Geoffwood

Hi Interitus. Thanks for the link. I've spent some time on KNMI trying to view NCEP CFSR, but there appears to be a problem locating the 'land/sea mask'. I've mailed the siteminder to see if it can be resolved.I am intrigued by this data set as it doesn't follow the 'normal flow' as viewed through certain sites. I intend to contact Maine University to ask them why, from all the models, they choose CFSRv2. Hopefully they will be aware of the differences and be able to enlighten me. BTW. Do you have any particular faith in any of the models and if so, then why? Not a loaded question. Just interested in your opinion. Regards.

I've just overlaid ClimateReanalyzer for this year to end of August with Dr Ryan Maue's data offering to view the correlation. It's obvious that the two are 'singing from the same hymn book'. There is a slight vertical offset due to differing climatological baselines. CR uses 1979-2000, where Dr Maue uses 1981-2010, giving different anomalies. CR is not at daily resolution, I only had time to plot at 5day intervals approximately.

Hi BFTV. Thanks for the link.From the above, I am surprised at the temperature difference shown for 'surface' as opposed to 1000mb as a default. 1000mb is significantly warmer than the surface!!!! Anyway, I am pleased that you are happy with NCEP CFSR as it is described as a 'state of the art','high resolution', 'third generation model'. I still remain uncomfortable with the lack of correlation between NCEP data as processed by NOAA and that same data shown as a time series by Maine University and Weatherbell's Dr Maue. As far as I am aware what is taken is the input data from the start of each 6hourly model run. No further processing required other than averaging over weighted areas. They should trend the same. But they don't! All below are NCEP CFSR. From NOAA; From Maine University; From Weatherbell, last 10years;

Hi BFTV. Hope you are well. Interesting to see the NCEP CFSR data you have provided. I've spent some time looking at similar data provided by Dr Ryan Maue through Weatherbell' open site and 'climate reanalyzer'; http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Reanalysis_monthly/tseries.php If you select CFSR it shows NCEP CFSR Temp at 2m 1000mb September World This shows five Septembers from 2002 to 2007 above 15.8degC! I am a little disappointed at the level of disagreement between the two data sets and yours given their common data source. For instance you have Sept 2015 as the warmest on record at 15.554degC but Weatherbell show September to average 15.56degC over the chosen baseline. Their 2015 value is around 0.3degC above 15.56 or around 15.86 which is up around 2002, 2003 levels, but not a record. Shame 'reanalyser' doesn't have 2015 yet for direct comparison Also you have shown Sept 2014 to have been 15.42degC (third highest on record) whereas Dr Maue has Sept 2014 at 15.76degC (same as 'climate reanalyzer'), well below 2002 to 2007. Again when both are from the same data set and in real temperatures not anomalies, the discrepancy is alarming. Where is your data from BFTV?

Look, satire aside, and apologies to any offended. My original response was the true one followed by frustrated banter, from which no insult was intended. I truly look forward to continuation of this topic. Nouska please return!

Hi Nouska. I can assume only two scenarios. The firsts being that you choose, as is your right, apparently, to ignore me, or you are not monitoring this post. Thanks to Nick L for making this clear and concise.

