Aug
22

The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

Experts from the 'hard' sciences are again revealing how climate 'scientists' have gotten it wrong about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in climate. 

co2 logo

Dr Pierre R Latour, a renowned American Chemical Engineer, shows how four known mechanisms and three laws of nature prove why CO2 cools, not warms, our atmosphere. Moreover, it may be shown that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the supposed world authority deferred to by governments, lacks a rigorous mathematical description for their so-called 'greenhouse gas theory.'

CO2 Affects Several Temperatures in Different Ways

Here we develop the physics, chemistry and biology to quantify the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on Earth’s temperature. There are five mechanisms and three different temperatures involved.

Four show a small cooling effect, one warms surface and cools upper atmosphere with no net bulk effect. I am unaware of a rigorous mathematical description of the greenhouse gas theory that purports to do this and show a warming affect. After decades of research attempts, promoters cannot reduce greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) to mathematics of science and engineering.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO2 is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O2 it replaced by "fossil fuel" combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO2 causes global cooling.

This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.

I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.

T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = 5.67*0.70827(277.750/100)4 = 5.67*0.70827*59.51 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

If doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.

I = 5.67*0.70927(277.652/100)4 = 5.67*0.70927*59.43 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

Conservation of Energy of Atmosphere

1st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.

Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space

79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m2

Since CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO2; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO2 affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.

Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.

These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN's discredited IPCC.

Radiant Energy Transfer Law

The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is

I1 – I0 =σ [e1 (T1/100)4 – e0 (T0/100)4]

(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T0 = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so

I – Is = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)4 – 1.0 (3.7/100)4] = 5.67 [0.70827*59.51 – 1.0*0.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.

So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T0 = 0.

If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I1 – I0 is constant (I1 actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO2 absorption), and e1 is constant, then when e0 increases with CO2, either T1 must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e0 (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T0 must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.

In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a0 = e0, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e0 with a0.

Inserting appropriate values (T1 = 14.85C, T0 = -18.15C, e1 = 0.1615 and e0 = 0.167) gives:

I – Is = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)4 – 0.167 (255/100)4] = 5.67 [0.161*68.797 – 0.167*42.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.

Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.

For atmosphere component,

199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)-4

Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.

40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)4

Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface

e = (0.831*199 + 0.1025*40)/239 = 0.708

which confirms the initial assumption precisely.

I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.

At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO2decreases atmospheric T0and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO2 on emissivity of the atmosphere.

Lapse Rate

This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.

Increasing CO2 increases atmosphere Cp because CO2Cp> O2Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.

Conservation of Energy of Earth

1st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.

(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I - Is + P

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO2 affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.

Is = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible

P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis

IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible

Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:

I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)4

Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:

I/σe =(T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe

If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO2 on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO2 causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.1605 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.

With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80

I = 5.67*1.0(254.803/100)4 = 5.67*1*42.152 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.

Photosynthesis

Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO2 + 0.5yH2O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH4, methane.

Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a0 = e0, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO2 is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O2 for us fauna. Fauna make CO2 for flora.

Reaction rate, consumption of CO2 and incident solar energy, P is

P = k*p*Ss [CO2][H2O]exp(-E/RT1)

p = pressure at leaf, atm

Ss = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m2<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity

[CO2] = atmospheric composition, vol % = 0.0390

[H2O] = atmospheric composition, vol %

T1 = temperature of surface leaf, K

k = kinetic rate constant

So increasing [CO2] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T1 will have the same effect.

So the sensitivity of T to CO2 depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T1, T0. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.

Combined System Effects

With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.

Therefore increasing CO2 causes decreases in surface T1 = 14.85-, atmosphere T0 = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO2 global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.

Back-radiation

Greenhouse gas theory to support the notion of global warming, postulates heat transfer from cold atmosphere down to warm surface, heating surface further. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram says back-radiation transfer rate is 333, which is 2.1x that impinging surface from the sun, 161. This extraordinary value defies common experience.

I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.

Measuring temperature

While climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer says satellites measure Earth’s global temperature, their spectrometers actually measure radiation intensity, I = 239, a pole to pole, day/night, season/season average. Roy must assume a corresponding emissivity, e, to infer or deduce an estimate of T. Since e is hard to determine from first principles physical properties of dissimilar surface + atmosphere and is likely to change, particularly with CO2, using satellite inferred T is fraught with error. He must get distance between radiator and spectrometer accurately, which is not easy for a 50 km thick atmosphere and rocky mountains.

T is a point property of matter indicating its kinetic energy. We have no way in physics to average T over different phases and compositions of matter. You can’t even calculate the average T of your moving car: engine, cylinders, a/c, radiator, exhaust, body, interior, tires. Wouldn’t mean much if you could.

By the way, how are global temperature maps constructed? If they are from closely spaced thermometers, averaged daily, that would be meaningful. But if from spectrometers, how are emissivities of ocean, desert, jungles, cities, mountains, ice and clouds assigned to each point of radiating intensity, for a corresponding S-B radiating T? And averaged over sphere?

Careful study of Spencer’s writings indicates he equates/confuses radiation intensity with radiant heat transfer rate, which have the same units, w/m2. The former is given by S-B Law for intensity, irradiance, radiance, power, exitance, emission. The latter is driven by a difference in intensities between two radiators or a radiator and its surroundings. Both are vectors with direction, not scalars. The former intensity, I, is not called radiant heat transfer rate because it isn’t.

When two facing plates are radiating at each other with equal intensities in opposite directions, there is no radiant heat transfer between them and their temperatures remain constant. (Note if emissivities differ when I1 = I0, so will radiator Ts. Chrome and wood on a beach have different steady temperatures, chrome is hotter because its emissivity is low and reflectivity is high, radiating with same I as high emissivity, colder wood.) The walls of my office radiate, but no heat transfers between them.

Chemical engineers design and operate radiant/conductive/convective furnaces with chemical reactions for a living. You can’t control something unless you can measure it or reliably infer it from measurements and known constants of nature.

Cause and effect

Just because [CO2] and T may be correlated over significant periods does not mean one causes the other; a third input may drive them both. Solar irradiance is not constant and dominates all other influencers of T.

Solubility of CO2 in water, beer, soda, Champagne and oceans decreases with temperature. Cooling drives CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean; warming drives it back out. A simple energy balance on oceans confirms the measured 800 year lag of [CO2] following T, following S; a well-known inconvenient truth for Al Gore’s embarrassing Academy Award movie misnomer.

There is no known mechanism in the literature quantifying any effect of [CO2] change on climate change.

Thermostat

The notion of building a thermostat to adjust fossil fuel combustion rate to control the temperature of the Earth was shown to be unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable by control systems mathematical analysis in 1997, before Kyoto Protocol. In other words, it can never work.

Empirical models

It is acceptable engineering practice to infer fundamental constants/properties like an emissivity or reaction rate constant by measuring related variables and using one of these laws of physics to deduce it. Resulting law has predictive power so long at the property does not change. This know-how is particularly useful for rigorous differential equations accounting for dynamics of mass and energy accumulation rates. Stability analysis shows no tipping points.

But to fit arbitrary algebraic polynomial, exponential, sine, log or hockey stick equations to measured transient data is unacceptable since it is well known in chemical control systems engineering that they will have no predictive power.

The UN IPCC use of such models confirms they have no greenhouse gas law built on accepted physics and engineering and should be summarily dismissed. Calling for more research funding after repeated failures is compelling evidence the science and engineering of global warming and climate change is far from settled. In fact, this brief essay should settle the matter, save money and delight those practicing the scientific method.

I used only three laws of nature here: S-B Law, 1stLaw of Thermo and Chemical Reaction Rate Law. And 10th grade algebra. World has been spending $1 billion per day for a decade on global warming/climate change research to quantify the effect of fossil fuel combustion production of CO2 on Earth’s temperature. A large government is shutting down its coal industry in 2014 on the mistaken belief CO2 causes great harm, when it is benign and net beneficial. This paper proves it is all unnecessary, worthless.

Global cooling

Since Earth is warming half the time and cooling the other half, reputable climatologists report a consensus of imminent, significant, prolonged global cooling, and the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature is vanishingly small, be prepared. Invest in energy production from oil, gas, coal and nuclear. For goodness’ sake.

Precautionary Principles

Be careful. Look before you leap. Do no harm. Think before you speak and write. Play it on the safe side. Better safe than sorry. Know what you are saying and doing. Do not frighten people unnecessarily. Supply relevant, valid evidence for every claim; lest they be dismissed as frivolous. Perform an accurate scientific, engineering and economic analysis before devising a plan and implementing it. Provide performance measures and fulfill them. Be prudent & frugal. Be a fiduciary with other people’s money. Foresee unintended consequences. Analysis comes before synthesis, always. Avoid attempting the impossible. Avoid building perpetual motion machines, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Learn from your mistakes, admit them, apologize, accept consequences and reconcile with Nature and Nature’s God (TJ, 1776). Honesty is the best policy. Seek truth. Skepticism is a wise starting position.

Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch. After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?

 

Pin it

Comments  

John Marshall
#1 John Marshall 2014-08-22 07:40
I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence to the overall picture especially since the K&T figures are a fiddle to justify the GHE and wrong anyway because at the temperature generated by the 161W/m2 is below -40C so the atmosphere would have zero water vapour to act as a GHG.

The total in is 1370W/m2 corrected for albedo and diffusion to a total of 960W/m2 arriving at the surface subsun point. This is averaged over a hemisphere, because the planet rotates to give 12hour periods of darkness/zero input, giving 480W/m2 input versus 240w/m2 radiated from the WHOLE planet surface. This agrees with the 1st law. 2nd law violations WITHIN the system are NOT permitted so no flows of heat from cold to increase a hot temperature, no GHE.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#2 Pat Obar 2014-08-22 16:29
Quoting John Marshall:
I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence


Partial quote sorry!
The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like "Earth and its atmosphere". You claim "total" energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
If you want global warming look elsewhere.
Quote | Report to administrator
Martin Hodgkins
#3 Martin Hodgkins 2014-08-22 17:35
I don't think even you lot get it yet. There is one bunch of nutters telling us that they understand it all with squiggly maths and big computers and we know they are talking shite because none of their predictions has come true. Now we get the second wave of know alls who know equally nothing about our wonderful world's climate but seek to impress us all with yet more squiggly maths and another bunch of sycophants say yes, yes, yes. In my day climate was understood by paleo millions of years and was NOT silly inadequate atmospheric modelling. Jeees.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#4 Greg House 2014-08-22 18:33
Quote:
Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE: "the so called greenhouse effect is ... +22.95C, not +33C."
Pierre, since I am pretty sure that 99,99% readers will not go through your article, let me ask you this simple question. In your understanding, the temperature of the surface of the earth is by 23°C higher than the Sun can possibly induce, right, just not by 33°C? :eek:

Do I need to tell you that such a thing is physically impossible, exactly like the warmists' 33°C?

