands what we are talking about. Then continue to repeat how complex climate is, and how cold air heats the surface like hell.

    The complexity is in the mystery of why anyone gave Climate Science access to powerful computers, which they use to build models where photon-blankets and photons being re-emitted in “all directions” is allowed to overrun the most solid science to date, thermodynamics. I´m sure that if we take a closer look at those models, we will find some unicorns and pots of gold at the end of a brown rainbow. All wrapped in blankets.

    I´m leaning more and more towards that “climate” doesn´t exist. There is only weather, which is turbulence from heating that is a self regulating function of the system. The only possible way to change the “climate”, would be either increasing solar irradiation, or increasing internal generation exceeding solar heat. Both of them are unlikely.

  47. Ben Wouters says:
    June 17, 2017 at 1:56 pm
    Kristian says: June 17, 2017 at 11:50 am

    “Very nice to see someone actually agreeing with me. First time in over 5 years.”

    It is nice, isn´t it? Compared to discussing “climate change” on facebook with the result that you becomes the most hated and immoral person on the interwebs, payed by Big Oil to spread the evil gospel.

    Thank you Tallbloke for providing a commentary field with a nice vibe, which seems to attract some sensible people.

  48. wildeco2014 says:
    June 17, 2017 at 4:05 am
    “Unfortunately, lifeisthermal’s ‘walls of text are just confusing the basic simplicity of the issue by not distinguishing adequately between the differing behaviours of a mobile mass of gases heated by conduction and convection and surfaces heated by radiation.”

    My approach comes from the confusion arising when reading arguments from both sides, initially. There was no clarity of thought anywhere, and my experience of thermodynamics was that clarity, logic and no-bullshit is the foundation of everything. So I started to ignore everything but heat flow, to lessen the confusion. I built a basic model excluding everything but heat, cause heat is not very complicated. And it worked. Cutting out everything was the trick. So, I think the behaviours of gases and the transfer through conduction/convection is what brings confusion to the table. Those are effects of the heat flow, not causes. And they seem to follow a model including only and optimized, undisturbed heat flow. I like it, but I also understand that not many physicists will agree. Michael Mann will also not like it. But nobody cares about that asshole. He´s a nazi.

  49. tallbloke says:

    [Moderation Note]

    Comments are open again on Ned and Karl’s thread. Please post replies to their theory there
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analysis-of-solar-system-observations/ an replies to Stephen Wilde here.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

  50. tallbloke says:

    lifeisthermal: My conclusion is that gravity is a side effect of heat flow

    I don’t think that will work. There’s a lot less heat flow at Pluto’s orbit, but its moons orbit in the time expected by the commonly accepted gravitational constant for a body of its size and density.

  51. Blob says:

    Lifeisthermal wrote:
    “You wouldn´t be interested to build a model according to my calculations? I have applied the model to Mars and Venus and it works there as well. There are some interesting details, like how the breaking point for absorption that cause surface temperature varies from venus to mars with number of atmospheric shells, 4/3^3, 4/3^2 and 4/3. The similarity between the solar system and the atomic model doesn´t look like a coincidence to me anymore.”

    Hi lifeisthermal. I will take a look at your blog and posts here and may do it at some point if it looks interesting, I have time, etc. I actually also do such projects freelance if you would like to fund it. If you are interested in discussing the latter let me know how to best contact you.

  52. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 16, 2017 at 12:08 pm
    Hi Richard.

    “The Greenhouse Effect / Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement is all a matter of a gaseous mass conducting and convecting up and down within a gravity field. Not due to radiation at all.”

    When I realized that earth behaves as an empty cavity in relation to the rate of heating by the sun, I needed to work out how such a relationship could be possible. Every conscious human being on this planet can confirm that: radiation is not the main mechanism of heat transfer at the surface. Still, the heat flow behaves exactly like radiation, only dependent on the temperature.

    My conclusion ended up like this:

    The heat that is absorbed in the solid diffuses through the whole volume, and emitted intensity from the surface should be viewed as pure terrestial emission, not a product of solar heat. Even though it might be equal or proportional to solar heat.

    Solar heat doesn´t cause the emitted intensity of terrestial heat, the internal state of earth is the cause of emission. Absorption of solar heat is determined by the emissive power of the absorber, This is another inevitable consequence of the sb-equation which many people seems to overlook when analyzing the system. Temperature shows the size of the heat flow at the point of measurement. It is all we need.

    A “fun fact” in this story, is that one of the founders of thermodynamics, Prevost, stated that: Logically the emission of a body depends on the internal state solely. The internal state being the measured temperature. The contrast to GH-theory is mind blowing. It claims that the internal state and the resulting emission of the solid surface instead depends on the external state of the atmosphere. The exact opposite of the main discovery of thermodynamics, the independence in the relationship between the internal state of an emitter and the heat flow from that same emitter.

    It is not wise to include unmeasurable flows of fairy-tale “heat” from low temperatures to explain surface emission when we already have a solid independent measure of heat flow.

    on topic: As heat changes from the independent state outside spacetime where it has the speed c, into the state where it is part of the internal state of solid mass, it slows down to a speed that is nowhere close to what the photons have. The result from a surface being heated by photons constantly flowing into it at the speed of light, slowing down at the moment of absorption and destruction of the photon is inevitably a compression of the flow.

    It is packed into mass as internal energy of much higher density than what is observed in vacuum and that is confirmed by the relationship E=mc^2. So whatevever the mechanism of heat transfer there is present inside the system, a measurement of temperature is a measurement of heat emission flowing at the speed of light. That is, the rate of radiative transfer.

    So, emissive power is the radiative transfer rate. What modes of transfer that that take over outside the emitter doesn´t change the fact that emissive power of a temperature measured, is the radiative transfer from the body.

  53. Blob says:
    June 17, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    “Hi lifeisthermal. I will take a look at your blog and posts here and may do it at some point if it looks interesting, I have time, etc. I actually also do such projects freelance if you would like to fund it. If you are interested in discussing the latter let me know how to best contact you.”

    If I find a cashflow with higher intensity that allows for larger emissions of money, I will absolutely contact you to see what can be done. My email is hillbillyphysics@protonmail.com, send me an empty mail so I have your adress.

  54. The Badger says:

    lifeisthermal says:
    ” Every conscious human being on this planet can confirm that radiation is not the main mechanism of heat transfer at the surface.”

    Exactly my point I think when I made my comment about walking round my outdoor swimming pool in the morning. Stephen Wilde appeared to ignore it. Surely ALL theories that state the surface of the Earth is primarily warmed by direct solar radiation and this warms the atmosphere in contact with it MUST be thrown in the bin?

    My view is that the atmosphere near the surface attains its warm temperature fundamentally due to gravity which provides the temperature gradient, historically called the lapse rate but we should probably avoid that description as it tends to imply the temperature gradient is caused by movement of air masses up/down. I believe that irrespective of ANY movement of air there will be a temperature gradient caused by gravity. Loschmit’s theory and the -g/Cp result are derived from basic physics of gases and have no vertical movement necessary.

    Verification of the vertical temperature gradient due to gravity was undertaken by R.Graeff (covered in tallbloke blog earlier). The experimental results look good IMHO but I think we need to scale up the experiment to, say, 10m columns. This should give us some bigger figures to work with. A 10m vertical column of Argon gas should theoretically give us a 3K difference between top and bottom.
    If we can verify this AND demonstrate in the apparatus no (or minimal) convection this will be highly significant.

    I have the possible use of suitable building for 10m vertical column experiments and a useful amount of the hardware necessary. Who thinks this is worth taking further?

  55. No doubt many of you are tired of seeing this post and yet I persist. Just explain per traditional scientific etiquette and dialogue why my methods and conclusions are wrong and I will have to stop until corrections are made. Simple and in your hands.

    If it had not been for “deniers” challenging the “consensus” doctors and surgeons would still be going from patient to patient with infectious hands and clothing.
    Here’s an excellent example of fake news.

    “97% of scientists (implying ALL!!! scientists) believe in man-caused climate change.”

