Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[Devonian]

I'm sure Geoff can speak for himself but perhaps he's not trying to convince you of anything but pointing out that there is an alternative opinion / theory

If you weren't trying to undermine why put parts of your post in bold just doesn't stack up me

 

Because I think (so that is my view) if he has a problem with, or if he thinks he's found a major flaw in, our understanding of how radiation behaves in/through and under the atmosphere he needs to convince those who write the textbooks not those who read them!

[Gray-Wolf]

In my experience scientist's 'Contact details' are made just for that reason? Whenever I've have needed to confirm/dismiss a notion over something I have spotted I ask? even 'scientist's' ( and they are generally prompt to reply and eager to either help you understand {better} or point you to a better person to quiz???).

 

We, it appears (apart from BFTV?) ,we are all 'armchair amateurs so why not go to the folk engaged in the cutting edge science?

 

Afraid?

 

Shy? 

Edited October 2, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

I'm sure Geoff can speak for himself but perhaps he's not trying to convince you of anything but pointing out that there is an alternative opinion / theory

If you weren't trying to undermine why put parts of your post in bold just doesn't stack up me

And what is the 'theory' part of that, jonboy? I do get that there are a million and one opinions, though...

[knocker]

Not really sure where to put this but from the little I've listened too it's worth putting somewhere.

 

Audios of all talks from #RSArctic14 are now available online at https://royalsociety.org/events/2014/arctic-sea-ice/ â€¦. Just click on the name of the scientist and listen

[Geoffwood]

I'm not an expert but Pierrehumbert is. Why would Geoff want to waste his time trying to convince me, or you, that a whole science is wrong? What influence do we have?

 

If Geoff is right it's a bit like a test cricketer playing village cricket. The question is why do that?

 

And I'm NOT trying to undermine him! I just don't see why he wont (and I think wont is the right word) try and convince the experts.

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.

[knocker]

 

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.

 

You should of course be pointing out the flaws to Professor Pierrehumbert. Simply out of common courtesy rather than let him continue in his ignorance, Not only that you are allowing him to pass on his falsehoods to his PhD students which is reprehensible in an educated person like yourself.

 

 

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.

 

Quite agree I had a chat with THWP and we came up with this regarding the lapse rate theory. This theory isn't ground breaking by the way as the Connolly brothers ran with it and it was consigned to the bin. Anyway this subject is now exhausted and I feel no need to discus it further so I suggest any future revelations be put to the good professor as I won't be replying.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/

 

One final thought this is the evidence based thread so shouldn't include 'intellectual' ramblings from individuals, whatever their gravity.

Edited October 8, 2014 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

Or rate of change of temperature with height is a function of gravity expressed through the gas's heat capacity at constant pressure. through releasing gravitational potential into the kinetic states of the combined gases. That's with guessing at the water content and without error bars.

I welcome any questions.

Geoff

Re your statement above....

I am a trained chemist and worked as an industrial chemist for a while. I am only slightly familiar with your physics and am open minded as to your proposals. But you need to produce some physical evidence to support your claims for it to be convincing for many climate people. They take the view that were it true it would have already been proposed.

It may seem a stupid question, but does the above mean that as you claim that gravity presumably has an action on atoms and molecules, that heavier (obviously!) and more 'ionic' atoms and molecules will get pulled closer to the earth's surface or does it only show through the specific heat capacity of the relevent particle? . If you expect an effect quatummechically surely this would show in our atmosphere. If so how does this show lets say in the stratosphere?

I've not seen any chemical analysis of the upper troposhere and stratosphere.

Is the atmosphere stratified in terms of its chemical makeup?

Maybe its worthwhile looking in that area?

I realise that water molecules rise (against gravity) and fall as rain (gravity) so change of state comes in to play for rainfall - but does this apply for anything else?

Why do ozone and trichlides rise to the top of the atmosphere?

MIA

[Interitus]

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.