Never mind, congratulations on officially joining warmists pseudoscience club.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#5 Pat Obar 2014-08-22 19:01
Quoting Greg House:
Quote:
Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE: "the so called greenhouse effect is ... +22.95C, not +33C."


Pierre, since I am pretty sure that 99,99% readers will not go through your article, let me ask you this simple question. In your understanding, the temperature of the surface of the earth is by 23°C higher than the Sun can possibly induce, right, just not by 33°C? :eek:

Do I need to tell you that such a thing is physically impossible, exactly like the warmists' 33°C?

Never mind, congratulations on officially joining warmists pseudoscience club.
Greg,
Please state the temperature of the earth and its atmosphere if the emissivity from 0.25-2microns, is 0.6 and at 2-100 microns is 0.3 if you can? Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as the claims of ClimAstrologists who attribute surface temperature via falsified processes.
Dr. Latour was "only" showing the effect of atmospheric CO2. With more CO2, more emissivity at 14.6 micron, and the surface and atmosphere temperature "must" decrease. Go back to politics, you have no clue on science!
Quote | Report to administrator
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
#6 Leonard Weinstein, ScD 2014-08-22 20:56
I could refute each point of this nonsense again, but that is a waste of my time (I and several others have done so several times already, and yet you repeat the same junk). Clearly you or any of the supporters of this junk science simply do not get it. I will make two short points here as a sample of why you don't get it:
1) Radiating gases also absorb!!!
2) Heat transfer can only go from hot to cold, but energy goes both ways (thus back radiation is real)!!!
If you persist in bad science as done here, you are giving the supporters of CAGW and even AGW ammunition to call real skeptics like me as being on the same side with such wrong thinking, and detracting from real arguments.
Quote | Report to administrator
Mervyn
#7 Mervyn 2014-08-22 21:01
Dr Latour has presented a very interesting article that deserves much consideration.

One thing we all should have learnt by now is to always keep an open mind. It amazes me when people feel they must rubbish articles that challenge their fixed views, or make personal attacks against scientists who are simply trying to provide a realistic explanation of something.

Readers are reminded of another paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics" (2009) by Dr Gerhadt Gerlich and Dr Ralf Tscheushner that also challenged the greenhouse effect supposition.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#8 Greg House 2014-08-22 21:51
Quoting Pat Obar:
Greg,
...Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as

Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. :-) But enough nice talk.

That "blackbody temperature of the earth" thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

But you can join the club as well, if you wish. :cry:
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#9 Doug 2014-08-22 23:23
Yes Pierre, but so too does water vapour cool - more than CO2 - for the same reasons that are to do with its radiating properties.

The radiating temperature of the whole Earth+atmosphere system is obviously to be found somewhere around the middle of the troposphere.

It is obviously hotter at the surface. Yet the thin ocean surface layer is fairly transparent and thus not heated much by solar radiation, which mostly passes through it.

You see, you have to modify the intensity in SBL calculations when much is transmitted - not just emissivity. It is what is absorbed, not emitted that determines what temperature is reached in the first place.

But if both water vapour and carbon dioxide cool (as I agree they do) then what makes the surface warmer Pierre?

Anyone?

You know where to find the answer.

climate-change-theory.com
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#10 Doug 2014-08-22 23:34
Pierre! If you want to use emissivity 0.70827 for Earth's surface then, since we know the solar radiation reaching the surface is about 161W/m^2 we get 251.6K. As Claes Johnson will tell you, the back radiation does not help the Sun to make the surface hotter.

It is gravity which traps energy over the life of a planet as it maintains a temperature gradient as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Planetary surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation to the surface. How long will it be before PSI members stop barking up the wrong tree?
Quote | Report to administrator
JeffTemple
#11 JeffTemple 2014-08-22 23:58
Dr Pierre Latour has been caught out before manipulating data to support his utterly ridiculous claims. Some may call this cheating. This can be seen on ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/. Read exchange 2 points 12 and 16 for just 2 examples of how he manipulated work by reputed authorities to his own advantage by changing quotations. This was not science, this was abuse, for which he has yet to apologise or offer corrections.

Dr Latour has no credibility, and is best left unread.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#12 Doug 2014-08-23 01:08
Leonard Weinstein and others.

You wrote "heat transfer can only go from hot to cold."

Well tell me how the required net energy input gets into the surface of Venus while its temperature is rising over the course of its 4-month-long day.

Yes that is true for radiation, but it is not true regarding heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions which is restoring the state of thermodynamic equilibrium - which state has a non-zero temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere - due to gravity.

If you think I'm wrong, then there's a $5,000 reward on offer if you can correctly refute the physics in my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" and produce a study of real temperature data that uses similar methodology to my study in the book but somehow shows water vapour warms as much as the greenhouse conjecture suggests it must do.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#13 Doug 2014-08-23 01:22
To all:

(copied from my comments on Roy Spencer's thread about Climate Polling Results.)

August 20, 2014 at 4:14 AM

The only temperature in the ocean that relates to climate is the temperature of the thin surface layer which we can consider to be significantly less than a metre deep. Below that the ocean starts to get colder and colder, and so obviously the energy down there is not contributing to warming the air just above the surface.

Now that thin surface layer of the ocean acts nothing at all like a black or grey body. Such bodies are not transparent by definition. However you look at it, only a small portion of the direct solar radiation is absorbed by that surface layer, because most of the insolation passes down into colder layers a few metres below.

So, if you think you can apply SBL, then at least reduce the radiative flux to something less than 10%. Then of course you get a very low temperature, simply because the thin surface layer of the ocean emits far more energy by radiation than it absorbs by radiation. Its surface does not get as hot in the Sun as a black asphalt road nearby.

Where does the rest of the energy come from whilst the ocean surface is warming slightly on a clear sunny day? A similar question applies to the Venus surface. It needs an energy input of about 16,000W/m^2 for its temperature to actually rise, as it does by 5 degrees in its daytime. The direct solar radiation provides less than 20W/m^2. Where does the rest of the required energy come from? It comes by way of molecular collisions happening all through the troposphere as the whole troposphere is absorbing solar energy.

Before you say “from back radiation” you need to read my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (published on several websites in March 2012 and never correctly rebutted) because that explains the process whereby spontaneous radiation can only raise the temperature of a target if the radiation comes from a hotter source.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#14 Doug 2014-08-23 01:24
August 20, 2014 at 5:01 AM

Gravity acting on individual molecules maintains a temperature gradient as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with homogeneous total energy. This happens above and below a planet or moon’s surface – yes even in solids – and that is why the core of our Moon is hotter than its surface. It does not require internal energy generation. Because the temperature gradient is an equilibrium state, the addition of new energy in a cooler region makes the gradient less steep, and so energy moves up the temperature plot to restore the equilibrium gradient, and that is how the required energy gets into planetary surfaces – not by back radiation. This non-radiative process provides the missing energy.

Suppose the gravito-thermal effect did not exist. Then the top of a planet’s troposphere would be hotter than the base thereof because the intensity of solar radiation is attenuated as the radiation gets partially absorbed and reflected on its way down. For example, on Venus the only region where direct solar radiation can raise the temperature is in the uppermost regions of the troposphere and cooler regions above. As you go down from there the intensity is reducing whilst the temperature is rising. Hence the temperature is already well above what the intensity of the radiation could acquire as per SBL.

This gravitationally induced temperature gradient approaches a value of g/Cp where Cp is the weighted mean specific heat (not “heat capacity” by the way) and this is because potential energy gained equals kinetic energy lost. Briefly, M.g.dh = M.Cp.dt giving dt/dh = g/Cp with no minus sign because gravity is already in the opposite direction to the increase in height.

Now, in any atmosphere some molecules radiate and radiation between two objects always has a temperature levelling effect. But radiating molecules are only a small portion of the atmosphere, and so they just reduce the gravitationally induced gradient. Thus the wet adiabatic temperature gradient is less steep than the dry one. (No I won’t use the inappropriate and unnecessary term “lapse rate.”) The reduction causes the whole temperature plot to rotate about a pivoting altitude (actually about 3.5Km to 4Km up, not 5Km) and that is why the temperature at the surface is cooler in more moist regions.

In a nutshell, that is the mechanism whereby water vapour and carbon dioxide cool a planet’s surface, as empirical data clearly shows for water vapour.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#15 Doug 2014-08-23 02:14
Some readers may be thinking that they know they can feel hot in the Sun, so it must be warming their skin above body temperature. Yes it can when it is almost directly overhead on a clear day. There can be around 750W/m^2 reaching you in those circumstances, but it's not a global 24 hour mean intensity. Furthermore, hold a thin sheet of glass above your head and you still feel most of the warmth, whilst the glass does not get very hot because it is transparent. So too is the thin surface layer of the oceans, so most solar radiation penetrates several metres below the surface into the colder regions of the ocean thermocline. Energy absorbed in these colder regions cannot make the surface at that location hotter. In fact the energy dissipates towards the colder poles. My point is that no SBL calculations using, say, 10% or less of the total solar flux can possibly give the observed temperatures on the ocean surface.

What happens each day is that about 30% of incident solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere. In calm conditions in the troposphere this new energy raises the whole temperature plot during the day to a higher, but parallel position on the graph of temperature against altitude. The temperature gradient is maintained because it is the (isentropic) state of thermodynamic equilibrium with (PE+KE) homogeneous. So some of the new energy absorbed in the upper colder regions of the troposphere makes its way downwards by the non-radiative conduction-like process usually called diffusion where gases are involved. So the energy from the Sun, absorbed by the atmosphere, keeps the base of the troposphere warm and thus the surface is warmed primarily by these non-radiative processes. This is just so obvious on Venus and at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it's hotter than Earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
tom0mason
#16 tom0mason 2014-08-23 16:28
The part I find poor is that bland phrase -
energy in = energy out.
Sorry NO!
This is a LIVING planet, the various billions of processes that nature does constantly is to stop energy in = energy out or does nobody see the obvious?
Nature in ALL it's processes attempt to hold on to as much energy as it can for as long as it can. Certainly with sunlight it trys very hard. In the Lab energy in = energy out OK but out in a planetary view it's a big fat NO.
Coal, oil, natural gas, peat what are they but stored sunlight? Sunlight from when? Ocean heat is stored sunlight but from when? Forest are stored sunlight... - get the idea.
When the vast ocean currents overturn, they can take in or expel huge quantities of energy into/out of the atmosphere that have nothing to do with the current intake of solar energy. So while that process happens energy in ≠ energy out.
So sunlight energy comes in and is held, retained, stored, delayed for maybe minutes or centuries but some, a variable amount, is NOT coming out.

The energy balance is far more complicated than global energy flows shown Kiehl-Trenberth IPCC cartoon. For one thing the time element is missing and without it the IPCC calculations with never be correct.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#17 Pat Obar 2014-08-23 20:52
Quoting Leonard Weinstein, ScD:
I could refute each point of this nonsense again, but that is a waste of my time (I and several others have done so several times already, and yet you repeat the same junk). Clearly you or any of the supporters of this junk science simply do not get it. I will make two short points here as a sample of why you don't get it:
1) Radiating gases also absorb!!!