    What the MSM meant to say is 97% of all CLIMATE scientists (similar to aroma-therapists and horse whisperers) actively researching and publishing in that field (At this point insert getting paid.) consider the evidence compelling – all 82 of them – cherry picked out of the 10,500 surveys that were sent out. (Doran and Zimmerman)

    Demonizing, marginalizing, silencing and censoring the skeptics and critics (Union of Concerned “Scientists” & Disqus & FB & USA Today) is the real anti-science. Science without doubt, science without uncertainty, becomes religion.

    Believing that 0.04% of the atmospheric gases magically influences weather and dominates the climate takes a real sci fi flight of fantasy (or article of faith).

    The upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory is comic book science, Saturday morning cartoon science, cinematic shape-shifting, mutant superhero science defying six of the three most fundamental laws of thermodynamics and physics.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.html

    Believing in the upwelling/downwelling”/back” radiation GHG/GHE theory is like believing in the X-men, but without the kewl movies. Not surprising since they share a common fan base.

    Over 2,000 views collected on the following three papers and NOBODY has disputed my methods or conclusions. Step right up, be the first, take ‘em apart.

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong

  56. tallbloke says:

    “I don’t think that will work. There’s a lot less heat flow at Pluto’s orbit, but its moons orbit in the time expected by the commonly accepted gravitational constant for a body of its size and density.”

    I know there are some problems to work out. Do you know about the blackbody force?

    It is the observed repulsive and attractive effect of blackbodies interacting with a heat flow. I think that the missing piece is that emitting bodies and their relation to gravity is not only a relative “pull” that correlate with differences in the properties of the mass of a body, the “pull” is only a fraction of a force that also repels other masses in the emitted heat flow. Like how emission of heat from the surface repels molecules in air when expansion from heating cause mass to be repelled when the air rises.

    It is true that the gravitational constant can be used in predictions of orbits, but I am not satisfied with a definition of a force of gravity that we can use to predict movements of massive bodies, and noone even mentions the elephant in the room: that all forces need a supply of energy to do the work we observe in gravity. The only flow of energy from the sun to Pluto is the flow of heat. I think it is a logical and rational assumption to make, that the energy needed for a force acting over the distance between the sun and Pluto is not a product some mysterious hidden and unknown flow of energy, and instead try to use the only observed flow of energy/force/heat to explain what we see.

    Today theories of gravity includes for example dark matter and 11 dimensions to explain observations. I get very skeptical when someone tries to explain observed physical processes with made up concepts that clearly is a result from someone having problems to explain observations without making things up rather than a result from logical analysis of observations. It is not that different to saying that the force of gravity is caused by the ghost of Muhammeds beard, and IS is a scientific organisation. In cosmology there is too much theories built on a string of assumptions hanging by a thin thread of belief from a fantasy.

    The only universally observed expressions of energy, that we can observe from our position in our solar system, are thermal radiation and the indirect observation of gravity doing work on the emission or the emitter of thermal radiation. If gravity and heat are the only observed flows of energy in the universe, independent of human observers and their immediate surroundings in the solar system, I think it is a very rational and conservative conclusion that heat and gravity is intimately related to each other.
    It is a conclusion drawn without making any assumptions about unseen forces from unseen sources. I find it to be the only possible logical conclusion that can be made.

    It is an approach free of the need to believe in stuff which we know nothing about. I really don´t like physics that use made up things which has no confirmation in observations. If we accept such theories we might as well go to church and ask the priest what the bible says about the 8 dimensions we can´t see, and how dark matter which we can´t see, is a more powerful presence in the universe than everything we can see. It is similar to belief in God in the way they are assumed to be present throughout the universe and explains every question asked without giving any answers.

    I don´t want to come across like my idea of heat and gravity is the truth, I just think that it is much more in line with how physics describe everything else that IS confirmed by observations. I prefer it much more than accepting that Pluto is kept in orbit by a unseen mysterious force. The force needs a constant supply of energy that logically must be transferred from the main source of attraction, the sun. If the only energy transferred is heat, and 100 years of intense search couldn´t produce any answers, I will instead try to use what we actually know and observe. Like they used to do it in the 19th century.

  57. The Badger says:
    June 18, 2017 at 12:00 am

    “Surely ALL theories that state the surface of the Earth is primarily warmed by direct solar radiation and this warms the atmosphere in contact with it MUST be thrown in the bin?”

    Actually, my approach is the opposite. That solar irradiance is the only cause of surface temperature, but some of it is diffuse and interacts with atmospheric molecules on the way to the surface. I rely on what was discovered from studies of heat and radiation long ago. It has been shown to hold over time. So, if the surface emits 390W/m^2 from the whole surface in average, heating from the sun on only half the area would have to be at least double that amount. If we look at the emission of effective temperature, it needs a source at the intensity of 970W/m^2. Such high intensity can only be found below the surface, so the temperature measured locally doesn´t have to be the result of the heat flow in the same place. The surface is in equilibrium, it is confirmed by the small addition from internal generation of only 90mW/m^2. A solid in equilibrium is in a state where the sb-equation clearly shows that there is no net transfer of heat. The situation you describe with cool ground and hot air, is not really a process of transferred heat. It is a lack of heat transfer. This is of course a gross generalization, but observations of small differences in temperature over such a small distance as from the surface and the air above it, doesn´t really say much. Don´t you agree?

    “there will be a temperature gradient caused by gravity”

    Maybe you are right. But I prefer to rely on what Prevost stated, that the emission depends on the internal state(the temperature) only. It is the only independent relationship observed that I know of. I consider it as the only fixed point in reality. The draper point is an interesting confirmation of the independence of emissive power of a solid and the emitted radiation. The fact that practically all solids glow at the same temperature is a clear demonstration of how the heat flow inside mass and the emission from that same mass, is entirely independent of the matter that it flows through.

    In my world, the conclusion is that there is only one cause in the universe. Heat. Gas. liquid or solid, their characteristics and behaviour are all a product of radiative heating.

  58. “I have heard objections that such warmed descending air cannot heat a solid surface by conduction due to the low density of air but as pointed out above a cold, solid surface draws heat from air very effectively.”

    How does this relate to Prevost´s statement that the emission of a body depends on only the internal state?

    In what way is the atmosphere a part of the internal state of the solid earth?

    I can´t find a way to phrase the relationship between Prevost´s conclusion and the emissive power of the surface being dependent on the state of the external atmosphere, in any way that doesn´t contradict that relationship. It is the opposite of that proven and widely applied relationship between the emissive power and the internal state measured with a thermometer.

    How can the emissive power of an irradiated planet depend on the state of an external shell at low temperature, when it is a proven fact that it depends only on the internal state?

    Isn´t a measure of temperature an observation of internal energy?

    How does the surface temperature depend on the state of the external atmosphere?

  59. The Badger says:

    life is thermal says:

    “Today theories of gravity includes for example dark matter and 11 dimensions to explain observations. I get very skeptical when someone tries to explain observed physical processes with made up concepts that clearly is a result from someone having problems to explain observations without making things up rather than a result from logical analysis of observations. It is not that different to saying that the force of gravity is caused by the ghost of Muhammeds beard, and IS is a scientific organisation. In cosmology there is too much theories built on a string of assumptions hanging by a thin thread of belief from a fantasy.”

    I agree . I also think you may well have something with the concept of internal matter states and radiation. One must be careful using SB however, it’s only supposed to apply to solids, using it in anyway on a gaseous mass is fraught with problems and likely to cause one to “fudge it” deliberately or otherwise.

    I disagree that you think considering the “small” differences in surface and near surface atmosphere temperature are significant. This is the bit we and many other life forms inhabit. The surface and near surface of a planet is VERY significant.

    Theoretical arguments are great, there no shortage on this blog (understatement of the year!). Can we have some suggestions from people for actual real world experiments please. With regard to gravity and heat flows an experiment to measure the change in gravitational pull between masses when their temperature is changed could be useful. I can change the temperature of any mass very simply with an embedded resistor and a pair of wires leading to a power supply.

  60. Ben Wouters says:

    The Badger says: June 18, 2017 at 8:37 am

    I disagree that you think considering the “small” differences in surface and near surface atmosphere temperature are significant. This is the bit we and many other life forms inhabit. The surface and near surface of a planet is VERY significant.