Even though you didn't demand it, here it is anyway. Good luck with 'heat trapping' rubbish. With knowledge that temperature is a measure of 'mean' kinetic energy, then the notion of 'heat trapping' in the lower troposphere must, by definition, increase the 'mean' kinetic energy beyond that calculable without its incorporation. There must be a significant discrepancy if this effect exists and modifies the lower tropospheric temperature/kinetic energy profile. Taking values of temperature, pressure and height of the tropospheric/tropopause boundary from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Austin5/publication/228926705_Long-term_evolution_of_the_cold_point_tropical_tropopause_Simulation_results_and_attribution_analysis/links/0f31752e7b2aac62d9000000.pdf T= 192.5K P=93mb Altitude 17km We can calculate the potential temperature (surface) for a diatomic mix of nitrogen and oxygen from the isentropic flow equation by substitution of T(trop min) at the tropopause boundary pressure. Isentropic flow equation T(1)/T(2)= (P(1)/P(2))^(gamma-1/gamma) Where gamma for a diatomic (like Nitrogen and Oxygen, and at 93mb the air IS 99% diatomic) is 1.4 as used for engineering purposes, ((7/2)/(5/2)). This gives an isentropic equilibrium temperature for the surface pressure of ~381K. This differs from measured surface temperatures by around deltaT= 76K higher, for measured T(surface)~305K (32degC) This is an energy gap. This energy gap is exactly 76 times the specific heat capacity of dry air temperature difference per kg. Cp for dry air (that is the projected diatomic mix of Nitrogen and Oxygen) is 1,005J/kg Therefore the energy gap is 76,380J per kilogram of dry air. How much liquid water can we vaporise with 76,380J/kg, Evaporation heat of water is 2501J/g Therefore 76,380/2501= 30.5g of water vaporised per kg of previously dry air. 32degC and specific humidity of 30.5g/kg are not unreasonable figures for tropical humidity conditions calculated from the conditions of the upper troposphere and 'ignoring' back radiative enhancement. To reiterate, the energetic/thermodynamic properties of the upper atmosphere UNSUPPORTED by the complete lack of water in the upper atmosphere 'trapping heat' by some mythical 'greenhouse gas effect', still allow me to calculate a surface temperature given a surface humidity by assuming isentropic equilibrium which is the basis of a lapse rate for ANY gravitationally bound atmosphere containing or not containing 'greenhouse gases'. There is NO EVIDENCE of enhanced surface energy due to radiative heat 'trapping' within the lower tropical troposphere. Nor anywhere else! Have a nice day,

Hi Nouska. Great topic. As you started the thread I feel that you already believe that the complex role played out by solar influences has been too readily swept beneath the carpet by modern climatology. Please correct my assumptions where necessary. As, I am sure you are aware, solar energy is 99.99% of the energy on Earth. With around 0.71 of the incident flux thermalised by discrete radiation/matter interaction we have to be indeed very careful that natural spectral variation, only detectable from space, does not weight the portion thermalised beyond expected parameters. The atmosphere's absorptivity of direct solar shortwave is indeed spectrally sensitive. High altitude thermalisation of extreme UV and soft X-rays energise the upper atmosphere affecting both its temperature and extension into space (this storing energy which cannot be lost without being thermalised by collapse). The extent of inflation produces differential rotation. This can only be rectified by turbulent mixing through the atmospheric layers until finally dissipated upon the lithosphere, modulating fundamental surface wind patterning in the process. I'm afraid of making this too much too early in the discussion but look forward to any replies.

Sorry mate, the evidence of radiative heat transfer doesn't remove the irritation that the derivation of the tropospheric lapse doesn't include radiation. Yet in global terms, it is still supported by measurement, and prevails. Almost like greater forces are at work, perhaps?ie. back radiation is a product. Do you require that I provide evidence? (of course).

Interitus. I am fully aware if the moist and dry lapse and how regional differences can and do occur. Moisture dramatically modifies the lapse through latent heat. I am not modelling specific peculiarities. Radiative cooling does occur. This illustrates the lack of opacity of clear sky. The suggested IPCC downwhelling fluxes cannot be due to GHG's. From the surface upward the radiation is modified by the broadening of lines. From the upper atmosphere it's collision/emission by increased number density. Thanks for the links. The first is the usual drivel with massive opposing fluxes, the second has none. Just upward net from the surface and net from the sky under a heading of 'atmospheric physics'. Like that one. No back radiation mentioned. As for the third. Very interesting. A lot of talk about cloud, line by line calculation and monochromatic, hey isn't this just what I was telling you last week, the net surface radiative flux is the line by line monochromatic addition of the opposing radiation vectors integrated over the spectral band? The only radiative energy that leaves the surface is the net flux calculated this way. We are agreeing. Internal radiation is tertiary behind moist convection and incoming solar at heating the atmosphere. This is shown in all the energy budgets. Important for weather maybe but the result of greater powers at play. If you are suggesting that the tropospheric thermal gradient is the result of another mechanism other than that described then here is the position to set it out. Equations and numbers.

I fully agree, "This unprecedented, current warm period is Mann-made!"