Never while in radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff's laws. Show what part of the atmosphere not in such equilibrium?

Quote:
2) Heat transfer can only go from hot to cold, but energy goes both ways (thus back radiation is real)!!!
EMR only goes in the direction of lower field strength or lower radiance. It is alway proportional to some difference in potential.
Demonstrate any flux in an opposing directions.

Quote:
If you persist in bad science as done here, you are giving the supporters of CAGW and even AGW ammunition to call real skeptics like me as being on the same side with such wrong thinking, and detracting from real arguments.
Dr. Weinstein,
It is you that must "persist in bad science" as practiced by ClimAstrologests.
It is obvious that you are unaware of Maxwell's equations, or Kirchhoff's laws of radiation. These subjects even your Dr. Feynman failed to address in his lectures. As long ths these profound and well known errors/lies persist, there are no other arguements.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#18 Pat Obar 2014-08-23 21:00
Quoting Greg House:
Quoting Pat Obar:
Greg,
...Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as

Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. :-) But enough nice talk.

That "blackbody temperature of the earth" thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

But you can join the club as well, if you wish. :cry:


Greg,If the Earth wers a black-body its temperature would be 291 Kelvin. Earth is not a black-body What is the temperature of the body I described? You seem to be in the ClinAstrologists camp with your non-science!
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#19 Pat Obar 2014-08-23 21:23
Quoting JeffTemple:
Dr Pierre Latour has been caught out before manipulating data to support his utterly ridiculous claims. Some may call this cheating. This can be seen on ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/. Read exchange 2 points 12 and 16 for just 2 examples of how he manipulated work by reputed authorities to his own advantage by changing quotations. This was not science, this was abuse, for which he has yet to apologise or offer corrections.

Dr Latour has no credibility, and is best left unread.


Your accusations are false. From your reference

"He said that "the system cannot be measured," referring to a global temperature. Climate scientists do not measure a "global temperature," but instead use deviations from historic averages, from a massive number of stations. This is an extremely accurate and reliable method of measurement."

Dr.Latour is correct An average of temperatures is not a temperature, but nonsense. Deviations of nonsense, are still nonsense. The system cannot be measured! You claim you reliably measured nonsense, never a asystem. Only a scam!
Quote | Report to administrator
JeffTemple
#20 JeffTemple 2014-08-24 00:58
With respect, you have missed the point, just as I have asked Dr Latour on several previous occasions. As part of his arguments in the earlier debate, Dr Latour took quotations from reputed people, using these to support his arguments, but in taking these quotations he changed the sense, by selectively deleting key words. He had this published in a reputable journal, and then refused to offer corrections or an apology. The credibility of someone who cheats in this way, in my opinion, is zero, and removes credence from any future work. Mistakes can be made by all of us, but cheating is surely not acceptable behaviour, and such people deserve the distain they receive. Dr Latour, you know you cannot argue against this specific charge, so please apologise now, although all I expect is more nonsense and deviation, which speaks of your standing.
Quote | Report to administrator
John Marshall
#21 John Marshall 2014-08-24 07:12
Quoting Pat Obar:
Quoting John Marshall:
I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence


Partial quote sorry!
The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like "Earth and its atmosphere". You claim "total" energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
If you want global warming look elsewhere.

The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ''open'' at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#22 Pat Obar 2014-08-24 19:30
Quoting John Marshall:

The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ''open'' at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5


I appreciate your frustration with the ClimAstrology nonsense, and they use no measurement of heat flux. This planet even this planet and its atmosphere can never be considered a closed system. A closed system can have "no" energy exchange across system boundries. Earthlings have no idea of all energy exchanges between earth and the rest of the solar system. EMR exchanges may be but a wee part of the internal energy of Earth.
It does indeed provide "interesting" weather and much entropy to be discarded via EMR to space. Is the surface and atmospheric temperature an indication of anything except entropy to be discarded? Why are these temperatures above 6.8 Kelvin? What work can that sensible heat do in this vicinity?
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#23 Doug 2014-08-25 17:49
Remember I'm offering a $5,000 reward (soon to be deposited on trust with a Sydney media outlet) if you can ...

(a) explain how the required energy gets into the Venus surface in order to actually raise its temperature by about 5 degrees over the course of its 4-month-long day in any other way than in my book Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All. This is important and highly relevant to Earth and all planets, because, just as on Venus, the direct solar radiation reaching Earth's surface (about 161W/m^2) cannot raise its temperature to observed values, especially because most of it passes through the thin surface layer of the oceans.

(b) Produce a study with similar methodology to mine in the Appendix of my book, but which shows the greenhouse gas water vapour warming moist regions considerably more than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This, after all, is what warmists want the world to believe.

When you recognise that real world data shows water vapour cools, and when you understand why, then of course the whole greenhouse conjecture crumbles. Without water vapour the gravito-thermal effect would make Earth's surface a few degrees warmer. The warming has nothing to do with back radiation. Only radiation from a hotter source can cause a temperature to rise, so it is not the Sun's direct radiation which is doing so on Earth or Venus or at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere.

Consider the real data in the Solar System. I have explained it all, even below the surface of the Moon. None of you has.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#24 Doug 2014-08-25 19:10
It's so sad that people have such a huge trust in the likes of James Hansen that they waste their time marching for the kittens. James Hansen's back radiation conjecture simply does not explain planetary surface temperatures at all. His school boy physics shows no understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which does not say heat only goes from hot to cold, but instead says there will be a propensity towards thermodynamic equilibrium. Such equilibrium is not a state of isothermal temperatures in the troposphere of any planet, because by definition it is a state of homogeneous total energy. So a reduction in gravitational potential energy at lower altitudes must be offset by an increase in kinetic energy, and thus warmer temperatures. Because the temperature gradient is an equilibrium state, newly absorbed energy can disperse in all directions in order to restore that thermodynamic equilibrium.

We can understand that this must happen when we consider Venus, the temperature of which has nothing whatsoever to do with a "runaway greenhouse" effect. The surface of Venus cools by about 5 degrees each 4-month-long Venus night and it warms by 5 degrees during its day. Obviously the warming must be resulting from energy from the Sun. Volcanoes don't just erupt during the day. But if the surface were being warmed by direct radiation it would need about 14,000 to 16,000W/m^2 to do so. That's far more than the Sun delivers to the top of the Venus atmosphere, and the atmosphere cannot multiply the radiative flux and thus deliver more to the surface than it receives. In fact, the Sun's intensity is attenuated by about 97% as it passes through the Venus atmosphere, and most of the warming can only occur where the temperatures are cool enough in the upper troposphere and above. That newly absorbed energy then spreads over the whole troposphere (yes, towards warmer regions) and into the surface because it is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. The warming of the surfaces of Venus and Earth have very little to do with direct Solar radiation, let alone backradiation from a colder atmosphere.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#25 Doug 2014-08-25 19:19
Pat what you wrote "EMR only goes in the direction of lower field strength or lower radiance" is not correct. Imagine several spherical bodies in space at different temperatures. Each sends out EM radiation in all directions. Each body does not "know" what other bodies are out there and what their temperatures are. To understand heat transfer by radiation I suggest you read my PSI paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" and also the cited paper by Prof Claes Johnson.
Quote | Report to administrator
Charles Higley
#26 Charles Higley 2014-08-25 23:02
I have trouble with the evaluation of the atmosphere having a +22 or +33 deg C warming effect. Remember that the global climate models ALL have sunlight 24/7 (no night time) and the planet's temperature without an atmosphere would be the same as the SUNNY side of the moon, 123 C.

If the surface temperature without an atmosphere is 123 C and the surface with an atmosphere is 15C, then the atmosphere clearly cools the surface, giving the surface more ways (conduction, evaporation, and convection) to shed heat to altitude. The cooling effect is 108 deg C.

As Mizkolski has shown, when CO2 increases, water vapor decreases and the overall effect, if there is any is canceled, particularly as water vapor is claimed to be a 20-fold better "greenhouse ga" than CO2.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#27 Doug 2014-08-26 05:57
Charles - you confuse maximum and mean temperatures. The mean temperature of the Moon's surface is very approximately around 200K. But the Moon's surface receives close to twice the solar flux that Earth's surface receives. If you knew some basic physics (such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) you would understand that the solar radiation with a mean of about 161W/m^2 reaching Earth's surface cannot raise its temperature to even within 50 degrees of the observed values. On Venus the discrepancy is hundreds of degrees.

Planetary surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation but by non-radiative energy input. Full details in my book Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#28 Doug 2014-08-26 07:43
And, by the way, Charles, the warmists do not assume the Sun shines full strength on every point on the globe day and night. They divide the intensity by 4 which is correct logic because the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the area of the orthogonal circle with the same radius through which the radiation which strikes the Earth passes. I suggest you do a lot more research before you put your foot in it again.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#29 Pierre Latour 2014-08-26 11:52
Dear bloggers, 1/2
Thank you for your interest, reasoning, thoughtful responses, and professional conduct. Thanks Mervyn. I do not understand why I am labeled a “warmist” since I am skeptical of catastrophic global warming and calmly and coolly work to get it right either way, from nature. I see I failed to reconcile some of you. Can’t please everybody. Live and learn. Only a few stooped to name calling, smears and misrepresenting what I wrote. In 2008 I gave one some laws of chemical engineering that upset him; he carries his anger to this day.

My opening was the main contribution: according to S-B Law, when emissivity of any body increases, emitting with same intensity, I, determined independently by energy balance, its corresponding radiating T decreases. (A black body with emissivity 1.0 emits the same intensity with the lowest possible T. Which is why it is called a perfect radiator.) Since fossil fuel combustion exchanges a few of Earth’s non-IR radiating O2 molecules for an equal number of IR radiating CO2 molecules, atmospheric and global emissivity increases a bit. Therefore, from 10th grade algebra, fossil fuel combustion decreases global radiating T. QED.

Now if you want to say CO2 causes Earth to radiate more intensely to space and T increases instead, even with higher emissivity, all you need to do is show where the increased energy out came from, with all due respect to the SLOT. Combustion heat release might do a bit of it, but AGW promoters neglect it, because the amount is negligible.

I adopted the well-known K-T diagram for energy flows through the atmosphere and simply corrected the transfer by back-radiation from cold atmosphere to hot surface at 333 w/m2 to zero, with all due respect to the SLOT. Since K-T says nothing about CO2 or emissivities, I thought I would extend their work. While the emissivities are hard to estimate from compositions, pressure & temperature, the ones I used worked out rather well. Surface radiates average 63 at 14.85C; atmosphere transmits 40 and absorbs 23; atmosphere emits 23 + 176 at -18.35C. Global ensemble surface and atmosphere emits to space average 239 at 4.60C.