    Over 70% of earth’s surface is ocean. Had our early ancestors stayed there and developed complex societies under water, nobody would care a bit about that cold, low density layer of air that separates the oceans from space.

  61. tallbloke says:

    lifeisthermal: all forces need a supply of energy to do the work we observe in gravity. The only flow of energy from the sun to Pluto is the flow of heat. I think it is a logical and rational assumption to make, that the energy needed for a force acting over the distance between the sun and Pluto is not a product some mysterious hidden and unknown flow of energy, and instead try to use the only observed flow of energy/force/heat to explain what we see.

    Forces are human constructs used to make sense of observed phenomena. They do not need and cannot employ “a supply of energy”. In the human construct called “classical mechanics”, gravity is a property of mass. In the human construct called “Einsteinian relativity”, gravity is an acceleration necessarily resulting from the theoretical curvature of space-time. Both of these constructs may well be wrong (after all, only one of them could be right anyway), but until another hypothesis is offered which has a empirical basis for acceptance due to an elegant numerical utility as well as a theoretical aesthetic, they are unlikely to be dislodged by a construct based on heat flow.

    Summary: Show us the math. 🙂

  62. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: June 18, 2017 at 12:15 am

    Had a look at your posts. Some comments.
    I fully agree that the atmosphere does not WARM the surface, it merely reduces the energy flow to space. With an average surface temp. of ~290K and no atmosphere earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2. The atmosphere slows this to ~240 W/m^2. This also implies that without atmosphere earth would be (much) colder.

    Using the energy content of solar radiation makes good sense to me. I use this site:
    http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/average-solar-radiation#
    Gives the total energy the sun delivers at the surface in kWhr/m^2/day.
    Simple calculation shows that a full day of sunshine can warm the upper 10 meter of ocean water ~0,5K that is mostly lost again at night.
    Over a full year that looks like this:

    Warming towards summer, cooling towards winter Below ~200m no more solar influence.

    The question you don’t answer is: how can the surface reach our observed temperatures?
    Assume our moon had one side continuously facing the sun iso earth. Temperatures on the sunny side would reach RADIATIVE equilibrium and be roughly what we see today. Dark side should be ~2,77K unless a geothermal flux makes it warmer. Average temp. ~160K.
    introduce rotation, once every second. Now the radiation is evenly distributed over every latitude. Warmest at the equator, poles still very cold. Average temps now much higher, closing towards but not reaching the Effective temperature of ~270K.
    My conclusion is that a rocky earth without oceans and atmosphere would have an average temperature well below 255K.

    Bring in the oceans. They were created hot, sitting on bare magma. Whatever the faint young sun added did not explain their very high temperatures.
    Since that time the sun has maintained a much warmer top layer, that separates the deep oceans thermally almost completely from the atmosphere.
    Surface temperatures are the sum of the deep ocean temperature PLUS what the sun adds in the shallow surface layer. From here the atmosphere just has to reduce the energy loss to space to arrive at a balanced ENERGY budget (not a RADIATIVE balance)

  63. Blob says:

    “Assume our moon had one side continuously facing the sun iso earth. Temperatures on the sunny side would reach RADIATIVE equilibrium and be roughly what we see today. Dark side should be ~2,77K unless a geothermal flux makes it warmer. Average temp. ~160K.
    introduce rotation, once every second. Now the radiation is evenly distributed over every latitude. Warmest at the equator, poles still very cold. Average temps now much higher, closing towards but not reaching the Effective temperature of ~270K.
    My conclusion is that a rocky earth without oceans and atmosphere would have an average temperature well below 255K.”

    It makes no sense to conclude anything without knowing the heat capacity of the object though. Maybe I am using the wrong term here and that is what people don’t get, or is it just so trivial for some reason I am missing? How many Joules to change the temperature of 1 square meter of the surface, when it is currently at temperature of T Kelvin?

    For a uniform object not in equilibrium you would use:
    C*dT/dt = I*(1-a) – s*e*T^4

    The change in temperature for each timestep is then:
    dT = dt/C*[ I*(1-a) – s*e*T^4 ]

    What is the value of C everyone is using (even just implicitly) for material like the lunar surface? For example, if the object is basalt apparently it has volumetric heat capacity of:

    cp = 840 # specific heat J/(kg*K)
    d = 3000 # density kg/m^3
    C = cp*d # ~ 2.5e6 (W*s*K^-1*m^-3)

    So for a 1 meter thick basalt surface (not quite sure how to deal with the depth here…) we would use C = 2.5e6 (W*s*K^-1*m^-2)?

    [1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html
    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt

  64. Ben Wouters

    “I fully agree that the atmosphere does not WARM the surface, it merely reduces the energy flow to space. With an average surface temp. of ~290K (Just a guess, a collection of vastly disparate data and with an atmosphere and albedo.) and no atmosphere earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2. (Pure S-B BB calc – no molecules, cond, conv, latent) The atmosphere slows this to ~240 W/m^2. (Only with a 30% atmospheric albedo. 340 – 100 = 240) This also implies that without atmosphere earth would be (much) colder. (390K of solar constant says much hotter.)”

    The 290K/400 W/m^2 is an assumption and not a good one. The solar constant has a S-B BB temperature of 390 K. Without an atmosphere and zero albedo the earth would be max 390K or hotter much like the moon. (See Zeller et. al.) The actual albedo would be quite speculative. The surface temperatures of the moon and earth would be similar. Blazing hot the lit side, cold on the dark modulated by rotation. But without molecules what do hot and cold even mean?

    “The question you don’t answer is: how can the surface reach our observed temperatures?”

    The insulated envelope of a house reduces the rate at which energy/heat flows from hot to cold. The house is warmer inside than out. Same thing the atmosphere does.

    Q, Btu/h = U Btu/h sq ft F (Σ 1/Rs) * A, sq ft * dT, F. U = 1/R. R is the composite thermal resistance to heat flow of conduction, convection, latent and radiative heat processes just as the walls of a house are a composite of cinder block and brick, 3” and 6” sheet rock and fiberglass walls, thermal pane windows, doors, etc, Exact same relationship as parallel electrical resistances or hydraulic piping systems.

    “My conclusion is that a rocky earth without oceans and atmosphere would have an average temperature well below 255K.”

    My WAG (wild ass guess) is that it could just as easily be much hotter, approaching 390K depending on the albedo. Low albedo – hotter. High albedo – colder. And it’s low like the moon.

    The atmosphere and oceans provide a huge amount of thermal inertia that moderates the lit/dark side temperatures.

    Put your house furnace on a timer that allows it to run 12 hours. Must put in extra heat during the day to get through the slow cooling at night. Around here during the zero temp days we set the thermostat at mid 60’s during the day and low 60’s at night.

  65. Blob says:
    June 19, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    You need to consider how a solar engineer might model a trombe wall. That’s a brick or stone wall, thermal mass, behind a wall of windows. The sun heats the brick wall and it’s temperature rises per its specific heat capacity, Btu/lb F. That temperature will rise until conduction/convection/latent(spray the wall with water or evaporate from ocean surface.) and radiation leaving the wall balances the heat hitting the wall, i.e. equilibrium.

    The ground & oceans (not the “surface” which is 1.5 m above said ground/ocean) absorb solar heat per their specific heat capacities and increase in temperature to a point where those four heat processes are in balance.

    So now the system is in equilibrium: Q, Btu/h in = Q, Btu/h out at a stable temperature, F.

    Then come changes per Q = U A dT

    If Q goes down so does the temperature.

    If Q goes up so does the temperature.

    If I draw reflective curtains (increased albedo AND thermal resistance) between the sun and wall, the wall cools off.

  66. Ben Wouters says:

    Blob says: June 19, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    It makes no sense to conclude anything without knowing the heat capacity of the object though.