Some things in that make sense. Most of it collectively, doesn't. 3/10 (left this in 'knee jerk' reaction though!)knocker, actually that last paragraph, although worded a little 'clunky' is worth 9/10. Well done! I'll edit this later when I have time to so please, if you would, check back here later. Cheers. Well let's go through this shall we? Sorry about the delay. Firstly, you say, or 'recycle'; "The atmosphere isn’t adiabatic. That would mean that no energy enters or leaves. Greenhouse gasses don’t affect this one way or the other." Any given body of gas largely 'does' behave in an adiabatic manner. Air cools as it rises and warms as it falls. Gases hardly radiate at all, hence the losses from air 'parcels' large or small are rendered very tiny when compared to the gases total energy, that being the sum of independent kinetic states and gravitational potential. In lab experiments radiation from gases is largely ignored as it is too small to affect results. And despite what you say, if a 'parcel' of air were to be brought down to the surface from an upper tropospheric altitude then the temperature increase due to gravitational potential energy being released into the thermal states gives satisfactory validation of methodology. The lapse rate is an inevitable consequence of gravitational containment and is present in any bound atmosphere regardless of composition. dT/dh=-g/Cp as derived. You see it is predicted from logic, then testable through measurement. The lapse is the atmosphere's rest or equilibrium profile. The surface being two dimensional liquid or solid pulls and tugs either side of the atmosphere's equilibrium surface temperature. It cannot stray far as it is thermally coupled through contact. Then; "The lapse rate is because of the isentropic (adiabiatic AND reversible) expansion of a parcel of air as it rises (or falls) and expands (or contracts). Adiabatic is not a sufficient condition and the conditions applies to the air parcel, not the atmosphere." Rubbish. The lapse rate is because of gravity. Throw an object up and watch then describe what happens. Potential energy at zenith, kinetic at low altitudes. Total energy, ie the sum of KE and PE is the same throughout. Molecules have mass and therefore feel gravity down to a quantum level. Kinetic energy in a gas is given by 1/2mv^2=1/2kT per degree of freedom, where v is the mean thermal velocity. As mass drops out of the derivation the 'parcel' can be a molecule or the size of a gas giant within a star. Everything feels gravity. Look at the lower cloud level on an overcast day or the snow line across a mountain range. Conditions at those heights are largely predictable from surface conditions using the gravitational lapse. It does apply and does relate to real atmospheres. Every day the Sun dumps energy into the profile. The pulse of energy disturbs the atmosphere from its nocturnal settling and the response to reset the lapse is 'weather' in its various forms. You say; "The atmosphere is not opaque. Radiation captured by GHG at any level in the atmosphere is re-radiated in all directions, including to space." No it isn't opaque if it isn't cloudy, well done. So it cannot radiate black body radiation downwards like in the IPCC energy budget diagram!!!! Radiation isn't captured by GHG's as those very gases have killed the surface emissivity such that only around 66Wm-2 of real energy leaves the surface and none of that in GHG's spectral bands. Remember superposition of em waves? Vector quantities? This explains why most things near equilibrium radiate very little. Only the 'difference' is transferred as the net flux in Wm-2. You say, "Increasing GHG increases, in a sense, the “recycle rate†of radiation. But this can be (and should be to some extent) offset by convective heat transfer." There is no 'recycling' of radiation. If 390Wm-2 went up a large portion would leave as, as you have said, the atmosphere is not opaque. It has significant long wave transmission. Only around 8% of the atmosphere's energy budget is from surface radiation. So the notion of 'can be, should be, offset' by convection is childish when most of the atmospheres energy IS from moist convection. High radiative exchanges would lead to the atmosphere being largely isothermal. Even Pierrehumbert freely disclosed the fact that internal radiation drives a system towards being isothermal. And finally, "Increasing GHG increases surface temperature by raising the effective emission altitude. At the effective emissions altitude the temperature should be effective emissions temperature, which is fixed for a fixed incoming radiation budget. If it is raised, then because of the ALR, the surface temperature increases." After all the arguing with both you and Interitus about how the system must answer to space without 'radiative heat trapping' excuses you largely sum up quite neatly what I've been saying all along!!!! You still get it wrong, but hey it's progress! What you are missing is that, 1) the GHG's reduce the energy reaching the surface. 2) the GHG's reduce the lapse through heat capacity (by increased number density), and increased radiative conductance. 3)the GHG's increase the radiative losses of the atmosphere to space by increasing atmospheric emissivity. 83% of system losses to space 'already' are from the atmosphere. So losses from the system are achieved from a lower atmospheric temperature. You see the calculated temperature of the effective mean height is 'weighted' for a mean emissivity that is already loaded for the low emissivity of the atmosphere. Increasing the emissivity reduces the required temperature. So it goes to a higher altitude and lower temperature at higher emissivity, but it doesn't have to stray from the lapse. Any atmosphere raises the calculated grey body temperature above the surface to an effective mean altitude (effective mean radiative height). Even nitrogen and oxygen alone would do this. From a start temperature of 273K (a mere 14.6deg below Earth's) for airless rocky terrain with lunar like albedo and emissivity, the equilibrium surface temperature would be raised by 0.98K per 100metres of altitude of the effective mean radiative height given through a lapse of 9.8K/km! "Oh, but no," I can hear you saying, "10^18kg of warm nitrogen or oxygen wouldn't radiate at all!" But it would. "All interacting matter radiates" And "All metastable thermal states have a non-zero probability of decay" And without conceding that "all interacting matter radiates" you are suggesting that warm (288K-ish nitrogen would stay warm forever!!!! So 10^18kg of anything would reduce the surface emissivity and increase the surface temperature to something that had a physically representative temperature similar to what we have but with greater potential extremes. Regards.