 

Having seen your contributions on Roy Spencer's blog it is unlikely that anyone is going to affect your view seeing as he is in total agreement with the theory of greenhouse effect, only doubting man's impact. You clearly have a grasp of the principles involved, but are putting the cart before the horse and confusing cause and effect. Stating that the troposphere is isentropic ignores diabatic processes - evaporation and condensation are compensated for with an approximated environmental lapse rate (ELR) but this ignores precipitation and radiative warming/cooling.

The actual ELR for any location is a result of complex combination of advection with forced convection (eg frontal systems, orographic uplift) and diabatic processes as well as a simplified adiabatic free convection from the surface. Where we do see this in a deep well mixed atmosphere then there isn't much difference from your theory for 11km ~ 250mb.

For example here is the radiosonde sounding for Abidjan, Ivory Coast, today at 0z GMT - http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=africa&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2014&MONTH=10&FROM=0800&TO=0800&STNM=65578

The surface temperature at 8m a.s.l was 25°C while at 10980m (250mb) temperature was -41.9°C a lapse rate of 6.1°C typical of a moist tropical climate.

 

Compare with with Tamanrasset in the Algerian Sahara lunchtime yesterday - http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=africa&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2014&MONTH=10&FROM=0712&TO=0712&STNM=60680

Surface temp at 1378m was 30°C with -43.5°C at 10910m - lapse rate 7.7°C - steeper than your example, with dry air and aided by being super-adiabatic in the bottom few hundred metres due to intense insolation.

[knocker]

Interitus does not a comment from the link I posted sum this up?

 

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.

 

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.

 

The atmosphere is not opaque. Radiation captured by GHG at any level in the atmosphere is re-radiated in all directions, including to space.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited October 8, 2014 by knocker

[Geoffwood]

Or rate of change of temperature with height is a function of gravity expressed through the gas's heat capacity at constant pressure. through releasing gravitational potential into the kinetic states of the combined gases. That's with guessing at the water content and without error bars.I welcome any questions.GeoffRe your statement above....I am a trained chemist and worked as an industrial chemist for a while. I am only slightly familiar with your physics and am open minded as to your proposals. But you need to produce some physical evidence to support your claims for it to be convincing for many climate people. They take the view that were it true it would have already been proposed.It may seem a stupid question, but does the above mean that as you claim that gravity presumably has an action on atoms and molecules, that heavier (obviously!) and more 'ionic' atoms and molecules will get pulled closer to the earth's surface or does it only show through the specific heat capacity of the relevent particle? . If you expect an effect quatummechically surely this would show in our atmosphere. If so how does this show lets say in the stratosphere?I've not seen any chemical analysis of the upper troposhere and stratosphere.Is the atmosphere stratified in terms of its chemical makeup?Maybe its worthwhile looking in that area?I realise that water molecules rise (against gravity) and fall as rain (gravity) so change of state comes in to play for rainfall - but does this apply for anything else?Why do ozone and trichlides rise to the top of the atmosphere?MIA

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.

[Geoffwood]

Having seen your contributions on Roy Spencer's blog it is unlikely that anyone is going to affect your view seeing as he is in total agreement with the theory of greenhouse effect, only doubting man's impact. You clearly have a grasp of the principles involved, but are putting the cart before the horse and confusing cause and effect. Stating that the troposphere is isentropic ignores diabatic processes - evaporation and condensation are compensated for with an approximated environmental lapse rate (ELR) but this ignores precipitation and radiative warming/cooling.

The actual ELR for any location is a result of complex combination of advection with forced convection (eg frontal systems, orographic uplift) and diabatic processes as well as a simplified adiabatic free convection from the surface. Where we do see this in a deep well mixed atmosphere then there isn't much difference from your theory for 11km ~ 250mb.