    Imo it makes a lot of sense. For the calculation of the Equivalent temperature (Earth ~255K, moon ~270K) all incoming solar is distributed evenly around the entire planet. (physically impossible)
    Assuming blackbody behaviour (body radiates according its temperature, no heat storage) the SB calculation is used to find the RADIATIVE balance temperature for the entire planet.
    So for a real planet WITH heat storage and uneven distribution of the temperature the average radiative balance temperature will always be lower than the Equivalent temperature.
    Unless another mechanism gives a (much) higher temperature.

    Moon’s surface is rather strange. The stuff is called regolith, and heats up nicely under solar radiation, but conducts very poorly.
    see https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/divinerfig51.png

    Below ~30 cm no more influence of solar heating
    Compare this to water on earth.

  67. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    June 17, 2017 at 11:50 am

    The consensus theory of the atmosphere is based on these assumptions
    1. Pressure caused by weight
    2. Pressure, density and temperature related by pv =RT
    Evidence in your post above proves they are not justified

    Pressure caused by weight

    You say Surface pressure is 100,000 J/m^3 not kg/m^2
    That is air pressure is energy of a volume of gas not force of weight over an area.

    Pressure, density and temperature related by pv =RT

    You say: ….. the parallel tropospheric drop in T with altitude. Which has an independent cause…..
    That is T is independent of pressure. T is not related to pressure

    An alternative method

    An alternative is to apply Kinetic Theory of gas ( which leads to pv =RT in special conditions ) directly to the molecules.
    As Joseph Postma does here

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/04/07/r-w-wood-had-it-right-sun-heats-earth/

    and as I done in my recent posts on this blog.

    “In mechanical vertical equilibrium, meaning that there is no bulk movement of the atmosphere either up or down, then for any given horizontal infinitesimal slice of atmosphere there must be conservation of mass for any gas passing through that slice. Why would any gas move through that slice? Simply because of thermal movement on the molecular scale. Some molecules will move up through the slice, and an equal number will move down through the slice when there is mechanical equilibrium. The conservation of mass equation is:
    ρ↑V↑ = ρ↓V↓
    where ρ is the density of the gas and V is its average velocity. The upward and downward arrows indicate upward movement and downward movement through the infinitesimal horizontal slice.
    But in an infinitesimal time period ‘dt’, and if the average velocities are initially identical at ‘V0‘, how does the velocity change for the upward and downward moving molecules given that gravity is acting upon them? If the local gravitational field strength is ‘g’ (positive value), then the upward moving particles will have their velocity reduced by g*dt, and the downward moving particles increased by g*dt. And so:
    ρ↑(V0 – g*dt) = ρ↓(V0 + g*dt)
    and as a ratio:
    ρ↑/ρ↓ = (V0 + g*dt)/(V0 – g*dt)
    The right-hand-side is always larger than one, which then for the left-hand-side means that the density of the gas below the slice must be higher than the density above. And so density must decrease with altitude. At the same time, the particles crossing to below the slice will have a higher average velocity as compared to the ones crossing to above the slice, and so therefore temperature must decrease with altitude since this velocity corresponds to a component of the thermal molecular speed of the gas. An equal number of particles pass either up or down, but the particles moving above are slowed, whereas the particles moving below are hastened. Thus, lower density and lower temperature as altitude increases.”

  68. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: June 19, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    “I fully agree that the atmosphere does not WARM the surface, it merely reduces the energy flow to space. With an average surface temp. of ~290K (Just a guess, a collection of vastly disparate data and with an atmosphere and albedo.) and no atmosphere earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2. (Pure S-B BB calc – no molecules, cond, conv, latent) The atmosphere slows this to ~240 W/m^2. (Only with a 30% atmospheric albedo. 340 – 100 = 240) This also implies that without atmosphere earth would be (much) colder. (390K of solar constant says much hotter.)”

    and

    The insulated envelope of a house reduces the rate at which energy/heat flows from hot to cold. The house is warmer inside than out. Same thing the atmosphere does.

    Which of the two is it? Would the earth be warmer or colder without atmosphere?

    My WAG (wild ass guess) is that it could just as easily be much hotter, approaching 390K depending on the albedo. Low albedo – hotter. High albedo – colder. And it’s low like the moon.

    The measured average surface temperature of the moon is ~197K.
    Are you now saying that the atmosphere INCREASES the temperature for earth some 90K above the moons average temperature?

  69. “Are you now saying that the atmosphere INCREASES the temperature for earth some 90K above the moons average temperature?”

    No putting words in my mouth.

    1) Nobody knows with any certainty what the temperature of the earth would be without an atmosphere.
    2) Earth’s “average” surface temperature is a meaningless collection of miscellaneous bad data with a large uncertainty. There’s a discussion about averages over at WUWT.

    For energy to flow (aka heat) between hot and cold, surface to ToA, (the only direction allowed by thermo) through a thermal resistance demands a thermal/temperature difference. No difference, no flow.

    The atmosphere presents just such a thermal resistance (cond/conv/latent/radiant) and that is the source of the relatively warm earth.

    That phenomenon stands alone, comparisons and speculations are a bunch of noise.

    Why is my neighbor’s house warmer/colder than mine? He sets the thermostat higher/lower.

    Why is my neighbor’s heating/cooling bill lower than mine? His house has 6″ walls and triple glazing.

    Well, duhhh.

  70. Too much complexity and confusion has crept into this thread.
    The simple fact is that the non radiative energy transmission processes of conduction and convection being slower than radiation (which occurs at the speed of light) the more such processes are going on the warmer the surface must become because the energy tied up in them reduces the average speed of the radiative flow to space.
    That reduction in speed of radiative energy loss requires the surface to get hotter so that enough radiation can get past the ‘interference’ presented by atmospheric mass so as to match energy out with energy in.
    That ‘interference’ increases from more atmospheric mass and/or a stronger gravitational field because both increase density at the surface so as to allow more conduction from surface to atmosphere in preference to radiation to space.
    The lapse rate slope simply represents the increasing proportion of energy transmission via non radiative means as one moves down along the density gradient.

  71. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: June 20, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    1) Nobody knows with any certainty what the temperature of the earth would be without an atmosphere.

    Correct, but the moon gives a pretty good idea. Increasing the albedo to that of the earth makes its temperature even lower. Increasing the rotation rate to that of the earth increases the temperature a bit.
    Seems save to say that a rocky earth without atmosphere would be below 200K average surface temp.

    The atmosphere presents just such a thermal resistance (cond/conv/latent/radiant) and that is the source of the relatively warm earth.

    I understand you now agree that removing the insulation from a house / the earth will LOWER its temperature when the energy input remains the same?
    Since you agree that the atmosphere does not account for the ~90K higher average surface temperature of the earth compared to the moons, what does in your opinion?

    To be fair, I have a possible answer to this question.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

  72. “I understand you now agree…”

    Please don’t decide for me whether I agree because, no I don’t agree. Removing insulation in Phoenix makes a house warmer.

    With the moon’s albedo of 0.15 the incident solar constant would be 1,162.8 W/m^2 or 290 W/m^2 in the ball in poo bucket model. That’s considerably higher than the with with atmos of 160 W/m^2 so the earth would be considerably hotter than with an atmosphere.

    “Since you agree that the atmosphere does not account for the ~90K higher average surface temperature of the earth compared to the moons, what does in your opinion?”

    That comparison is bogus, apples and oranges.

    I have explained in several different ways and in my WriterBeat posts why the earth is warm.
    Q = U A dT

  73. Blob says:

    “Since you agree that the atmosphere does not account for the ~90K higher average surface temperature of the earth compared to the moons, what does in your opinion?”

    Part of it is that the surface can only cool so fast after being heated by the sun. The Earth spins fast enough, and there is enough “thermal intertia”, so that the night side doesn’t fully cool before heating up again. However, this can (but not necessarily does) raise the temperature only up to the “equilibrium temperature” (eg 255 K for an object with uniform 30% albedo).

  74. The 255 K is the result of inserting the 240 W/m^2 radiative balance at 100 km in the S-B BB equation. It is a theoretical calculation, not a physical reality. What is the measured “temperature” at 100 km where there are zero molecules? (-90 C?) The “measured”^.25 / calc’d^.25 equals emissivity – about .35.