Hi Interitus, please define then the cart and the horse and we'll go from there! Roy Spencer mainly does not enter into dialogue with me. He has only replied to me once and in doing so undermined his grasp of reality. He plainly said that back radiation added to the energy produced by solar water heaters, when obviously at night left to back radiation alone, no energy is available. He carefully omitted that the atmosphere significantly through greenhouse gas opacity reduced the real energy for solar water heating. Interesting, that your two examples show modifications to the water content which I said was estimated and you still have no numbers for radiation or back radiation. Figures and quantities would be good. Are you aware that the IPCC energy budget is a one dimensional, time invariant flux balancing model. I did not set out to model the globe in deriving the lapse! But it is gravitational, with no concession to internal radiation. Think you need to come up with some equations or figures to support your horse and cart theory. Thanks.

Please read with humour rather than take offence. MIA, I have just done that with extreme clarity. The total energy at the surface is the same as at the upper limit of the tropopause. That energy being the sum of independent energy states forming the heat capacity and potential energy. From logical definition of the lapse is a consequence of containment to everyone's experience of gravity. For ....'s sake, take any object outside and throw it into the air. Potential energy at the summit of the trajectory is automatically returned to kinetic energy at the surface! For a gas kinetic energy is thermal whereby 1/2mv^2 =1/2kT per degree of freedom. Kinetic energy opposes the potential energy profile to maintain total energy conservation. It's not rocket science. Chuck something up and watch it! Do you need more evidence? Make it a book with a detailed depiction if the 'radiative greenhouse effect' in it. Chuck it up as hard as you can and observe what gravity does to it. It smashes it into the ground releasing its dynamic velocity into thermal energy of the surroundings. Do it repeatedly until it falls to bits then chuck up the bits until they get smaller and smaller until your atomising the text. At which point does gravity fail to return a mass equivalence to the surface? It is contained. Please give reason why anyone would think that atoms and molecules do not obey gravity! Atoms and molecules at STP spend most of their time between collisions where they are under the influence of gravity down to a quantum level. Every mean free path is a trajectory. Yes it does show upon the distribution of particles as the original hydrogen abundance of the universe has been lost to space. Heavier molecules are slower so are retained more readily. Most of the heavy molecules from the Earth's early atmosphere are now lithospheric rock in various forms. Carbonates are one of them. As to your question wrt specific heat capacity, well yes the specific heat capacity is a direct consequence of abundance at a level and pressure and temperature constraints upon matter. The lapse varies with gravity and heat capacity. The upper atmosphere is subject to photolysis. Ionising radiation has no respect for chemical bonding and diatomics are ideal for absorption and ejection with net zero momentum transfer. Oxygen free radicals produced by UVC attach themselves to diatomic oxygen to produce ozone, that itself being dissociated by UVB to deplete. This process has no radiative counterpart so extreme UV becomes thermal by default. This energy stored by gases that largely do not radiate preferentially circulates towards and is mixed through the winter polar vortex. The upper atmosphere is mixed by its composition. Smaller molecules through equipartition 'enjoy' higher velocities and therefore extend further into space then other heavier ones. As the mean free path increases then increasingly molecules see opening free trajectories. This is part of the increase in thermosphere temperature we observe. Slower, heavier molecules are excluded. Please do not confuse. The atmosphere is only here because of gravity. It is its containment. Even light feels gravity, but at Earth's levels the redshift is very small. With molecules of water as a gaseous state and water as a liquid, the more dense is always less buoyant and closer to the surface. Density always wins with gravity. Can't beat a bit of subduction.

