From Pseudoscience of Doom:
We are still looking at how radiation travels and interacts with the atmosphere before anything changes.
There is a lot of fascination in the subject of the “average height of emission” of terrestrial radiation to space. If we take a very simple view, as the atmosphere gets more opaque to radiation (with more “greenhouse” gases) the emission to space must take place from a higher altitude. And higher altitudes are colder, so the magnitude of radiation emitted will be a lesser value. And so the earth emits less radiation and so warms up.
This “average height of emission” is often supplied as a mental model and it’s a good initial starting point.
Here is the result of the atmospheric model created with a surface temperature of 288K (15°C), 80% humidity in the boundary layer and 40% humidity above that (the “free troposphere).
This is a cloud-free sample – clouds are very common, but really make life complicated and we are trying to provide a small level of enlightenment. Simple stuff first.
There follows a tortuous series of calculations based on certain arbitrary assumptions which inevitably prove their point.
--------------------------------------
Q. Why do they always ignore clouds, which cover average two-thirds of the Earth at any one time? They are more than "very common". They are the norm.
A. It is because clouds actually explain pretty much the whole of the so-called 'greenhouse effect'...
1. The "average height of emission" concept is actually very useful in mathematical terms, although they are applying it to the wrong thing and in the wrong direction.
2. If we are going to simplify things, it makes more sense to round up that 'two-thirds of the surface' to 'all of the surface' instead of rounding it down to zero. The upper surface of clouds is on average 5 km above the surface. Earth and its clouds have an average albedo of 0.3, so let's assume these clouds have an albedo of 0.3.
3. As far as incoming solar radiation and 'effective temperature' are concerned, the 'effective surface' is the upper surface of clouds. When you calculate the 'effective temperature' you are in fact calculating/estimating the temperature of the upper surface of clouds. Unsurprisingly, a planet's 'effective temperature' is, in real life, very close to the actual observed temperature of the upper surface of clouds. Except on Mars, where there aren't any clouds, so the 'effective surface' and the hard surface are the same thing.
4. The temperature at the hard surface (land or ocean) is simply the temperature of the upper surface of clouds, plus their altitude x the lapse rate (the 'gravito-thermal effect' which is dictated by basic maths, GCSE level physics and a bit of common sense).
5. The simple approach from 4. neatly explains the hard surface temperature of...
a) Venus. 'Effective temp' and actual temperature of upper surface of clouds = 232K. Upper surface of clouds altitude (call it) 63 km. Lapse rate 7.9 K/km. Hard surface temperature = 232 + (63 x 7.9) = 733K.
b) Earth. 'Effective' and actual temperature of upper surface of clouds = 255K. Upper surface of clouds altitude = 5 km. Lapse rate 6.5 km. Hard surface temperature = 255 + (5 x 6.5) = 288K.
c) Mars. 'Effective' and actual temperature of hard surface (no clouds) approx. 215 K, no 'greenhouse effect'. Even though there is about thirty times as much CO2 above every m2 of Mars than there is on Earth!
6. There's always the question of cause-and-effect. What seems more plausible:
a) The "average height of emission" dictated by 'greenhouse gases' and the clouds just happen to form with their upper surface at the same altitude? Or,
b) The clouds have their own rules, they form where they form, and their upper surface is, in practice, the "average height of emission", because they are the only surface that can emit radiation directly to space? Or indeed absorb radiation directly from space?
7. Then *drumroll* there's the 'trapped radiation' myth. The hard surface is 288K and emits, mathematically, 390 W/m2. Measured from space, Earth emits 240 W/m2. The myth is that one-third of radiation emitted from by the hard surface is 'trapped' by 'greenhouse gases'. Nope. When you measure from space, you are measuring the radiation emitted by the upper surface of clouds, which are colder and emit 240 W/m2, the same as what they absorb from the Sun.
(8. There is a completely separate system going on between the hard surface and the lower surface of clouds, it's the clouds that do the 'trapping', they get radiation from the hard surface, absorb some and reflect some back down again. Let's not go there for now.)