I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#30 Pierre Latour 2014-08-26 11:53
Bloggers 2/2
The troposphere temperature profile through the bulk of non-ionized planetary gas phase atmospheres is linear with slope –g/Cp. The equation is T – To = - (h – ho) g/Cp where the centroid is at altitude 0 < ho < h max = 12 km for Earth and To is its bulk average thermal T at ho. This is easily derived from FLOT, KE + PE = TE = constant. Acceleration of gravity, g, depends on mass of planet, and Cp depends on atmosphere composition. ho max increases with amount or thickness of atmosphere and To is close to S-B radiating temperature needed to radiate incoming solar power absorbed back to space, with appropriate emissivity, e. Of course thin ionosphere makes the analysis a bit more complicated, but the main event is not difficult to model and quantify. Since Cp of CO2 > Cp of air, slope rotates counterclockwise with increasing CO2, causing lower atmosphere to warm and upper to cool. To remains unchanged with Cp, but it and whole line drops due to S-B cooling effect. In the limit of no atmosphere, h max = 0 = h and T = To = T surface. g and Cp don’t matter.

I ignored H2O because everyone agrees it is the dominant radiating gas, we can’t do much about it, and they are more interested in the effect of CO2.

I gave you my numerical calculations of the S-B Law to show consistency and help you detect any errors. You can check them with an inexpensive multiplication calculator.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#31 Greg House 2014-08-26 13:50
Quoting Pierre Latour:
I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.


Come on, Pierre. Your 23°C is equally physically impossible as Hansen's 33°C. Even if you further "improve" it and get just 0.0000001°C instead, it still will be physically impossible.

If you still do not understand, what is wrong with that calculation, I am sorry for you, but you still can go the easy way and reject it as apparently wrong because the result is physically impossible. What about that?
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#32 Greg House 2014-08-26 17:47
Quoting Pierre Latour:
I am skeptical of catastrophic global warming


Why I am not surprised...

Pierre, you are not skeptical of "global warming", you are just skeptical of it being catastrophic, right?

I mean, people who do not believe in unicorns at all would not say "I am skeptical of unicorn's ability to fly", would they? So, my logical conclusion is that you do believe in global warming. Besides, I can not recall you saying you do not.

Could you please explain why you believe in "global warming"?
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#33 Doug 2014-08-26 18:37
Pierre. You are of course right in eliminating the back radiation. But, but, but the temperature of a body relates to how much energy it absorbs, not what it emits. The thin surface layer of the ocean does not absorb very much solar radiation. Sure it emits a fair bit due to its temperature, but its temperature in the first place is not determined by 161W/m^2 of solar radiation, because we know most of the energy in the solar radiation is absorbed over about 10 to 20 metres, and much of that is at somewhat lower temperatures than the surface layer. The additional energy comes from the non-radiative process I have been writing about these last three years, but which you still ignore and deny.

That, Pierre, is why you cannot explain how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus to actually raise its temperature during its 4-month-long day. Until you understand the process involving the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the restoration of thermodynamic equilibrium you are barking up the wrong tree.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#34 Doug 2014-08-26 18:47
Regarding the rotation due to the specific heat of CO2, it is minuscule for one molecule in 2,500. There is a counter effect that is greater due to intermolecular radiation having a temperature levelling effect. We see this with water vapour which reduces the gradient and causes lower surface temperatures than the gravito-thermal effect would produce. The gravito-thermal effect is a reality and it is an equilibrium state. Hence new energy absorbed at the top of a planet's troposphere each morning will diffuse up the temperature plot to restore the correct gradient.

Hence planetary surfaces receive significant non-radiative energy input during the day, and lose that energy at night.

The temperature at the base of the atmosphere supports the surface temperature in all cases. If Uranus had a surface at the base of its nominal troposphere then it would be 320K, even though no solar radiation reaches it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#35 Doug 2014-08-26 19:19
Pierre - as there is less than 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface which is about 735K I suppose you'd like to claim the emissivity is 0.00121.

In your SBL calculations you forgot to use only about 48% of the TOA solar radiation. The actual figure is about 161W/m^2 reaching Earth's surface, whereas you used 1366/4.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#36 Pierre Latour 2014-08-26 21:31
Greg House
I didn’t claim GHGE was “possible” or not. Since it is just a definition, it cannot be wrong, just meaningless. I just corrected the values Hansen used in his famous meaningless definition.

No. I am skeptical of global warming because physics at the beginning of my essay says CO2 causes Earth’s global radiating T to decrease according to S-B Law. That means cooling, not warming. That is the main point of my essay. Sorry you missed it. Your logic is in error.

Doug
1. S-B Law says the temperature of a body relates to intensity of radiation it emits, not what it absorbs. I agree with S-B.
2. If the slope of the atmospheric temperature profile is –g/Cp, and displacing lower Cp O2 with higher Cp CO2 increases atmosphere’s Cp, Euclid says the profile rotates counterclockwise. I agree with Euclid.
3. In second section I stated “161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface” which is directly from K-T diagram. So we agree. So why be disagreeable?
4. I did not use 1366/4 = 341.5 for incoming to atmosphere and surface; I adjusted it for albedo in the third section (1 – 0.3)*1366/4 = 239 = 78 absorbed by atmosphere and 161 incident to surface, according to my ref K-T diagram. So your claim is not correct.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#37 Pierre Latour 2014-08-26 21:34
5. I have reason to believe my essay was peer reviewed, but that does not guarantee it is correct. Which is why I welcome correcting my mistakes.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#38 Pat Obar 2014-08-27 00:04
Quoting Doug:
Pat what you wrote "EMR only goes in the direction of lower field strength or lower radiance" is not correct. Imagine several spherical bodies in space at different temperatures. Each sends out EM radiation in all directions. Each body does not "know" what other bodies are out there and what their temperatures are. To understand heat transfer by radiation I suggest you read my PSI paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" and also the cited paper by Prof Claes Johnson.


D(umshit) Cotton,
You are out of your mind. please demonstrate or reference any measurements or reference to measurements of what you claim! EMR flux "is" and must be limited by any opposing field strength at that frequency. Show where Claes Johnson claims anything else?
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#39 Pat Obar 2014-08-27 00:18
Quoting Greg House:
Quoting Pierre Latour:
I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.


Come on, Pierre. Your 23°C is equally physically impossible as Hansen's 33°C. Even if you further "improve" it and get just 0.0000001°C instead, it still will be physically impossible.

If you still do not understand, what is wrong with that calculation, I am sorry for you, but you still can go the easy way and reject it as apparently wrong because the result is physically impossible. What about that?


Greg, You have no evidence for your claims of physically impossible. You cannot even define EMR and why it "may" cause some things to increase in temperature. A true troll!
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#40 David Cosserat 2014-08-27 04:33
Pierre,


Congratulations on your 'LaTour-de-force', rendered in your usual robust style. There is much there to contemplate.

1. I greatly approve of your use of actual figures from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in the face of the usual sophistic opposition. People who criticise this pragmatic engineering approach (much less off-putting to most people than lots of algebra) should be challenged to come up with their own better figures. In my experience they never do.

2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, the controversial Kiel-Trenberth 333Wm-2 figure is of course a downward radiative potential, not an energy flow. This is entirely offset by the upward 396Wm-2 figure, also a radiative potential. Only the net difference (63Wm-2 upward) represents the transfer of radiative energy from the cooler surface to the slightly warmer atmosphere. This is in full conformance with the 2LT. So at the macro level of classical thermodynamics, there has never has been any 'back radiation' concept and there is certainly no need for any such concept now. (Even at the micro level of statistical thermodynamics, where photons are regarded as passing in both directions, only the net transfer is accounted as energy transfer. So the result is exactly the same, namely 63Wm-2 of heat transferred from the warmer body to the cooler body.)

3. You say At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1 must increase to accommodate.. I agree with this. It is indeed a simple consequence of the standard equation used by generations of engineers solving real life heat transfer problems. Postma and his followers are simply wrong on this narrow point, as I have now proved through experimentation. However, I also strongly suspect that this minor CO2 warming effect is outweighed by CO2's essential cooling function towards the TOA, which is the main thrust of your analysis.


David
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#41 Pat Obar 2014-08-27 05:53
Quoting David Cosserat:
Pierre,


Congratulations on your 'LaTour-de-force', rendered in your usual robust style. There is much there to contemplate.

1. I greatly approve of your use of actual figures from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in the face of the usual sophistic opposition. People who criticise this pragmatic engineering approach (much less off-putting to most people than lots of algebra) should be challenged to come up with their own better figures. In my experience they never do.

2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, the controversial Kiel-Trenberth 333Wm-2 figure is of course a downward radiative potential, not an energy flow. This is entirely offset by the upward 396Wm-2 figure, also a radiative potential. Only the net difference (63Wm-2 upward) represents the transfer of radiative energy from the cooler surface to the slightly warmer atmosphere. This is in full conformance with the 2LT. So at the macro level of classical thermodynamics, there has never has been any 'back radiation' concept and there is certainly no need for any such concept now. (Even at the micro level of statistical thermodynamics, where photons are regarded as passing in both directions, only the net transfer is accounted as energy transfer. So the result is exactly the same, namely 63Wm-2 of heat transferred from the warmer body to the cooler body.)

3. You say At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1 must increase to accommodate.. I agree with this. It is indeed a simple consequence of the standard equation used by generations of engineers solving real life heat transfer problems. Postma and his followers are simply wrong on this narrow point, as I have now proved through experimentation. However, I also strongly suspect that this minor CO2 warming effect is outweighed by CO2's essential cooling function towards the TOA, which is the main thrust of your analysis.David


David, Does your post have any relevance to that of Dr.Latour? All vour your spouting seems orthogonal to that of Dr. Latour. What ever are you trying to express!
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#42 Doug 2014-08-27 06:15
Pierre.

A temperature is raised because a body absorbs energy, sometimes both radiated and non-radiative energy. A jug of water reaches boiling point because of the energy the water absorbs. Sure it will radiate a certain amount when it reaches a certain temperature. So what? That doesn't tell us how it got to that temperature. Nor does it tell us it must have been heated purely by radiation. Likewise the surface of the ocean receives most of its input energy by non-radiative molecular collision processes which you keep denying happen. But you can't explain how the surface of Venus gets anywhere near the required energy to rise in temperature if you keep on ignoring what I have been saying and wrote in the paper you poked fun at. Of course it's now in my book.

Euclid was only talking in general terms pertaining to specific heat. He was not considering the effect of intermolecular radiation. If you applied such a simplistic viewpoint to water vapour, then how do you explain the large reduction in gradient of about 30% which we know is due to water vapour, but has very little to do with specific heat? Why should not other radiating molecules have a net cooling effect like water vapour? I quantified the opposing tendencies and quoted in my book a net cooling effect of about a tenth of a degree for carbon dioxide. Even this small cooling effect is about 10 times the warming effect due to the effect on weighted mean specific heat. Do some calculations yourself!