Devonian. I was brought up with and taught about the 'radiative greenhouse effect' like so many others. I have also met solar physicists who have told me quite candidly that Earth's temperature follows solar variation. From that I have studied and questioned and seen enough to convince myself of the failings of the popular belief. I feel that any reasonably educated individual after having applied themselves to a particular topic is free to converse with others at a common level. I admit I 'poke and prod' individuals in order to force their hand. If they can tell me something I have overlooked or a point I have missed then that is reason enough. I have contacted just two University level individuals who so far are unwilling to talk to me. One was interested by his own confession in geoengineering our atmosphere to 'fix' it but was unaware of the derivation of the lapse (... Help Us!). I want to learn and I want to know and understand the world around me. I am unashamedly guilty of that.More often I find people so blindly committed to something they believe in wholeheartedly but cannot hope to substantiate that they refuse to communicate, rather than educate me. So I am here and in capacity to read the words of Mr Pierrehumbert and then point out the flaws. For Mrs Trellis, I have given evidence of my argument. I will repeat it here for clarity. The tropospheric thermal gradient is an isentropic or reversible adiabatic. It is derivable from thermodynamic principles; http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/adiabatic_lapse_rate.htm Or more simply but equally valid from kinetic and potential energy interchange. For a body of atmosphere, Total energy Q= KE +PE where KE= m.Cp.T Where Cp-Cv=R and R is thermodynamic work. Cv is the sum of kinetic states or energy dependent degrees of freedom with 1/2mv^2 = 1/2kT per DOF. And PE =m.g.h (g is gravity, h is vertical height) Therefore, Q=m.Cp.T + m.g.h For adiabatic dQ=>0, such that in the limit, m.Cp.dT + m.g.dh= 0 or, m.Cp.dT= -m.g.dh (mass cancels) So dT/dh= -g/Cp Or rate of change of temperature with height is a function of gravity expressed through the gas's heat capacity at constant pressure. Any vertical motion in a gravitational field involves work being done from or work being released into the kinetic (thermal) states through conservation principles. The thing to remember is Cp already incorporates vibrational modes of triatomics and local thermodynamic equilibrium forces radiation to exists internally to maintain this fundamentally as Pierrehumbert suggested. Internal radiation is NOT independent of but the result of the various temperatures. ie it is a product of the kinetic interactions and the thermal gradient imposed by gravity as a result of containment, supported by all relevant energy sources (99,99% being solar). When we apply this to our troposphere and incorporate the latent heat associated with water's ability to change phase we find that for average moisture the lapse rate is dT/dh= -6.5K/km This describes an equal total energy (KE+PE) profile. -50.5degC at 10km is the same total energy as 14.5degC at the surface. The tropospheric thermal gradient is a direct consequence of its gravitational containment. This is 'potential temperature' in meteorology. So from AMSU today, channel 6 at 7.5km globally averaged is -35.5degC. http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl 7.5 times our lapse of 6.5deg/km gives (7.5x6.5) or a surface equivalent temperature enhancement of 48.75degC. -35.5+48.75 =13.75degC as an equivalent surface temperature through releasing gravitational potential into the kinetic states of the combined gases. That's with guessing at the water content and without error bars. From AMSU channel 7 at 11km is -47degC.r. Running the same calculation gives a surface equivalent temperature of 24.5degC!!!! So the surface is cooler than we would expect running the lapse from 11km!!! Where does the radiative enhancement of +33K occur? There is NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE TROPOSPHERE. I welcome any questions.

stewfox, thanks for the link.I find myself more than a little bemused by Peter Morecombe's lunar model and as you might guess I disagree with his analysis. Here is the reasoning. The albedo and emissivity of an object rotating about a symmetrical axis are fixed as neither are changed by the rotation. A sphere cutting a circle out of a parallel flux absorbs a portion of the flux according to it's physical properties whether it rotates or not. At equilibrium the object will radiate to space in the long wave the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised. And that is full stop! The effective mean grey body temperature satisfies this basic necessity. If we use, for sake of argument the documented albedo of 0.12 and an emissivity of 0.95 then the grey body temperature that returns the equivalent flux required is 273K averaged over the lunar surface. If rotation doesn't affect the shortwave thermalised (1-a) it cannot effect the temperature requirement forced by equilibrium. All Peter's model is doing is highlighting the non-linearity of flux to temperature, F proportional to T^4. He arrives at a different arithmetic mean every time he changes the spin rate, but most of the emission (and therefore the above average weighting) is done by the 'hot bits'. Without rotation nearly all is emitted by the sunlit side. Under fast rotation all the moon answers in a much more even manner, but the requirement is the same. It has to produce the required flux at eqm. There is another 'check' of this. About 1m into the regolith of the equatorial lunar surface is a 'fixed' temperature of 293K, or 20deg C. Comfortable for a moon base without requiring heating or cooling. The regolith there is serving as a natural integrator of monthly variations and summing gains and losses to a single physical temperature. This must be in long term equilibrium with the 'real' physical average of the exposed surface around the equator. Sorry but the 'model' disregards Holder's inequality. Regards.