For example here is the radiosonde sounding for Abidjan, Ivory Coast, today at 0z GMT - http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=africa&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2014&MONTH=10&FROM=0800&TO=0800&STNM=65578

The surface temperature at 8m a.s.l was 25°C while at 10980m (250mb) temperature was -41.9°C a lapse rate of 6.1°C typical of a moist tropical climate.

 

Compare with with Tamanrasset in the Algerian Sahara lunchtime yesterday - http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=africa&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2014&MONTH=10&FROM=0712&TO=0712&STNM=60680

Surface temp at 1378m was 30°C with -43.5°C at 10910m - lapse rate 7.7°C - steeper than your example, with dry air and aided by being super-adiabatic in the bottom few hundred metres due to intense insolation.

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.

[Geoffwood]

Interitus does not a comment from the link I posted sum this up?

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.

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.

The atmosphere is not opaque. Radiation captured by GHG at any level in the atmosphere is re-radiated in all directions, including to space.

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.

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.

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.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Geoffwood

[knocker]

Michael Mann has an interesting article in the Huff. Post in light of recent 'revelations' in a new paper.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/read-the-article_b_5965646.html#

[Geoffwood]

Michael Mann has an interesting article in the Huff. Post in light of recent 'revelations' in a new paper.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/read-the-article_b_5965646.html#

I fully agree,

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

[Interitus]

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.

 

"No concession to internal radiation" - yes by definition because you're only considering adiabatic processes!

What the two examples showed was that after your extensive derivation of lapse rate and whatever the point was, contrary to your assertion the lapse rate can hold true from the 250mb to the surface in a well mixed atmosphere.

This is despite the fact that the satellite temperature data is from an assumed level - 250mb/11km only are only approximately equivalent near the equator, diverging at higher latitudes where they are both above the tropopause in any case; the differing ELRs were chosen to show that it ELR is variable depending on the predominance of moist or dry processes; and then the average surface temperature is highly dependent upon diabatic processes - with radiation important amongst them. Consider what happens to temperature on a clear night, compare grass temperature readings vs standard screen readings, then consider how this is affected by snowcover, finally consider the contributory role of surface cooling in the development in one of the major features of the boreal winter, the Siberian high.

There's no point arguing the toss over figures, but the work of the Baseline Surface Radiation Network is worth looking at - for example here is an updated energy budget, don't know if it has already been posted - http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/Wildetal_IRS2012_GlobalEnergyBalance.pdf

A brief description of atmospheric physics used by the ECMWF can be seen here - http://www.ecmwf.int/en/research/modelling-and-prediction/atmospheric-physics

The third reference in the radiation section on that page - "Impact of a new radiation package, McRad, in the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System" - can be read or downloaded here - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008MWR2363.1 - shows the impacts of consideration of radiative processes to the accuracy of NWP.

Dr Spencer set out a challenge to those advocating alternative theories, create a simulation which matches the real world.

[Geoffwood]

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.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Geoffwood

[knocker]

On Uses of A 4 x 2: Arrhenius, The Last 15 years of Temperature History and Other Parodies

http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/15/on-uses-of-a-4-x-2-arrhenius-the-last-15-years-of-temperature-history-and-other-parodies/

[knocker]

I thought a good succinct account of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

Source. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. Principles of Planetary Climate.

 

 

Greenhouse.pdf

[knocker]

What else can you do with a GCM?

[knocker]

The Sausage Grinders Tale

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-sausage-grinders-tale.html

[Gray-Wolf]

http://weather.utah.edu/index.php?runcode=2015011520&t=gfs004&r=NH&d=DT

 

Does this forecast show a sudden ending to the Arctic winter with all the basins deep cold blasted out into the lower regions? Can serious cold take hold again before sun up?

[Geoffwood]

On Uses of A 4 x 2: Arrhenius, The Last 15 years of Temperature History and Other Parodies

http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/15/on-uses-of-a-4-x-2-arrhenius-the-last-15-years-of-temperature-history-and-other-parodies/

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).

[Geoffwood]

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,

Edited April 19, 2015 by Geoffwood