Finally, even your (1 – 0.3) 1366/4 is not equal to 161W/m^2. NASA diagrams show only 48% reaching the surface, not 70% of 1366/4.
Quote | Report to administrator
John Marshall
#43 John Marshall 2014-08-27 08:48
Quoting Pat Obar:
Quoting John Marshall:
I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence


Partial quote sorry!
The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like "Earth and its atmosphere". You claim "total" energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
If you want global warming look elsewhere.

The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ''open'' at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5Quoting Greg House:
Quoting Pat Obar:
Greg,
...Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as

Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. :-) But enough nice talk.

That "blackbody temperature of the earth" thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

But you can join the club as well, if you wish. :cry:

The Climateers surface temperature is calculated on the 240W/m2 radiated from the planet. Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate. the K&T diagram uses 161W?m2 at the surface which is a temp. of below -40C giving the rediculous result that they do not even know what surface or temperature to use.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#44 Greg House 2014-08-27 09:11
Quoting John Marshall:
Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate.


John, forget this "5-6Km above" sheer nonsense, lapse rate etc. The matter is very simple, just focus. They say in a nutshell that the temperature on the surface is higher than the most powerful source of heat available (sun) can possibly induce (considering the distance etc). Which is unbelievably dumb. It is like saying put 2 and 2 together and you'll get 5.

The whole trick is to obfuscate this simple matter. Just throw away all the obfuscation out of your mind and the matter will become crystal clear.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#45 Pat Obar 2014-08-27 09:28
Quoting Greg House:
Quoting John Marshall:
Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate.


John, forget this "5-6Km above" sheer nonsense, lapse rate etc. The matter is very simple, just focus. They say in a nutshell that the temperature on the surface is higher than the most powerful source of heat available (sun) can possibly induce (considering the distance etc). Which is unbelievably dumb. It is like saying put 2 and 2 together and you'll get 5.

The whole trick is to obfuscate this simple matter. Just throw away all the obfuscation out of your mind and the matter will become crystal clear.

You must be an idiot!
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#46 Pierre Latour 2014-08-27 09:49
David Cosserat
All three of your points describe my position well.

To whom it may concern
Euclid of Alexandria invented geometry. Published in “Elements”, 310BC. It used to be taught in 9th grade.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#47 Doug 2014-08-27 19:56
It is not back radiation or direct solar radiation - rather it is the gravito-thermal effect which increases the temperature of Earth's surface by creating a temperature gradient that is then reduced by about a third by intermolecular radiation between water vapour molecules and some carbon dioxide molecules.

Thermal energy absorbed each day mostly in the upper troposphere of any planet can and does make its way to the surface by non-radiative diffusion processes that are restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, as per the Second Law.

My hypothesis works on all planets with significant atmospheres. Nothing else can explain the temperature at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere. There's no water vapour there and no direct solar radiation, but it's hotter than Earth's surface and nearly 30 times further from the Sun. Nothing else can explain what happens on Venus.

Now, Pierre, read my book and then, if you understand it, you will be able to explain how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to cause its temperature to rise when the Sun is shining.

The solar radiation of 161W/m^2 striking Earth's thin ocean surface mostly passes right through it as it would through a pane of glass. It cannot possibly warm it to the observed temperatures. The back radiation does not penetrate more than a few nanometres, so neither can it warm the thin surface layer of the oceans. It's like on Venus - all the radiation reaching the surface cannot explain its temperature.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#48 Doug 2014-08-27 20:59
Regarding Obar's "please demonstrate or reference any measurements or reference to measurements of what you claim!"

That's all in my peer-reviewed PSI paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" Engineers confirm what is in the paper in all their standard calculations. The two parallel plate experiment is well documented in physics literature. It's referred to in my paper which describes the resonance process in line with the writings of Prof Claes Johnson.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#49 Doug 2014-08-27 21:27
Pierre

We agree that 161W/m^2 is the solar radiation reaching Earth's surface. So why, when working out the surface temperature, did you include the extra 78W/m^2 that is absorbed in the atmosphere? That energy does not get to the surface by way of radiation. My trusty Stefan Boltzmann calculator tells me that a grey body at 288K emitting 161W/m^2 would have emissivity of only 0.4127. Of course it tells me nothing about what temperature would be achieved by the thin transparent surface layer of the ocean which hardly absorbs any of the 161W/m^2. A black asphalt road might well act more like a grey body with absorptivity of, say, 0.95. Wow! The Sun would heat it to 233.819 K.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#50 Pierre Latour 2014-08-27 21:36
Doug
Wrong again. I did not include the 78 absorbed in atmosphere in the 160 transferred from surface up. I included it in the 199 emitted by atmosphere to space. Copying from the K-T diagram in front of my eyes, just as I said. In harmony with FLOT. You have trouble reading the written word. Score: Latour 6; Cotton 0.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#51 Doug 2014-08-27 22:45
Pierre.

You used e = 0.708. A grey body with that emissivity radiating 161W/m^2 would have a temperature of 251.653K.

BUT, the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans is not a grey body and does not absorb more than 10% of the 161W/m^2. So you simply cannot use 161W/m^2 in any calculations pertaining to what you think the mean surface temperature of the Earth ought to be.

The Earth's surface, like the surface of Venus, warms during the day because, in addition to solar radiation reaching the surface, much of the solar radiation absorbed in the upper troposphere makes its way into the surface by non-radiative diffusion. The cooling at night is also slowed by the supporting mechanism provided by the gravito-thermal effect maintaining the temperatures at the base of the troposphere.

You will never explain reality whilst all you consider is radiation.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#52 Doug 2014-08-27 22:59
Another error Pierre:

You also compared the specific heat of CO2 with oxygen instead of air. The specific heat of air is 1.0 kJ/kg.K whilst that of CO2 at atmospheric temperatures is around 0.7 to 0.8kJ/kg.K. Hence there is a minuscule warming effect, but that is eclipsed by the temperature levelling effect of intermolecular radiation between CO2 molecules.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#53 Doug 2014-08-27 23:13
Now according to this* the emissivity of the oceans is about 0.984.

So if you think you can work out the ocean surface temperature from the solar radiation of 161W/m^2 striking it then SBL gives you 231.77K.

If the mean temperature of about 70% of Earth's surface were 231.77K then I suggest we'd have a serious problem surviving. Thanks heavens for gravity.


* www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#54 Doug 2014-08-28 00:30
Yes it is gravity acting on air molecules which sets up, not only a density gradient, but also a temperature gradient. (The pressure gradient is just a corollary.) This is seen in the tropospheres of all planets with significant atmospheres.

The temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which, if disturbed, will have a propensity to reform, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us.

This means that when solar energy is absorbed in the upper troposphere some of that new energy can move towards and into the surface as it restores the thermodynamic equilibrium. This has to happen. You can't explain energy balance if you don't accept this physical fact based on the laws of physics.

That is why the surface temperature is hotter than radiation calculations indicate. The surface of any planet also receives non-radiative heat transfers during the day and, of course, cools likewise at night - some by radiation and some by non-radiative conduction-like diffusion processes involving molecular collisions. Back radiation has nothing to do with it, and so neither does carbon dioxide. In fact, back radiation does not even penetrate the ocean surfaces and so it sure does not warm them from 231K to 288K or more.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#55 Pat Obar 2014-08-28 03:15
Quoting Doug:
Regarding Obar's "please demonstrate or reference any measurements or reference to measurements of what you claim!"

That's all in my peer-reviewed PSI paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" Engineers confirm what is in the paper in all their standard calculations. The two parallel plate experiment is well documented in physics literature. It's referred to in my paper which describes the resonance process in line with the writings of Prof Claes Johnson.


Your papers have no measurments whatsoever! all you have is fantasy! More Doug Cotton bull shit.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#56 D o u g 2014-08-28 19:01
Not one of you sees the woods from the trees. All lukes and warmists in effect still maintain that radiation from a colder atmosphere is somehow supposedly transferring thermal energy to a warmer surface and helping the Sun to raise its temperature. Well no direct radiation to the surface fully explains the temperature of the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans. Sure, there are measurements saying emissivity of ocean water is 0.984. Good. But it is well known that radiation from the atmosphere does not even penetrate the ocean surface by a few nanometres. So carbon dioxide radiation is not warming the ocean surfaces. Nor is the Sun doing much. If you just want to bung figures into SBL, then there is a mean of 161W/m^2 of solar radiation which is the only radiation penetrating the ocean surface. Put that into your SBL calculator and you get 231.77K. But wait, that's not all. The surface layer is mostly transparent, So let's say only 10% is absorbed. So, use 16W/m^2 and you get 130.13K. That's cold folks! And that's because none of you understands how thermal energy from the top of the atmosphere makes its way downwards restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, as the Second Law says will tend to happen. It's all in my book.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#57 D o u g 2014-08-28 19:06
If Pat Obar wishes to submit a paper to PSI explaining radiated heat transfer in some other way than that described by myself and Prof Claes Johnson he could of course do so. But he finds it easier to write childish comments without substance on threads like this.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#58 D o u g 2014-08-28 19:14
The following is a quote from the paper "Computational Blackbody Radiation" by Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics.

As a transformer of radiation a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cut-off, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature.

A blackbody thus acts as a semi-conductor transmitting only frequencies below cut-off, and grinding coherent frequencies above cut-off into heat in the form of incoherent high-frequency noise.

We here distinguish between coherent organized electromagnetic waves of different frequencies in the form of radiation or light, and incoherent high-frequency vibrations or noise, perceived as heat.

A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without getting warmer, while absorbed frequencies above cut-off are not emitted but are instead stored as heat energy increasing the temperature.

A blackbody is thus like a high-pass filter, which re-emits frequencies below a cut-off frequency while capturing frequencies above cut-off as heat.
A blackbody acts like a censor which filters out coherent high-frequency (dangerous) information by transforming it into incoherent (harmless) noise.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#59 D o u g 2014-08-29 08:00
Here's a comment I just wrote on Roy Spencer's blog regarding a point made about the K-T diagrams and whether or not they involve physics ...

The diagrams IMPLY incorrect underlying physics because they equate energy moving as electro-magnetic energy in radiation as if it is equivalent to thermal energy being transferred. It is not. The diagrams show back radiation supposedly supplying the missing energy which even James Hansen with his school boy physics realised had to come from somewhere.

The whole philosophy that back radiation is what is raising the surface temperature IMPLIES that the gravito-thermal effect does not exist and thus that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is invalid.

The assumption that the surface warming is only 33 degrees implies incorrectly that just as much solar radiation reaches the surface as does the centre of the troposphere, so attenuation is ignored even though they show about 20% absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in. Then they ignore the fact that ocean surfaces are nearly fully transparent, and so solar radiation doesn’t have a hope of raising the temperature even to 240K. Then they make the biggest mess of all when they gloss over the details on Venus and say it must be a run-away greenhouse effect. Well, sorry, but no atmosphere can magically multiply energy received at its top and deliver far more into the surface.