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
3 hours ago
42 comments:
proposing a hypothetical mechanism for the temperature profile of the atmosphere does not explain the amount of Joules of heat content that is present in the land, ocean and atmosphere over and above the heat capacity and the incoming solar flux without insulation.
1. It's not hypothetical, this is what actually happens, it's accepted physics.
2. It can explain temperature, if you multiply temperature by specific heat capacity, you get Joules of thermal energy. Simples. Then you add on Joules of potential energy and latent heat of evaporation. Please don't forget potential energy and l.h.e.c.
The heat energy in the the land and sea and atmosphere is greater than it would be without the insulation effect of the atmosphere.
Din, you have just repeated your first incorrect statement.
The 'heat energy' is precisely what you would expect if you do the sensible thing and treat clouds as 'effective surface' when looking at incoming and outgoing radiation.
If you change your statement to "The heat energy in the the land and sea and atmosphere is greater than it would be without the insulation effect of clouds" then that would be more correct, although somewhat simplified.
For the 33 degs C above the figure that results from the incoming flux, mass of the Land /ocean/ atmosphere and the specific heat capacity, there is an something like an extra 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy to be accounted for. That is extra, as in over and above , i.e. more than is present in your description.
Din, as I said before, please read up on potential temperature.
If air at 5km is 255K, its potential temperature, i.e. the air temperature at sea level is 288K.
It's the trade off between high up (some thermal energy and lots of potential energy) and at sea level (more thermal energy and no potential energy).
By the way, because clouds happen to be about half way up the atmosphere by mass (half above and half below), the overall average temperature of the atmosphere is also 255K.
The bottom half is warmer than 255K expected and the upper half is colder than 255K. There is no excess 'thermal energy'.
By the way, I think that is coincidental - on Venus, the clouds are 90% of the way up the atmosphere, so average temp of atmosphere is of course warmer than the effective temperature.
Your description is of the temperature profile of the atmosphere only. You are not accounting for the the land and oceans that contain something like an extra 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy that needs to be accounted for.
Din, once you know temperature and specific heat capacities, you multiply up to get Joules.
The top surface of the land and oceans are the same temp as the air immediately above it. If you know air temp, you know land temp.
There's no mystery there.
I don't need to 'account' for it, I know the inputs, multiply them and that's your answer. You don't work backwards from Joules to find out temperature etc.
You work from flux and heat capacity to find temperature.
For an uninsulated object you work from incident flux and heat capacity to find the temperature there will be for that flux and capacity.
The temperature of the Oceans/Land/Atmosphere are higher than that figure. And so we know there is an extra amount of Joules present. And so we know that insulation is present.
Din, it is the incoming sunshine that dictates temperature of cloud cover; that in turn dictates air temperature; air temperature at the surface dictates temperature of land and oceans. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand.
(if you believe the greenhouse gas crapola, then that is an alternative explanation for temperature of air; which in turn dictates land and ocean temperature).
You are mad keen on this "insulation" thing. Clouds have that sort of effect, it is similar to insulation (even though it has a different explanation).
To sum up, if you ignore real life (clouds and their effect) then you have to make up some nonsense about 'trapped radiation' to explain temperatures.
You might as well ignore gravity and posit the existence of invisible elastic bands. Same end result, wrong explanation.
"You work from flux and heat capacity to find temperature"
The way everybody explains it (alarmists and physicists alike), that is not true. You just need to know incoming solar and albedo.
You can not work out the surface level air temp and then declare that is the temperature of the land/oceans .
The heat capacity of the oceans/land is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere and there is something like an extra 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy that needs to be accounted for in the land/oceans.
"You just need to know incoming solar and albedo."
No that is not correct.
The atmosphere does not just redistribute heat up and down. If the Earth had the same Albedo and same incoming solar radiation and no atmosphere there would be less Joules of heat energy within the circumference that it occupies. i.e as it is present , there is literally more heat.