    And this is based on the evenly heated ball in a bucket of warm poo model which is dumb and unrelated to how the earth actually heats and cools. (1,368 / 4 = 342 * .7 = 240)

    The actual average ToA ISR is 1,368 W/m^2 (1,415 perihelion, 1,323 aphelion) when the sun is directly overhead. Because of the spherical shape the ToA ISR diminishes in all directions from that point, dropping to a few hundred W/m^2 at higher latitudes to zero above 70 N in NH winter and 70 S in SH winter.

    The “surface” gains heat (Btu/h) as it rotates through the lit side from sunrise to sunset (Btu/h *12h) with the temperature rising per its specific heat capacity. If the rotation is too slow at some time the surface (no atmos) temp would max out at 390K. Obviously the rotation is fast enough so that does not happen.

    So from sunrise to sunset some particular km^2 control module absorbs enough Btu for its temperature to increase by say, 60F. Now this control section rotates into the dark side and proceeds to lose heat up through the atmosphere via the four mechanisms and cooling off. BTW those four mechanisms are also in play on the lit side.

    What the “surface” gains on the lit side exactly balances what it loses 24/7 up through the atmos blanket’s resistance. (Q = 1/R * A *dT (15 – -90?)) When that balance changes so does the “surface” temperature and the balance at 100 km.

    And that’s how the world turns – and stays warm enough for us to have time for bickering about all of this instead of struggling simply to survive.

  75. All these back and forth discussions about esoteric fringe issues are all interesting, but they beg the real question, the only question that matters, the keystone of the entire CAGW controversy.

    The GHG up/down/”back” radiation of RGHE theory is indefensible thermodynamic rubbish. The notion that the ONLY explanation for the earth being 33 C warmer with than w/o an atmosphere is RGHE is also rubbish.

    My four WriterBeat papers (2,162 views, zero critiques) refute the RGHE/33 C/atmospheric layers theories using fundamental scientific arguments and offer up an honest thermodynamic process and explanation for a “warm” earth well within the comprehension level of the staff in the insulation aisle at Home Depot.

    You disagree?

    Step right up!

    Bring science.

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong

  76. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: June 20, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    Please don’t decide for me whether I agree because, no I don’t agree.

    My sentence started with “I understand you now agree” and ended with a question mark. Not sure what you mean.

    Removing insulation in Phoenix makes a house warmer.

    I miss the relevance of this remark, where we are discussing heavenly bodies in the cold, empty universe.

    With the moon’s albedo of 0.15 the incident solar constant would be 1,162.8 W/m^2 or 290 W/m^2 in the ball in poo bucket model. That’s considerably higher than the with with atmos of 160 W/m^2 so the earth would be considerably hotter than with an atmosphere.

    I assume you are referring to the Equivalent temperature of ~270K for the moon. Almost everybody here will agree that this number is nonsense. Actual average temperature of the moon is ~197K.

    That comparison is bogus, apples and oranges.

    We have two heavenly bodies in almost the same orbit around the same sun. Why would it be bogus to compare the temperatures of the two?

  77. Ben Wouters says:

    Blob says: June 21, 2017 at 4:17 am

    However, this can (but not necessarily does) raise the temperature only up to the “equilibrium temperature” (eg 255 K for an object with uniform 30% albedo).

    Agree. The coldest case is a planet with one side continuously facing its sun.The temperatures on that side will eventually reach radiative equilibrium (RE) with incoming solar. The dark side will be in RE with the cosmic background radiation. Introducing rotation will eventually result in the max temperatures for every latitude not being reached any more and some heat energy being carried to the dark side. Now the heat capacity of the surface also begins to play a role.
    Very fast rotation will distribute incoming solar evenly over each latitude. But this still will leave a difference between equator and poles, so the Equivalent temperature will never be reached.

  78. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: June 21, 2017 at 5:17 am

    The 255 K is the result of inserting the 240 W/m^2 radiative balance at 100 km in the S-B BB equation. It is a theoretical calculation, not a physical reality. What is the measured “temperature” at 100 km where there are zero molecules?

    The 255K is the result of distributing incoming solar evenly over a “grey’ body (blackbody with albedo) and calculating the SB radiative balance temperature of that body.

    At the top of the atmosphere we have no RADIATIVE balance, we may have an ENERGY balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing energy in the form of longwave radiation.
    Unless incoming solar is thermalized in the atmosphere or at the surface, it will NOT be part of the energy budget of the planet. Reflected energy is not part of the energy budget.

    This article may clarify the concept of blackbodies: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/15/6044.full

  79. In one rotation the naked moon absorbs 1.189 E23 kJ, the earth absorbs 1.463 E22 kJ. IF their barren naked rock surfaces (no atmos earth) have similar specific heat capacities the earth’s equilibrium temperature would be one-tenth that of the moon.

    And IF frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butts when they hop.

    [Moderation note] Nicholas, do yourself a favour and read this paper. Thoroughly.
    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  80. Blob says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    “Very fast rotation will distribute incoming solar evenly over each latitude. But this still will leave a difference between equator and poles, so the Equivalent temperature will never be reached.”

    The first sentence is correct, but second is only maybe correct. An object with fast enough rotation (or high enough heat capacity) can reach the equilibrium (or as you referred to it “equivalent”) temperature for all practical purposes.

    The rotating object simulation I posted above shows this, I have also seen it said elsewhere (not that I accept all claims in these papers):

    “A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature.”
    https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

    “Because this emissions scales as T^4, it can be demonstrated that the spatial average of the local equilibrium temperature (Eq. (1)) is necessarily smaller than the effective equilibrium temperature defined by Eq. (2)5.
    […]
    5. Similar conclusions can be reached concerning the temporal average of the equilibrium temperature, which is smaller than the equilibrium temperature computed for the temporally averaged flux. Whether this behavior has an important impact on the physical temperature, however, depends on the ratio of the thermal equilibration timescale of the atmosphere and ground to the period of the irradiation variation. For the Earth, thanks to the oceans, the thermal inertia is large enough so that the mean flux seems to be the relevant quantity for both diurnal and seasonal variations.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7079

    You do need some other process to get the temperature greater than the equilibrium temperature, and this seems to be related to atmospheric mass (due to the, largely ignored but important, fact that up in the Venus atmosphere at 1 bar the temperature is the same as earth after adjusting for distance to the sun). I’m not sure if the OP explanation is correct for this, it really needs to be made into a simulation for me to understand it. I also do not understand how to properly use the emissivity parameter in these models, it seems that could be set arbitrarily low to increase the predicted temperature.

    Another thing is if you take the model of the “surface” (apparently usually taken to be~1-2 cm thick[1]), then add another layer below it and allow energy to transfer between the two at some slower rate… I’d think this would look just like the models that treat the atmosphere as a few layers and would increase the temperature. I haven’t tried it but don’t immediately see why that couldn’t increase the temperature above the equilibrium temp…

    [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JE003987/abstract

  81. ren says:

    Thanks to the gravitational force, the average pressure at the Earth’s surface is constant. But the troposphere is shrinking and expanding depending on the available solar energy. See below.

  82. ren says:

    Why pressure of 0.1 bar is the limit for the troposphere with a dense atmosphere? Thanks to the dense atmosphere, the temperature is determined by convection. The troposphere mass controls the surface temperature.

    In the stratosphere, the density of gas is so low that the temperature rises only due to UV radiation (ozone). It can be seen precisely in the mesosphere, where the temperature drops with the drop of ozone.

  83. ren says:

    A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5, 6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html

  84. Ben Wouters says:

    Nicholas Schroeder says: june 21, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    In one rotation the naked moon absorbs 1.189 E23 kJ, the earth absorbs 1.463 E22 kJ. IF their barren naked rock surfaces (no atmos earth) have similar specific heat capacities the earth’s equilibrium temperature would be one-tenth that of the moon.

    You don’t seem to understand the concept of radiative balance temperature.
    A surface continuously receiving eg 1368 W/m^2 will warm up and radiate according its current temperature. Assuming albedo 0 and emissivity 1.0 once the temperature has reached ~394K, incoming and outgoing radiation will be the same. As long as nothing changes, this can go on for eternity, regardless how many kJ you throw at that surface.