No physics? Well of course you’re right. What they imply has nothing to do with valid physics. That is why I’m reporting to the Government Ombudsman in Australia that Australian politicians have failed to carry out due diligence in checking the garbage promulgated by certain arrogant Americans.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#60 David Cosserat 2014-08-29 08:20
Doug,

Re. your comment at 19:06 above, I agree 100% with your shrewd remarks.

Re. your comment at 19:14 above, I know for sure that Claes Johnson adheres to the general understanding that (ignoring thermal transfer effects) a radiating object (e.g. CO2 gas) introduced between a constant radiating power source P at steady-state temperature T1 (e.g. the earth's surface) and a constant temperature sink at fixed temperature T0 (e.g. the rest of the universe at 2.7K) will raise the temperature T1 of the power source in accordance with the standard engineering equation for radiative power transfer, namely P = A.k.(T1^4 - T0^4).

I know this is so because I checked it with Claes during my discussions some months ago with Slayers whose alternative view was that there would be no change at all in T1 under the circumstances described.

So it seems that you, and I, and Claes Johnson, and Pierre Latour are all in agreement that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would in theory raise the Earth's surface temperature to a higher steady-state level (although in practice this rise would be too small to be perceptible in the practical conditions of the Earth's atmosphere.)

Of course Pierre's argument in the article we are discussing here (which I also agree with) is that this very small theoretical CO2 warming effect is more than offset by CO2's other major role as a radiative coolant to space.

You quote from Claes Johnson's paper concerning his interesting theory of what is actually going on at the micro statistical level, namely that photons travelling from a cooler to a warmer body are not absorbed at the warmer surface (as standard statistical thermodynamics theory holds) but are 'deflected' away. This is certainly an interesting debate for theoreticians but does not alter the mathematics of the equation for radiative power transfer quoted above and so is not really relevant to the discussion here. It is simply a third way (the other two ways being classical thermodynamics and modern statistical thermodynamics) of looking at the same issue and arriving at the same radiative transfer equation.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#61 David Cosserat 2014-08-29 08:55
Doug,

Re. your comments at #59 above:

1. You are right to criticise the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram for misleadingly mixing radiative energy transfers and radiative potentials, thereby doubtless confusing a generation of climate change students.

All the values in the diagram are the authors' best estimates of the net energy transfers (radiative and non-radiative) except for the two surface/atmosphere radiative potentials 396Wm-2 upwards and 333Wm-2 downwards. The difference, 63Wm-2, is the net energy transfer upwards (which then splits into 40Wm-2 to space and 23Wm-2 that is absorbed by the atmosphere).

Once this confusion is sorted out in your mind, you will see that there are no instances where heat is transferred from a cooler to a warmer body and the energy transfer numbers can be used sensibly as placeholders for further discussion.

2. None of the above has any bearing that I can see on your theory of how a planet's surface receives its energy from the Sun, particularly in dense atmospheres such at that of Venus where the amount of incoming radiation that actually reaches the surface is negligible.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#62 Pierre Latour 2014-08-29 12:04
Doug
Since you moved to new criticisms of my essay, I assume you accept all my rebuttals so far; a sign of scientific progress.

6. You say “You used e = 0.708. A grey body with that emissivity radiating 161W/m^2 would have a temperature of 251.653K.” I say: Interesting but irrelevant. I used e = 0.70827 for real globe radiating 239 to space with corresponding S-B T = 277.75K = 4.6C. No “buts” about it.

7. I correctly compared the Cp of CO2 with the O2 it replaced. To compare it with air as you did would be incorrect. Exchanging O2 for CO2 does increase the Cp of air. This causes measurable warming below the atmospheric centroid around h = 5 km and cooling above; but does not affect the bulk average T of whole atmosphere. Euclid geometry.

8. No, I said surface radiates 63 with average e1 = 0.1615 and average T = 288K. You don’t seem to understand the K-T diagram. 17 + 80 is transferred from surface to air by non-radiation mechanisms.

If you are keeping score it is now Latour 9; Cotton 0. I admire your persistence. When I find you have found me in error somewhere; I will be pleased to acknowledge it.

Pat Obar
You are catching on.

I think he is the fellow who claimed last year to have discovered a new law of heat transfer on Venus, which he called “heat creep”. And it explains Earthly global warming. He is so proud of his discovery he thinks it merits a Nobel Prize, even as his struggled with mathematical quantification and peer-review. It looks like the well-known chemical engineering laws of heat transfer to me: conduction, convection and radiation. Revising nomenclature is not science.

David Cossaret
Good thinking.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#63 Greg House 2014-08-29 12:23
Pierre, ever thought of contradiction between your discovery and the well known property of CO2 called specific heat?

One can likewise discover four factors explaining why elephants can fly so well: the can wave their ears, they are very strong etc.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g  
#64 D o u g   2014-08-29 19:40
David

You said "So it seems that you, and I, and Claes Johnson, and Pierre Latour are all in agreement that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would in theory raise the Earth's surface temperature to a higher steady-state level"

Regarding the calculations, that's in my paper. But no I'm not in agreement that slowing that component of surface cooling which is due to radiation will lead to higher surface temperatures. You are not considering all the non-radiative input and output as explained in my book and my paper on radiated energy.

In your next comment you don't seem to be aware that the whole AGW argument hinges upon their false assumption that they can explain the surface temperature by adding together the solar flux and the back radiation flux and bunging the total into S-B calculations. But there must be thermal energy input to raise a temperature, and back radiation does not supply that. Hence we have missing energy, which comes from "heat creep" as explained in my book.

Of course I know the solar radiation reaching Venus is negligible. So be the first to claim the $5,000 reward by explaining in any other way than in my book how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to cause its temperature to rise when the Sun shines. To win you also need to produce a study which shows the greenhouse gas water vapour warms moist regions considerably more than dry ones at similar latitudes and altitudes - using similar methodology to the study in my book, but getting the opposite result.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g  
#65 D o u g   2014-08-29 20:07
Pierre

The Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give the total radiative flux coming out of a body. You cannot debate the fact that the emissivity of the oceans is close to 0.984 and that makes up about 70% of Earth's surface. Hence it is impossible for the mean emissivity to be as low as your 0.1615 and the mean radiative flux from the surface to be as low as 63W/m^2. I am not talking about the rate of thermal energy transfer by radiation - I am talking about what S-B tells us, namely the total radiative flux.

Now, just because there is a certain amount of outward radiative flux corresponding to a certain temperature, this does not mean that the temperature has been achieved solely by equivalent inward radiative flux. You only have 161W/m^2 of inward radiative flux from the Sun and that is the only inward radiative flux which can warm the surface above temperatures in the atmosphere. You cannot add the flux which has been absorbed by the atmosphere on the way down. Likewise on Venus you cannot count any radiation other than about 20W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation reaching the surface.

The missing energy on Earth and Venus is not shown in the K-T diagrams. Whilst it comprises non-radiative convection and diffusion, I refer to it as "heat creep" when it is that which is transferring thermal energy from cooler to warmer regions by restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. All heat creep is convection or diffusion, but not all convection and diffusion is heat creep. It is irrelevant what you call it: the point is that it happens and has not been recognised as happening by climatologists. If it had been, they would not have had to dream up the false concept that back radiation provides the missing energy. It can't because it cannot raise the temperature of warmer planetary surfaces, whereas heat creep can.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g  
#66 D o u g   2014-08-29 20:35
Now Pierre. I simply do not accept that CO2 only displaces oxygen and not any nitrogen.

However, at atmospheric temperatures the specific heat of oxygen is higher than that of carbon dioxide, so CO2 would still increase the temperature gradient.

Oxygen Gas - O2

T Cp

175 0.910
200 0.910
225 0.911
250 0.913
275 0.915

Carbon Dioxide Gas - CO2

T - Cp

175 0.709
200 0.735
225 0.763
250 0.791
275 0.819

Source: Engineering Toolbox

In the article, Pierre, you incorrectly said the specific heat of CO2 was greater than that of oxygen.
Quote | Report to administrator
JeffTemple
#67 JeffTemple 2014-08-30 00:55
Pierre, in #62, responding to Doug, you said "When I find you have found me in error somewhere; I will be pleased to acknowledge it."

Pierre. I found an error. As I raised earlier in this string, you deliberately changed quotations in a technical debate, published in a reputable journal, by removing key words. This reversed the sense of the quotation, and you then used that to support your case. Where is your acknowledgment to that error (let me be dignified, and not call you a cheat)? Where is your correction?

What makes you think you have any credibility now for people to believe you? Your behaviour shows me you have low technical and moral standards. I leave others to make their own judgement about someone who manipulates quotations for his own advantage and then refuses to correct the error or apologise.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#68 David Cosserat 2014-08-30 05:10
Doug,

Thanks for your response at #64 in reply to my comments at #60 and #61.

(1) You say: I'm not in agreement that slowing that component of surface cooling which is due to radiation will lead to higher surface temperatures. You are not considering all the non-radiative input and output as explained in my book and my paper on radiated energy..

I never said it would. You missed out my following comment: ...this very small theoretical CO2 warming effect is more than offset by CO2's other major role as a radiative coolant to space. That is Pierre's thesis as laid out in his article above, with which I agree. In physics one should always try to separate out each constituent contributor to a phenomenon, not ignore or deny the inconvenient components as some people such as the Slayers have attempted to do. I assume you agree with that.

(2) I note that you have not responded to my other assertion at #60 that Claes Johnson's theory, whilst interesting, is not relevant to the issue at hand. It would be good to hear your response because there is a lot of confusion about its relevance to the global warming debate (I say none).

(3) You say: In your next comment you don't seem to be aware that the whole AGW argument hinges upon their false assumption that they can explain the surface temperature by adding together the solar flux and the back radiation flux and bunging the total into S-B calculations.

I am well aware that many people keen on promoting the cause of AGW alarmism do all sorts of false calculations, including the one you mention. However, my point at #61 was to challenge the notion that the Kiehl-Trenberth figures (suitably interpreted as I have done) cannot therefore be used as placeholders in rational discussions between physicists and engineers such as ourselves. Of course they can. Once it is understood that the 390Wm-2 and 333Wm-2 figures are radiative potentials, and not energy transfers, the whole energy transfer picture falls into place and is self-consistent and useful.

(4) Referring to the entirely separate issue of how the energy flow from the Sun reaches a planetary surface, I am content with the fact that in the case of the Earth it arrives in the form of SW radiation at an estimated rate of 161Wm-2 as per Kiehl-Trenberth. The balancing upward energy flow is 97Wm-2 non-radiative and 63Wm-2 radiative, the latter figure calculated as already discussed (my point 2 at #40).

You may well be right that in the case of planets with radiatively very dense atmospheres their surfaces are mainly kept warm by thermal contact and not largely (or at all) by the Sun's incoming radiation. But energy transfers on such planets are NOT the topic of Pierre's article.