Din, more wild statements
"You can not work out the surface level air temp and then declare that is the temperature of the land/oceans"
Look, the hard surface it 33 degrees warmer than you would expect from incoming solar. The point is that the explanation is clouds, not greenhouse gases. The end result is the same. The air, ocean and land temps are the same.
"The heat capacity of the oceans/land is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere and there is something like an extra 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy that needs to be accounted for in the land/oceans."
However you explain the extra 33 degrees, the air and the surface warm to the same temperature. The oceans are warm, they have accumulated a load of thermal energy over the years, they absorb a bit of warmth from the air/a bit of solar radiation every day and radiate the same amount upwards, which hits clouds or goes to space.
"If the Earth had the same Albedo and same incoming solar radiation and no atmosphere there would be less Joules of heat energy within the circumference that it occupies."
For sure, the atmosphere stores thermal energy. If they weren't there, there would be less thermal energy because there'd be nothing to store it. That's like saying that two warm bricks have more thermal energy than one warm brick.
The total energy that the atmosphere absorbs every day and loses every night is only 1% or 2% of the total energy in the system. The other 98% or 99% just stays there.
I'm really not sure what your point is. So my explanation stands.
"Look, the hard surface it 33 degrees warmer than you would expect from incoming solar. The point is that the explanation is clouds, not greenhouse gases. The end result is the same. The air, ocean and land temps are the same."
- Clouds are Greenhouse gases
"However you explain the extra 33 degrees, the air and the surface warm to the same temperature. The oceans are warm, they have accumulated a load of thermal energy over the years, they absorb a bit of warmth from the air/a bit of solar radiation every day and radiate the same amount upwards, which hits clouds or goes to space."
- They can only accumulate thermal energy if the atmosphere insulates, which it does.
"For sure, the atmosphere stores thermal energy. If they weren't there, there would be less thermal energy because there'd be nothing to store it. That's like saying that two warm bricks have more thermal energy than one warm brick."
- There are not enough molecules in the atmosphere to store the required 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy that is represented in the 33 deg C in the land/oceans. It is not like two bricks. The process is insulation and the accumulation is in the land/oceans.
Din, do you realise how stupid you look when you write things like this:
" There are not enough molecules in the atmosphere to store the required 6 hundred thousand trillion Joules of heat energy that is represented in the 33 deg C in the land/oceans."
Do you not realise that the land and oceans store their own thermal energy?
Of course I realise that land and oceans store thermal energy . That is precisely in the last sentence of the comment you just replied to.
quote Dinero 17:55 "and the accumulation is in the land/oceans."
We know the insulation is present because we know that the heat content of the land oceans and atmosphere is a greater total than it would be from them just absorbing incoming solar flux without insulation.
Din: "We know the insulation is present because we know that the heat content of the land oceans and atmosphere is a greater total than it would be from them just absorbing incoming solar flux without insulation."
I'm desperately looking for something that is correct and with which I can vaguely agree, and that statement is as close as you've got so far.
You keep referring to 'insulation' in a vague sense.
The point is that if you ignore clouds and their overall warming effect, you have to make up fairy tales like 'greenhouse gases' to explain the additional thermal energy.
We're all agree on the EFFECT, the question is what is the CAUSE and the answer is CLOUDS (not bloody CO2).
The subject of my comments has been that there is additional thermal energy, and the presence of it is acknowledged in your last comment. There is additional thermal energy.
Din, in that case you totally missed the point and wasted your time and mine.
Of course there is 'additional thermal energy', at ground level at least!
My post was trying to give the actual explanation for this phenomenon, which is the existence of clouds and the gravito-thermal effect and not all the GHG stuff.
No that's not a correct summary of the comments
- in the post point 7, you called trapped radiation a "myth"
and more directly
- in the comments at 9 August at 12:37 , you said "There is no excess thermal energy"
So we agree there is extra thermal energy and so that is good to arrive at that.
As you acknowledge there is additional thermal energy you can see that the existence of clouds and what you call the "gravito-thermal effect "is not an explanation for this as
dividing atmospheric thermal energy in potential and kinetic does not result in additional thermal energy.