  85. ren says:

    I suppose that changes in tropospheric mass may be due to changes in the magnetic force of the Earth’s magnetic dipole.

    http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
    Variations on different time scales are evident in the final low-noise cosmic radiation (radionuclide production) record (Fig. 3 B, C, and D). A comparison with changes in the geomagnetic dipole field strength (21) (Fig. 3A) shows that the geomagnetic dipole shielding is the main cause of the observed multimillennial variability; the stronger the geomagnetic field, the lower is the cosmic radiation. On multidecadal to centennial time scales the cosmic radiation variations are mostly due to solar modulation (Fig. 3 C and D) as indicated by the coincidence of cosmic radiation maxima and grand solar (sunspot) minima like the Maunder minimum (Fig. 3D).

  86. Ben Wouters says:

    Blob says: June 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    “Very fast rotation will distribute incoming solar evenly over each latitude. But this still will leave a difference between equator and poles, so the Equivalent temperature will never be reached.”

    The first sentence is correct, but second is only maybe correct. An object with fast enough rotation (or high enough heat capacity) can reach the equilibrium (or as you referred to it “equivalent”) temperature for all practical purposes.

    I don’t see how rotation can distribute incoming solar across the ENTIRE planet evenly.
    (let’s assume the rotational axis perpendicular to the orbital plane)
    The poles will always receive zero radiation, the equator maximum.

    (Short on time. Will read the rest of your post later)

  87. ren says:

    The temperature graph over the equator accurately shows the difference between the dense atmosphere (pressure above 0.1 bar) and the thinned atmosphere. In the troposphere, mean pressure and temperature are strictly dependent.

  88. Lots of comments circling around the main issue.

    Let’s have a bit more focus.

    i) Who agrees that the difference between the surface temperature as calculated via the S-B equation and that actually observed is due to non radiative processes acting within atmospheric mass held within a gravitational field ? If not, why not ?

    ii) Does anyone agree that my description in the original post is at least plausible?

    iii) Can anyone offer an alternative description of the non radiative physical processes involved?

  89. Brett Keane says:

    @ren says:
    June 21, 2017 at 6:59 pm: Thanks ren. When we first realised this, here at Tallbloke, it was a ‘road to Damascus’ experience. I was blind, and now could see.. My interest in why albedo seems to have little or no effect may have been because they are separate physical processes, ‘apples and oranges’. Albedo being radiative, and gravito-thermal working via gas laws and lapse rates. These are what were measured, over the solar system. I suspect albedo changes affect mainly stored energy from energy that hardly interacts with atmospheres, but can be slowly released from waters. Being transitory as it leaves as with Enso. I still have some more understanding to go…..

  90. “iii) Can anyone offer an alternative description of the non radiative physical processes involved?”

    Q = U * A *dT same as the insulated envelope of any insulated anything. Conduction, convection, latent.

  91. Brett Keane says:
    June 21, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    Albedo is not radiative, just simple reflections. Emissivity is radiative. Albedo and emissivity are not the same.

  92. Ben Wouters says:
    June 21, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    “A surface continuously receiving eg 1368 W/m^2 will warm up and radiate according its current temperature. Assuming albedo 0 and emissivity 1.0 once the temperature has reached ~394K, incoming and outgoing radiation will be the same.”

    EXACTLY!!

    But it takes time depending on the kJ/SI h input.

    The temperature of a given Block of Stuff increases xxx C for every yy Btu. If it takes 5 hours to deliver yy Btu it will take five hours to go up xxx C and equilibrate.

    If albedo reflects .5 yy Btu then it will take 10 hours to reach xxx C.

    If the BoS is just passing through and is exposed for only 15 minutes its temperature will go up .25*xxx C.

    If albedo reflects 0%, 70%, 85% the SB max BB temp would be: 394 K, 360 K, 245 K.

    So the temperature rise from sunrise to sunset depends on the rate of Btu input and specific heat capacity. From the obvious data the exposure time and heat capacity are such that 394 & 360 K are not nearly reached.

    The moon will have a hotter lit side and colder dark side because of its slow rotation.

    The earth will have a relatively cool lit side and warmer dark side because of its relatively rapid rotation.

    It’s possible the average could be the same because that’s what averages do.

  93. jon says:

    who ever wrote this post needs to go do some resurch….their plants are powered by solar power…give your bull a rest

    [Reply] The Lithium ion cells are made in China. The US factory assemble the cells into a battery pack.

  94. Blob says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    June 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    “I don’t see how rotation can distribute incoming solar across the ENTIRE planet evenly.”

    It doesn’t need to be evenly, just constant for each latitude. After playing around with it I found the following algorithm. If you calculate the temperatures by latitude at noon for the non-rotating sphere, then multiply these by 3/4 and take the mean it will give you the temperature of the fast rotating sphere. It turns out to be about 1-2% lower than the equilibrium temp. This is in R:

    ### Calculate mean temperature for a rotating sphere ###
    ### with high rotation rate (w) and/or heat capacity (c) ###
    ### (ie w*c is large). ###

    # Load library to generate uniformly sampled points on a sphere
    # install.packages(“geosphere”)
    require(geosphere)

    # SB law parameters
    S0 = 1370 # Solar Constant (W/m^2)
    s = 5.670373e-8 # SB Constant (W*K^-4*m^-2)
    a = 0.3 # Albedo
    e = 1 # Emissivity

    # Generate points on a sphere; extract latitudes; conv to radians
    n = 5e6
    lat = unique(randomCoordinates(n)[, “lat”])*pi/180

    # Mean temperatures by latitude. This is 3/4 the temperature at
    # each latitude at noon for the non-rotating sphere. This is
    # based on simulations, I don’t know how to derive it.
    T_lat = .75*(S0*cos(lat)*(1-a)/(s*e))^0.25

    # Overall mean for fast-rotating sphere
    T_mean = mean(T_lat)

    # Equilibrium temperature
    T_eq = (0.25*S0*(1-a)/(s*e))^0.25

    # Ratio (~.99)
    T_mean/T_eq

  95. Blob says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 21, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    “Who agrees that the difference between the surface temperature as calculated via the S-B equation and that actually observed is due to non radiative processes acting within atmospheric mass held within a gravitational field ?”

    This is only one reason it looks like, surface properties and rotation also matter. For example, the moon’s equilibrium temperature is much higher than actual average. The take away is that altering the distribution of, or total, heat capacity of the surface (ie density, specific heats, etc) could also affect the mean under certain circumstances.

  96. wildeco2014 says:

    Blob

    Surface properties and anything affecting albedo will have an effect because albedo variations mimic a change in the level of external insolation by altering the proportion of that insolation absorbed by the system.

    However, albedo variations can also be a negative system response neutralising internal forcing elements. Mars is a good example. When it gets too hot for the equilibrium temperature set by atmospheric mass and gravity then surface winds increase and create planet wide dust storms which increase albedo and cool the surface down again.

    It just depends whether the albedo change is a cause or a consequence in each scenario.

    Rotation does not have such an effect. It just redistributes the available energy more evenly around the system and circulation changes then neutralise the thermal effects of rotation.

    In the end the only variables that affect surface temperature are atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field and the proportion of external irradiation absorbed by the system after reflection via albedo has been deducted from insolation.

  97. wildeco2014 says:

    Nicholas
    How is that an alternative?
    Isn’t it much the same?

  98. “Isn’t it much the same?”

    No. Q=UAdT rigorously adheres to well established and proven thermo laws. Up/down/”back” radiation of RGHE does not.

  99. wildeco2014 says:
    June 21, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    288 K, 255 K, delta 33 C all nonsense. 255 K is at 100 km not the surface.

    342 W/m^2 , 102 W/m^2 reflected, 240 W/m^2 ASR, 160 W/m^2 “surface” rubbish all based on a stupid model of the earth as a ball evenly heated in a pail of poo.

    The real heating/cooling processes don’t even resemble that.

  100. wildeco2014 says:

    The actual numbers don’t matter. I describe a physical process.

  101. oldbrew says:

    SW: ‘It just depends whether the albedo change is a cause or a consequence in each scenario.’