David
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#69 D o u g 2014-08-30 07:40
1. It seems Pierre is not aware of the nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere. If we consider about 12,500 molecules of air without any CO2 and then add 5 molecules of CO2, about 4 molecules of nitrogen will be displaced and about one molecules of oxygen displaced. The weighted mean specific heat is reduced by this addition of carbon dioxide, not increased as Pierre incorrectly stated. He "corrected" me for referring to air molecules, but that's near enough for me.

2. I don't know what support Pierre has for the figures he quotes. However, Earth receives the Solar constant 1366 W/m^2 which we divide by 4 to get a mean spread over a sphere. But it also emits within 0.5% of that amount which is somewhat greater than Pierre's quoted value of 239W/m^2 supposedly measured by spacecraft which would not be high enough to measure radiation from the mesosphere, let alone the thermosphere.

3. Then he deduces a mean temperature for the Earth+atmosphere system which is obviously far too high when you consider the cooler temperatures in the troposphere.

4. Although he gets it the wrong way round saying CO2 reduces the temperature gradient because of its specific heat (not heat capacity, by the way) he does at least recognise that these changes in gradient occur (such as when water vapour reduces the gradient and thus causes cooler surface temperatures) but he doesn't understand the heat creep process which maintains the gradient in the first place, and he doesn't seem to recognise the fact that water vapour cooling like this totally negates any effect of supposed warming by that greenhouse gas. So he still adds the back radiation (because he agrees with K-T) when calculating the surface temperature supposedly warmed by both solar radiation and back radiation. Nowhere does he recognise the need for non-radiative energy input into the surface on the sunlit hemisphere.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#70 D o u g 2014-08-30 07:52
David. I did note your reference to CO2 cooling by radiation. That's also explained in my book. I just said that even the slowing of radiative cooling need not be a warming effect. That's in my March 2012 paper. That paper also explains the importance of what Claes Johnson explained, because it wipes out the K-T assumed contribution by back radiation supposedly adding thermal energy to the surface, which it doesn't.

The one I mentioned is absolutely fundamental to the GH conjecture which crumbles without it. Hansen realised the Sun couldn't do it. Pierre here is trying to fiddle figures to make it do so, but he can't fiddle Venus figures.

And no, you too only have 161W/m^2 into the surface and that's not enough. Would 20W/m^2 into the Venus surface raise its temperature from 732K to 737K? Never in a billion years. There is missing non-radiative energy INTO the surface on the sunlit side of these planets which is "heat creep" as explained in my book.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#71 D o u g 2014-08-30 18:38
David

When you admit that energy transfers into the hotter surface of planets like Venus from the colder atmosphere do happen and are necessary, then you are among the first in the world to recognise that I am right about the "heat creep" process transferring energy from cooler to warmer regions.

But it is every bit as relevant to Earth. You have nowhere near enough direct solar radiation being absorbed in the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans even to keep them above freezing point. And, of course, if frozen they would reflect most solar energy away. Do you ever wonder why the ground still warms on a day with total cloud cover? The energy is absorbed above the clouds and makes its way to the surface by heat creep up the temperature gradient, restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. The rest of what I have to say, and the proof that this process happens, is in my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All."
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#72 D o u g 2014-08-31 00:39
The emissivity of asphalt pavement has been measured as 0.93. If the whole Earth's surface were covered in such I suggest Earth would be a hotter place. How hot? Well the solar radiation reaching the surface has a mean of 161W/m^2. Bung those figures into your trusty on line Stefan-Boltzmann calculator (easily found courtesy Google) and ... wait for it ... you get 235.066K.

Explain please Pierre or anyone who hasn't read the explanation in my book.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#73 D o u g 2014-08-31 08:45
David and anyone else who really wants to learn about planetary surface temperatures and what causes them to be what they are, I very strongly recommend that you have a good long think about the temperatures in the nominal Uranus troposphere. The height of the troposphere is about 350Km and it has a near perfect temperature gradient very close to -g/Cp. There is no solar radiation getting down to the base of the Uranus troposphere but its temperature is 320K, rising slightly on the sunlit side and falling on the night side, just like Earth and Venus. How does the energy get down there and why is it trapped there? Answers in my book.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#74 David Cosserat 2014-08-31 11:29
Doug,

You have now made several points all of which need brisk rebuttal:

(1) At #69, referring to Pierre's article you say: ...So he still adds the back radiation (because he agrees with K-T) when calculating the surface temperature supposedly warmed by both solar radiation and back radiation.

I have scanned Pierre's article yet again and cannot see anywhere where he supports back radiation, meaning heat transfer from a cooler to a warmer body, as you have implied. On the contrary he agrees with my analysis (which I note you have ignored in your responses so far) that the 396Wm-2 upward and 333Wm-2 downward radiation figures in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram are radiative potentials and not energy transfer rates. They need to be offset against one another, providing a net energy flow rate of 63Wm-2. See Pierre's response at #62 para 8 containing the statement: No, I said surface radiates 63....

(2) At #70 you say: ...even the slowing of radiative cooling need not be a warming effect.

That is sloppy language. Are you, or are you not, in agreement with Pierre and me that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a NET surface cooling effect, consisting of (i) a small warming effect due to it acting as an additional radiative shield to energy flow, and (ii) a larger cooling effect due to there being more molecules radiating to space?

(3) At #70 you also say: ...my March 2012 paper...also explains the importance of what Claes Johnson explained, because it wipes out the K-T assumed contribution by back radiation supposedly adding thermal energy to the surface.

No it doesn't. There is nothing to wipe out. Firstly, the K-T figures, when interpreted correctly according to classical thermodynamics in the way I have described in (1) above (and at least twice earlier in this blog trail) produce a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. Secondly, statistical thermodynamics produces a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. And thirdly Claes Johnson's interesting alternative statistical theory also produces a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. There is not a sliver of a difference between them.

continued below...
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#75 David Cosserat 2014-08-31 11:34
...continued from above

(4) At #70 you say: ...you too only have 161W/m^2 into the surface and that's not enough.. At #71 you say: ...You have nowhere near enough direct solar radiation being absorbed in the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans even to keep them above freezing point.

This is all rubbish. In addition to the 161Wm-2, the remaining incoming energy flow of 78Wm-2 absorbed by the atmosphere keeps it at a higher temperature than it would otherwise have had. Consequently the temperature differential between atmosphere and surface is smaller than it otherwise would have been. And so, according to the standard radiative transfer equation P = A.k.(T1^4 - T0^4), a warmer atmosphere T0 (even though cooler than the surface T1) will slow down the rate at which the surface transfers heat. So the earth's surface will have a higher temperature than if the atmosphere had not absorbed that additional 78Wm-2.

I do not agree with your characterisation of this process as "transferring energy from cooler to warmer regions" as you also claim at #71. Quite the reverse. The CO2 and H2O molecules that absorb the incoming 78Wm-2 at various levels up the atmospheric column thereby acquire more kinetic energy than the non-absorptive molecules at those same levels. Consequently the energy equilibriates 'sideways' by diffusion. Additionally, increased thermal energy at a given level may diffuse vertically, always from a hotter region towards a cooler one, in order to maintain the pressure-induced lapse rate.

If that is what you call 'heat creep' then who exactly is arguing with you?

In the end, the observed reality is:

(a) 161+78 = 239Wm-2 is the total incoming radiation absorbed by the earth system (surface + atmosphere).

(b) This level of incoming radiation maintains the surface at a mean temperature of 288K.

(c) No heat anywhere ever flows from cooler to warmer places.

In other words, it's absolutely standard classical, statistical, or even Claes Johnsonian thermodynamics.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#76 David Cosserat 2014-08-31 11:46
Doug,

I can't keep up!

(5) At #73 you ask how the energy gets down to the base of the Uranus troposphere. If, as you say, no solar radiation gets down there (and also assuming there is no heating from below), then the surface temperature is all maintained by diffusion as I have discussed in (4) above.

Standard thermodynamics. What exactly is your problem?
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#77 D o u g 2014-08-31 19:03
David. Firstly there is no surface at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere. Yes, the energy diffuses from cooler to warmer regions. I don't have a "problem" because I explained the physics in my book. It is people like Pierre and all other PSI members who have a problem believing this is what is happening. It is all the lukes and warmists who have a problem believing that similar diffusion happens on Earth and Venus as well, thus doing away with any need for "explaining" observed temperatures as being due to a greenhouse effect.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#78 D o u g 2014-08-31 19:18
David

In your (1) you refer to a net radiative energy flow out of the surface of 63W/m^2.

Well David, there needs to be a far greater net energy flow into Earth's surface to start its temperature rising every sunny morning. Remember that the solar energy does not get absorbed much in the thin transparent ocean surface.

Solar energy and back radiation are very different things and cannot be added to get 333W/m^2. You cannot then assume this figure is what can be bunged into the S-B calculations to get 288K or whatever. Solar radiation penetrates the ocean surface: back radiation does not - not by even a few nanometres. Back radiation cannot help the Sun to raise the temperature of the ocean surfaces. Such temperatures are what they are because of the gravito-thermal effect which is completely ignored and denied by climatologists.

What you forget is that back radiation was never in the original NASA net energy diagrams. It was introduced by Hansen et al so that they could use it in S-B calculations to "explain" the "33 degrees" of warming. The IPCC talks about it in their glossary, for example. It's all garbage because you can't abuse the S-B law that way using targets which are not black or grey bodies. You can only use solar radiation in S-B calculations pertaining to Earth's surface and, as I showed for asphalt paving with emissivity 0.93, using 161W/m^2 doesn't work.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#79 D o u g 2014-08-31 19:33
On Venus over 97% of incident solar radiation is absorbed on its way to the surface by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is over 97% carbon dioxide, so where do you think the solar energy being absorbed ends up? Mostly in carbon dioxide molecules of course, because there's not much else.

On Earth carbon dioxide also absorbs incoming photons in the 2.1 micron range and these photos have about 5 times the energy of the 10 micron ones it absorbs coming up from the surface.