Din, "the existence of clouds and what you call the "gravito-thermal effect "is not an explanation for this as
dividing atmospheric thermal energy in potential and kinetic does not result in additional thermal energy."
That's the point - clouds and the GTE explain exactly 100% of what lesser mortals refer to as 'the greenhouse effect'.
Your lack of understanding of basic physics or even maths, nay outright denial thereof, is well documented.
For example, you don't even accept that 'density' and 'pressure' are different things.
Density = mass per volume.
Pressure = force per area.
A vertical pile of bricks has the same density all the way down, but pressure increases.
As you acknowledge there IS additional thermal energy present and that the "GTE" does not account for additional thermal energy you therefore acknowledge that the "GTE" does not account for the presence of the additional thermal energy.
Din, for fuck's sake.
The clouds and GTE explain temperatures and hence 'additional thermal energy' 100% and complete.
There is a 'greenhouse effect', no dispute. It is caused by clouds and the GTE, not by GHGs.
Why are you swearing. You are the one who first said there is no Greenhouse effect and now you are saying that there is.
My comment has be consistent since the first comment .
You write that the temperature of the (land or ocean) is simply the temperature of the upper surface of clouds, plus their altitude x the lapse rate.
I am constructively critiquing that point by pointing out it is not possible as it requires additional thermal energy due to the heat capacity of the land /oceans.
A point that we have covered, So if there are no more questions Cheerio.
Din, I am swearing because you are so irritating and self-contradictory, you consistently miss the point, you are complete maths and physics denier and keep making up new things.
I have answered all your points with complete patience and good humour and you just keep repeating some irrelevant crap.
I have made the same point consistently in each comment since the very first comment and you have ignored the point every time meandering about all over the place - You even started going on about bricks! Laugh out Loud!
You write that the temperature of the (land or ocean) is simply the temperature of the upper surface of clouds, plus their altitude x the lapse rate.
I am pointing out it is not possible as it requires additional thermal energy due to the heat capacity of the land /oceans.
Din, the land and ocean surface are the same temperature as the air above it. Do you accept this basic fact? It's a yes or no question.
The land and ocean surface are the same temperature as the air above it. And all three are at an extra 33 Deg C at this position. However the land and ocean are not at this temperature because they are heated by contact with the air. That would not be possible as the heat capacity of the land/ocean is too great to be heated in that way. Mainly it is because the Land/oceans are heating the air.
Din: "Mainly it is because the Land/oceans are heating the air."
Probably best if I delete this whole thread, not even Greta Thunberg believes crap like that.
Very very funny thread. Do NOT delete.
:-)
L, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I didn't ;-)
I do not see what is funny about it.
The GH explanation for surface extra heat content is incoming Solar radiation plus Downward Long wave radiation. Mark says that is wrong.
It is very telling that Mark has not stated anywhere in the thread what his alternative explanation for the extra heat content is.
Din I didn't explain it in the thread, I EXPLAINED IT IN THE ORIGINAL POST.
What you are doing is taking the amount of thermal energy for the no insulation case , ( ie no downward long wave radiation ), and spitting that amount of energy into potential energy and kinetic energy, to give you a temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. That does not explain the additional thermal energy in the Land/ocean/atmosphere.
There's a paper from the 1850s I think from researcher Eunice Foote. She found that the sun heats O2 by slightly more than it does for 'common air' as she calls it. It seems like the density of the atmosphere really does make a difference
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v
AC, sure, they like shining bright lights at enclosed containers with close to 100% CO2. They warm up a bit more than air. This illustrates various different effects, none of which has any relevance to GHG theory.
GHG theory says that air with 0.04% CO2 'traps' infra red radiation coming up from the land or ocean surface. So the correct experiment would be have a container full of air with a bit more CO2, say 0.06% CO2 and leave it in the shade and out overnight. Will that container be warmer than the surrounding air?
Clue: no, of course not, that's why they don't do the experiment this way.
Post a Comment