    Yes, to put it another way albedo has to have an input as well as an output.

  102. ren says:

    Very important for the albedo is the range of polar vortex and jet stream. Below the distribution of ozone in the south determines the exact impact of the polar vortex.

    My observations indicate that geomagnetic activity is affected by the polar vortex.
    Aurora is only a secondary effect of electron flow (electric current in the atmosphere).
    Another effect is the increase in the speed of the polar vortex.
    http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Supersonic_plasma_jets_discovered

  103. Blob says:

    wildeco2014 says: June 22, 2017 at 8:08 am

    “The actual numbers don’t matter. I describe a physical process.”

    I really think you are onto something but English is simply not the correct language for this type of thing. It will be much easier to understand if you can make it quantitative (either a math or computer model).

    Also, as I keep mentioning I think the exact numbers do matter in some cases since according to my simulations (which I admit could be wrong and I am constantly fixing little bugs, but they do reproduce the moon’s temperature profiles pretty well), the amount of “extra” heat to be explained depends on the heat capacity of the surface and rotation rate… BTW, I am getting that if you get the model to fit the diviner data (overall means/mins/max and equatorial means) by playing with heat capacity, then speed up the moon to rotate at the same speed as earth, the mean temp would be ~ 260K.

    Things may be completely different once an atmosphere is added though.

  104. tallbloke says:
    June 18, 2017 at 10:21 am
    Summary: Show us the math. 🙂

    Ok!

    Gauss law of gravity support the conversion of gravity to a surface flux, electric field equations for heat, gaussian surface in effective emission and the divergence theorem supports the approach using volumes for summing all sources.

    See new post at: https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

    For those with tired eyes and sore fingers, not wanting to click links and read stuff:

    TSI=4/3sigma(-4g^2-4/3g^2+Ts^4+Tt^4)

    Now, this is the math for earth. I have done the same for Mars and Venus. It doesn´t prove that it is valid for anything else.

    “Forces are human constructs used to make sense of observed phenomena. They do not need and cannot employ “a supply of energy”. In the human construct called “classical mechanics”, gravity is a property of mass. In the human construct called “Einsteinian relativity”, gravity is an acceleration necessarily resulting from the theoretical curvature of space-time. Both of these constructs may well be wrong (after all, only one of them could be right anyway), but until another hypothesis is offered which has a empirical basis for acceptance due to an elegant numerical utility as well as a theoretical aesthetic, they are unlikely to be dislodged by a construct based on heat flow.”

    First, thermodynamics/heat flow is the only 100% consensus science. Anything including the laws of thermodynamics, heat and also includes an explanation of gravity, is more valid than anything else. Or do you like fantasies of dark matter and 11 dimensions better? That has no confirmation in observations?

    There has been no luck in the search for the root of that “property of mass”. They do need an explanation for acceleration including 9.8W/m. Otherwise, they need to give just one single example in another observation, where you can accelerate something with 9.8m every second without using any energy. “The curvature of space” doesn´t get rid of the fact that gravity is a force. According to thermodynamics a force needs a power source. The curvature would need a force acting on the flat space to curve it, if we don´t want to say that the acceleration needs the power.

    My opinion is that the curvature of space comes from the expansion of heat, in space. If a heat flow can be accurately described for earth with geometry and the most basic thermodynamic principles of heat engines and work, which points to a perfect solution when work is gravity, I would prefer that solution to anything else. If it works for Mars and Venus as well, I would throw any other theory out the window, because no other theory has managed to include electromagnetic radiation, temperature distribution an solar irradiance in a single flow of energy, for those three planets.Venus has been a mystery with surface emission at about 17500W/m^2, and almost no sunlight reaching down. It wasn´t even hard to find a way to describe it as a heat engine with the inverse square law and the volume of spherical shells. I only had to focus on what we know already, and avoid ideas that anything is a mystery.

    I know that someone said at the beginning of last century that physics had discovered all that can be discovered. It seemed like a stupid thing to say, looking back. But now I think he actually had a really good point. We might gain more with that approach, if we stick to the only 100% consensus science there is. In Thermodynamics I trust, hallowed be thy name 😉

    I´m not saying that I am right, but nothing else has given me so many answers so easily as this model does. And it uses only known, proven and applied thermodynamics principles. I trust nothing but thermodynamics, not even general relativity.

  105. ren says:
    June 22, 2017 at 8:34 am
    “Very important for the albedo is the range of polar vortex and jet stream. Below the distribution of ozone in the south determines the exact impact of the polar vortex.My observations indicate that geomagnetic activity is affected by the polar vortex.
    Aurora is only a secondary effect of electron flow (electric current in the atmosphere).
    Another effect is the increase in the speed of the polar vortex.”

    I recently realized that my analysis of the earth system based on only geometry in a layered cavity without mass, is the same as the equations for such cavity in an electric field. The properties of earth, including a gaussian surface in the atmosphere, is an exact match to an electric body. It really hurts my feelings, I didn´t want to confirm anything about an “electric universe”. But feelings is bullshit. And I like accurate calculations for breakfast, not feelings. So here I am, saying that there are calculations pointing towards earth being an electric body in an electric field, because it´s geometry and structure mimicks those of a hollow charged spherical shell with a solid conductor at the center. And the calculations have high accuracy.

    A tip: try to use formulas for hollow spheres in electric fields, gauss gravity and heat, to investigate your observations. I would do it myself, but it would take me a long time to read up on everything I would want to know, before feeling secure about knowing what I´m talking about.

  106. Ben Wouters says:
    June 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm
    Blob says: June 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    “I don’t see how rotation can distribute incoming solar across the ENTIRE planet evenly.
    (let’s assume the rotational axis perpendicular to the orbital plane)
    The poles will always receive zero radiation, the equator maximum.”

    But just below the tinfoil thin crust that is only ~0,3% of the radius, there is a glowing ball which is what balances the heat from the sun. Remember that the lower the temperature at the poles, the more heat there is transferred to them from all heat sources.

    The fluid atmosphere, it distributes heat faster than the rotation. But there is no need for even distribution, below the tinfoil everything is hot as hell.

  107. Ben Wouters says:
    June 21, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    “Reflected energy is not part of the energy budget.”

    Yes it is. The blackbody is 2D. The blackbodys heat source heats a 2D surface, everything is accounted for at the surface. That is the point where you measure heating from the heat source, on earth that is the tropopause. Everything that goes in at the tropopause must be accounted for in temperature distribution when analyzing the flow. If you let something in, you are not allowed to take it away inside the system. This is for the same reason that you can´t stick your hand into a heat engine and grab some of the heat to take it out.

    If energy is reflected, you have to define exactly where and why, but most important is: how much?

    Taking away 30% with albedo before calculating the temperature and then come whining about the surface being “to hot”, invalidates the whole calculation. Nothing indicates that the random variations of the amount of radiation which our eyes respond to, is wise to include in a heat engine.

    For example, snow reflect visible light, but it is black in IR. When snow melts and grass grow, it reflects visible high intensity wavelengths, and the ground is less black in IR, but absorbs lots more short wavelengths. Why would anyone want to include such unknown factors in a calculation of temperature?

  108. The Badger says:
    June 18, 2017 at 8:37 am
    “One must be careful using SB however, it’s only supposed to apply to solids, using it in anyway on a gaseous mass is fraught with problems and likely to cause one to “fudge it” deliberately or otherwise.”

    It is supposed to apply to anything with a temperature. Gaseous mass can be considered as “low quality” solids. They are just not that good at emitting and absorbing heat. I don´t even include solid mass in my calculations, even less gases. What I found was that mass and gas is irrelevant, only emissive power can be used to define the system.

    “I disagree that you think considering the “small” differences in surface and near surface atmosphere temperature are significant. This is the bit we and many other life forms inhabit. The surface and near surface of a planet is VERY significant.”

    My approach is that the surface, in equilibrium, is where most heat flows. Because there you have equal flow in both directions. Observations on the surface, though, will be observations of a process where the calculations show no heat transfer, so small fluctuations is not useful. It´s a bit of a paradox, where the most intensive flow is located, we humans have a problem measuring it or feeling it.