Some interesting snippets from Mr Pierrehumbert, here talking about Kirchhoff's law; "It can be derived as a conse- quence of the second law of thermodynamics by requiring, as Kirchhoff did, that radiative transfer act to relax matter in a closed system toward an isothermal state. If Kirchhoff’s law were violated, isolated isothermal matter could spontaneously generate temperature inhomogeneities through interaction with the internal radiation field." So internal radiation alone DOES NOT, ie CANNOT PRODUCE A THERMAL GRADIENT. (So something else produces the tropospheric thermal gradient). He then adds; "For atmospheres heated partly from below—either as a consequence of solar absorption at the ground as in the case of Earth, Mars, and Venus, or due to internal absorption and escaping interior heat as with Jupiter and Saturn—the lower layers of the atmosphere are stirred by convection and other fluid motions, and the constant lifting and adiabatic cooling establish a region whose temperature decline with height approximates that of an adiabat." (We can derive the adiabatic lapse from first principles if you like, it has no radiative components. And to contradict him, on Venus, only ~1Wm-2 of solar energy on average reaches the surface due to the dense atmosphere. So how is that atmosphere heated from below by sunlight?) ie the troposphere on Earth DOES NOT SHOW the forcing of radiative heat transfer to "relax the matter into an isothermal state" that he spoke of. Then he contradicts the first statement I have quoted from him by saying; "Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature." So having started out by saying radiative heat transfer cannot spontaneously produce a thermal gradient as the exchange is driven (by entropy) to isothermal equilibrium he then concludes that the effect of adding more (GHG's) is to increase the thermal gradient that it could never produce (in fact works against) in the first place!!!! The other gem hidden in there which you overlooked, knocker is this beauty; "The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from" Why would he say "low emissivity windows"? Low emissivity windows do work. But in the thermal IR band low emissivity means low absorption (otherwise the material would be permanently at a different temperature to its surroundings! We're back to Kirchhoff's law). So low emissivity is high IR transmission (as it doesn't absorb well). So low emissivity windows let the IR out! Why did he not choose glass or something else that was opaque to IR and "trapped it"? Because he knows that as of Robert Woods 1909 experiment "trapping radiation" optically doesn't affect the "greenhouse" equilibrium temperature. Adding GHG's INCREASES the atmospheric emissivity (read as "losses to space"). In order to increase the equilibrium temperature we require to REDUCE the system emissivity forcing the temperature up to compensate. This is an elementary flaw in "GHG Theory". It is easy to be taken in by papers like this one that come across as being founded in reliable science. Regards.

Even the Wikipedia article is turning against you "Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex:" Oops!

It is very interesting though that it is called a 'greenhouse gas' theory when Wien displacement places outgoing surface radiation smack bang in the middle of the outgoing transmission window. What's more increase of temperature moves the outgoing peak away from CO2's fixed band absorption. Still,as said radiation at low thermal gradients to a first approximation, can be ignored.

Awful lot of that upwelling radiation going up and not coming back down knocker. What do you have to say about the long wave transmission?

See with integration of the Planck continuum you basically 'colour in' under the line. If it isn't filled it ain't a black body, oops, looks like the sky isn't! Well according to downwelling radiation and the atmospheric window it isn't. Gee must be down to geometry then.

Or do you prefer this one;

This shows that there is no physical mechanism to absorb radiation between 8um and 13um due to the transmission window. Therefore the atmosphere cannot emit between 8um and 13um. Therefore 390Wm-2 cannot go up and be absorbed. Rethink required!

Hi knocker, great now we are buddies! Have a look at this;

Er, except the full troposphere is coupled by the mechanical lapse up to the point where we can neglect radiation!