    “With regard to gravity and heat flows an experiment to measure the change in gravitational pull between masses when their temperature is changed could be useful.”

    I have read about satellites that slightly change their orbit when heated by the sun. But I don´t think it works like that. My point of view is that gravity acts from within earth, which doesn´t fluctuate in temperature, and small changes at the surface will not have an effect. Nevertheless, gravity fluctuates a lot on earth, 9.8m/s is an average from lots of measurements. It is 9.78 at the equator and 9.82 where I live, in averages. Any measurement on earth surface would have to include the enourmous glowing ball we live on, not easy to do that experiment. Even if you use a vacuum chamber cooled to low temperatures, you would have to account for the massive planet that emits both heat and attract mass in the surroundings.

    “I can change the temperature of any mass very simply with an embedded resistor and a pair of wires leading to a power supply.”

    Of course, but can you imitate a sphere with layers and a gradient which points to a core at 5770K, and exclude every possible effect from standing on a surface with the same properties that is a massive planet?

    The center of heat/mass is important. It would explain why we can use a magnet to lift a paperclip on the surface, but the planet keeps bodies like the moon in place. Gravity accelerate towards the hottest point, not towards the surface(even if that is included). Damn tricky earth, setting the center of heat and mass in the same point. Maybe that´s what fooled us?

  109. lifeisthermal

    “…Ts^4+Tt^4)”

    What is this? Ts? Tt?

  110. lifeisthermal

    And the atmosphere is a combination of parallel thermal resistances, conduction, convection, latent, winds, storms, Hadley cell, radiation. And the combined resistances of an electrical circuit demands a voltage difference to push current and the combined thermal resistances of the atmosphere demand a temperature different to make energy flow, i.e. heat.

    That’s why the surface is the temperature it is. 255K at 240 W/^2 100 km, 288k at 390 W/m^2 .0015 km, delta 33 C are BOGUS NONENSE!!

    I could do another analogy with an hydraulic system: fluid resistance demands a pressure difference.

    Energy is a thermal property, KE = 1/2 M v^2, and does not exist without molecules, likeabove 32 km..

    Temperature is a measurement of that KE. No molecules no measurement. The molecules in an ice/water bath and the mercury molecules in a glass capillary tube at equilibrium have the same KE.

    Heat is a thermal process, energy moving from hot/high energy to cold/low energy which is the ONLY way thermo allows. Yes, a refrigerator moves energy from cold to hot, but it takes added WORK to make that happen.

    Up/Down/”back” radiation of RGHE is complete thermodynamic RUBBISH!!

  111. lifeisthermal
    Ben Wouters says:
    June 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm
    Blob says: June 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    There is a temperature gradient/profile from the center of the earth to the ToA, 100 km. HVAC engineers know that at about 30m below the ground the temperature upwelling from the core maintains a fairly constant temperature.

    Would be interesting to see that entire profile on one graph.

    BTW the flow from core to surface is described by, GUESS WHAT? Q = U * A * dT!!!! And so is the surface to 32 km, ToA!

    There is considerable back and forth activity at the surface, but based on my field measurements when the sun goes down the air cools, loses energy (not heat) quickly (low thermal mass), the ground does not (high thermal mass). And the air remains warmer than the air, i.e. heating the air, all night until the sun is back up for a couple of hours.

    There are those who maintain that the ground radiating 390 W/m^2 cools so fast that all that keeps the ground from freezing solid is the downwelling/”back” radiation. Those people full of thermo baloney.

    The surface (1.5 m per IPCC) cannot radiate 390 W/m^2 because only 160 made it to the surface so they have to create 130 W/m^2 out of nothing violating conservation of energy.

    And the troposphere is cold and the molecules are cold and may NOT send energy backwards from cold to hot without work.

  112. Blob

    wildeco2014 says: June 22, 2017 at 8:08 am

    And now for things that might be completely different.

  113. wildeco2014 says:

    Nicholas

    You make a similar though different mistake to that of the alarmists.
    They propose a surface warming effect from downward IR which is wrong.
    You propose a surface warming effect from some sort of ill defined electrical process which is also wrong IMHO.
    I propose a surface warming effect from KE recovered from PE in descending columns of air as set out in my article. That fully satisfies observations, the gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics.

  114. No, I propose a surface warming the same as warms your house in winter, the thermal resistance of the insulated envelope, I.e. Q = U A dT.

    Thermal resistance, electrical resistance, hydraulic resistance all similar physics.

    I arrived at a similar conclusion by coming in the front door.

    You took some kind of overly complicated wandering.

    It’s not that complicated, it’s as simple as the walls of a house.

  115. Nicholas Schroeder says:
    June 23, 2017 at 12:13 am
    lifeisthermal

    “…Ts^4+Tt^4)”

    What is this? Ts? Tt?

    Sorry, I´m so sloppy sometimes. Ts=temp. surface, Tt=temp. tropopause.
    ¨
    TSI=1361W/m^2 (this is the latest value, I think)

    Solar irradiation on the disk that is earth´s shadow, pi*r^2, distributed over the hemisphere 2pi*r^2, transformed through the volume enclosed by the troposphere 4/3pi*r^3, heating the volume of the solid sphere, 4/3pi*r^3:

    Ts=1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2)

    Tt=1/3*sigmaTs^4

    and

    4/3*sigmaTs^4=sigma(Ts^4+Tt^4)=(4g^2+4/3g^2)

    so

    TSI=4/3sigma(Ts^4+Tt^4) – 4g^2-4/3g^2

  116. Nicholas Schroeder says:
    June 23, 2017 at 12:26 am

    “Up/Down/”back” radiation of RGHE is complete thermodynamic RUBBISH!!”

    Yes, and I have a growing feeling that the message is starting to get through. But feelings are, like I said earlier, bullshit. So lets wait and see, while we keep hammering in the message. The gh-lobby deserves public humiliation like nobody has ever deserved it before.

  117. wildeco2014 says:
    June 23, 2017 at 9:33 am

    “You make a similar though different mistake to that of the alarmists.
    They propose a surface warming effect from downward IR which is wrong.
    You propose a surface warming effect from some sort of ill defined electrical process which is also wrong IMHO.
    I propose a surface warming effect from KE recovered from PE in descending columns of air as set out in my article. That fully satisfies observations, the gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics.”

    Do you get warm from descending cold air? If not, why would the surface get warmer?
    The surface has on one side an inferno of raging heat in melted flowing rock, on the other side there is a really cold layer of fluid between the surface and the ultimate heat sink. I´d think that this question is redundant, but: which side of the surface provides the heat?

    How is the electric process ill-defined? It is the result of an extremely simple geometric analysis of the differences between earth and the perfect blackbody. With the difference that the blackbody absorb and emit from a perfectly black, infinitly thin, 2d surface, when heated from all directions in a heat bath. While earth absorbs irradiation on only half the surface area, in depth of a volume which consists of a shell with a solid ball at the centre, and emits from twice the area that absorbs. Can you point out exactly which part of that analysis that is wrong?

    After this analysis, and the analysis of Mars and Venus was done, I realized that the thermodynamic model is exactly the same as the one for a spherical shell with a conducting ball that is located in an electric field. Looking at earth, we see the charged shell from atmospheric ionization, and the negative potential in gravity, as well as the lack of electric field in the space between the surface and the charged shell. On top of that, we see the equivalent of a gaussian surface in the effective radiation, and the Gauss law of gravity is included in a volume/area formulation of gravity. Which show that earth fulfill everything included in that law.

    I am honest when I ask the next question, because I do all my calculations by myself without anyone with the appropriate knowledge to analyze my work;

    Exactly where is it ill-defined? Where are the errors? I really want to know, so I can correct my mistakes.

  118. wildeco2014 says:

    My solution is just the same but additionally accommodates convection which is absent within your house.

  119. wildeco2014 says:
    June 23, 2017 at 4:54 pm
    “My solution is just the same but additionally accommodates convection which is absent within your house.”

    Ok. Here, have a cigar and a scotch. Let us celebrate the victory of thermodynamics. May the force of Boltzmann be with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s