Carbon dioxide and water vapour cause cooler surface temperatures primarily because of the temperature levelling effect of intermolecular radiation which reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient. On Earth this can be calculated as a cooling effect of about 0.1 degree which more than offsets the warming effect due to its specific heat being lower than that of most other air molecules. Pierre got that wrong.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#80 D o u g 2014-08-31 19:44
To raise and maintain the temperature of a black or grey body you need real thermal energy transfer into the object, not "radiative potentials." By definition, a black or grey body is perfectly insulated against non-radiative heat transfer in or out. (So that rules out Earth's surface.) But the electromagnetic energy in the radiation has to be actually converted to thermal energy because that's what determines temperature. Then it is converted back to EM radiation in the outward radiation. This is where Claes Johnson's paper comes into it. Only radiation with frequencies above "cut off" has its energy converted to thermal energy. The energy which is converted is represented by the area between the Planck curves and so the source has to be hotter than the target and the flux has to exceed the flux from the target initially. All of this valid physics is ignored by Pierre and by lukes and warmists in general.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#81 D o u g 2014-08-31 19:55
So, David, if Earth's surface were covered in black asphalt paving, how would you determine what you would expect its mean surface temperature to be? The energy from the Sun reaching the surface can be assumed to be 161W/m^2. This cannot be "boosted" to 333W/m^2 however you look at it, because that is more than the Sun delivers to the top of the atmosphere after deducting about 30% for reflection. In any event, you would need 362.77W/m^2 to get 288K for the asphalt and chances are the surface would be hotter still.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#82 D o u g 2014-08-31 23:19
So of course the K-T radiation figures are garbage. You have 1366/4 = 341.5W/m^2 entering the atmosphere, of which about 30% is reflected back out again, leaving about 70% of 341.5 = 239W/m2) and yet Kevin would like us to believe the atmosphere generates energy and delivers more (like 333W/m^2) out of its base and into the surface. Even that would not explain 288K, but we don't have even that anyway. If Kevin told you that you could make your car headlights brighter by reflecting the beam back and forth between parallel mirrors, I suppose you'd believe him.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#83 D o u g 2014-09-01 02:03
David. The lapse rate is not induced by pressure. Gravity forms both a temperature gradient and a density gradient. The resulting pressure gradient is a corollary.

And no your concept of heat only diffusing to cooler regions in a gravitational field is what I have disproved in my book. If it doesn't diffuse to warmer regions as well then you have no explanation what-so-ever as to how the Venus surface increases in temperature and no explanation as to how the solar energy absorbed at around 60K at the top of the Uranus atmosphere gets down even into regions that are close to 5,000K near the Uranus solid core that is about 55% the size of Earth.

What I present is valid physics, David. If you don't want to learn from it then that's your prerogative.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#84 David Cosserat 2014-09-01 04:28
Doug,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply so comprehensively to my comments. I have a busy week ahead so I cannot continue to discuss at length. Briefly:

On your #77, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on your assertion that heat can diffuse from a cooler to a warmer region of the atmosphere. Most people reading this would assume that violates the 2LT. My explanation at #75 (3rd paragraph), which you have simply ignored, of how the incoming 78Wm-2 from the Sun that is absorbed in the atmosphere causes it to be warmer, does not violate the 2LT. But at least we agree that diffusion takes place and that it elevates the surface temperature. Progress perhaps?

On your #78, you continue to speak of an energy flow of 333Wm-2 eve though I have shown repeatedly that, if one interprets the Trenberth figures from the point of view of classical thermodynamics, the 333Wm-2 and 390Wm-2 figures are potentials not flows. Replace them by their difference, a flow of 63Wm-2 upward, and everything falls into place. (I don't care what Hansen or Trenberth did, said, or intended.)

You then bang on again about 'back radiation' (meaning energy flowing from a cooler body that is absorbed by a warmer body) as if I haven't repeatedly asserted (as have Pierre and Claes) that it doesn't exist. Doug, WE AGREE WITH YOU! (In the statistical thermodynamics interpretation, photo streams do pass both ways, but the resulting energy flow is still the difference between them: in the earth's case, exactly the same 67Wm-2.)

On your #79, we are agreed that the Venus atmosphere is mainly warmed by the 97% of solar radiation that is absorbed by it. So there is no disagreement there.

On your #80, all you have done is to repeat Claes Johnson's theory. As I have said repeatedly, even using his interpretation of what is going on at a micro physical level, the energy flow between surface and atmosphere still works out at 63Wm-2.

On your #81, again you use the 333Wm-2 radiative potential as if it were an energy flow. So you are fighting a straw man by saying it cannot be boosted to 333Wm-2. Of course it can't. It isn't a flow!

On your #82, this is another straw man. It is irrelevant what Trenberth says or believes, or thinks, just so long as the figures in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram can be interpreted sensibly and used correctly in discussion here.

On #83, once again we both agree that the incoming 78Wm-2 absorbed within the earth's atmosphere is indeed responsible for warming it. We just don't yet agree on the precise mechanism. As I said before, that's progress.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#85 Pierre Latour 2014-09-01 11:42
Doug
Since you moved to new criticisms of my essay, I assume you accept all my rebuttals so far; a sign of scientific progress.

9. While emissivity of pure water is 0.96 and snow is 0.8 to 0.9, you cannot dispute surface of ocean reflects and scatters incident solar radiation and phytoplankton consume some that is transmitted through surface. Emissivity depends on all energy transfer mechanisms affecting surface energy balance. To equate oceans to a glass of water is a simplification. Can you derive average emissivity of Earth’s radiating surface from its physical properties? If so how?

10. It seems you are unaware of the science of chemistry.
Fossil fuel combustion reaction is:
CHn + (1+0.25n)O2 = CO2 + 0.5nH2O + heat
where n = 4 for methane; about 2 for petroleum; 1 for coal; 0 for carbon; and about average 2 for collection of fossil fuels.

So 1+0.25n molecules of O2 in air is exchanged for 1 molecule of CO2. I assumed carbon combustion for 1 for 1, but a better assumption would be 1.5 O2 for 1 CO2, which would increase emissivity and decrease T even more. If CO2 increases by 100 ppmv or about 0.00010 mol%; O2 decreases by 150 ppmv or about 0.00015% of the composition of air. (Done rigorously, the compositions still add to 100% of course. Round-off error is negligible.)

11. You say “I simply do not accept that CO2 only displaces O2 and not N2” That is not a very scientific statement. N2 is inert; not involved. Later you say “If we consider about 12,500 molecules of air without any CO2 and then add 5 molecules of CO2, about 4 molecules of nitrogen will be displaced and about one molecules of oxygen displaced. “ That is not so because the N2 doesn’t go anywhere. I trust you understand these two corrections from HS chemistry. Your next three paragraphs do not represent what I said or science. Creating straw men is not allowed.

12. If you study the derivation of Lapse Rate (Joe Postma, Claes Johnson) you will find the heat capacity property is a molar basis, not mass basis, because it invokes perfect gas law, PV = nRT. If you multiply your mass basis values from Tool Kit by molecular weight, you will find molar basis Cp of CO2 > Cp of O2. To help you understand use atomic weights O = 16, C = 12.011, H = 1.008 to find mol wt O2 = 32; CO2 = 44.011. Molar Cp O2 = 0.915*32 < molar Cp CO2 = 0.819*44.011. In fact Cp CO2 / Cp O2 = 36.045/29.28 = 1.231 or 23.1% greater. I correctly said the heat capacity of CO2 is greater than the O2 it displaces. QED.

The reaction mass balance is (12.011 + 2*1.008) + 1.5(16*2) = (12.011 + 2*16) + 1*(2*1.008 + 16) = 14.027 + 48.00 = 44.011 + 18.016 = 62.027.

13. I agree if Earth’s surface radiated whole 161 with asphalt emissivity, 0.93, its temperature would be 235.066K. If emissivity
Quote | Report to administrator
Pierre Latour
#86 Pierre Latour 2014-09-01 11:43
David Cosserat
Good work. As you can see, Doug’s style it to move on and throw stuff at the wall to see if anything sticks. His ability to learn is crippled. No point responding unless the spirit moves you.

Greg House
What contradiction is that?
I fail to see the validity or relevance of your elephant analogy claim.

Jeff Temple
Catastrophic global warming promoters often adopt nefarious debating tricks when their claims are falsified by science and logic. You misrepresented my use of one of your references to explain your AGW error in 2009, creating a straw man, and falsely accuse me of being a cheat, with low moral and technical standards with no credibility so my essay should be dismissed. Character assassination it frowned upon as unprofessional in scientific, engineering, medical, finance, law, business, liberal arts and intellectual discourse. No apology expected.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#87 D o u g 2014-09-01 18:52
David

Do you even known what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says about thermodynamic equilibrium? Do you understand that such equilibrium has homogeneous internal energy and is thus isentropic, having maximum accessible entropy and thus an autonomous thermal gradient - as is observed in all planetary tropospheres. If you disagree that heat transfers towards the surface when restoring this thermodynamic equilibrium then you disagree with the Second Law. Fullstop.

Then you say diffusion takes place (from the colder atmosphere to the surface) so you contradict yourself.

And you still have no valid application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that explains the actual surface temperature, and you never will have. Neither will the IPCC et al.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#88 D o u g 2014-09-01 19:07
Pierre. The gases in Earth's atmosphere are not, in general, undergoing chemical reactions such as you document between oxygen and carbon dioxide. The atmosphere is not on fire. Your introduction of such reactions is totally irrelevant to determination of the weighted mean specific heat, the latter being based purely on atmospheric composition. It is a value based on unit mass.

In the calculations of the temperature gradient due to the gravito-thermal effect the denominator is the specific heat (that is, it is based on unit mass) and it is not the heat capacity. The difference is clearly explained in any physics text book and even in Wikipedia. I have quoted values of specific heat from Engineering Toolbox. If you wish to disagree with these engineers, that's your prerogative.

However, while ever you think you can determine what the temperature of any planetary surface ought to be from the input of radiation you are wrong. Planetary surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation which they absorb.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#89 D o u g 2014-09-01 19:21
David and Pierre:

The reason why the denominator in the autonomous temperature gradient is specific heat, not heat capacity is because mass cancels out. the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve spontaneously. Such equilibrium has (in the absence of chemical reactions) a homogeneous sum of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So we equate the change in potential energy between two heights that differ by dH with the change in kinetic energy for a temperature difference dT. The latter is determined from the specific heat. Hence, for mass M we have ..

M.g.dH = M.Cp.dT

giving the temperature gradient

dT/dH = g/Cp

and there's no minus sign because gravity acts in the opposite direction to increases in height. My point is that we use specific heat, not heat capacity as Pierre thinks.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#90 D o u g 2014-09-01 19:34
Now, the temperature gradient is a state of equilibrium, sometimes also called hydrostatic equilibrium, but this is the same as thermodynamic equilibrium in this case. In other words, it is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve as entropy increases. It is the state of maximum entropy among the states that are accessible by the system. That's what the Second Law tells us will evolve.

When new rain falls only in the middle of a lake, gravity disperses it all over the lake, because it is restoring mechanical equilibrium, namely a surface which follows the curvature of the Earth.

Picture a temperature gradient as being like a level lake, each being a state of equilibrium. New thermal energy absorbed anywhere is dispersed in all directions (including towards warmer regions) as thermodynamic equilibrium is being restored.

Once you understand this mechanism, you understand planetary surface temperatures and the fact that such surfaces receive large amounts of non-radiative heat transfers from the colder atmosphere.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#91 Doug 2014-09-01 20:08
This is an example of calculation of the denominator in the autonomous temperature gradient due to gravity ...

Suppose dry air were 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. Then, using specific heat values at 250K we have, for nitrogen, 1.039 and for oxygen 0.913.

Now (0.80 * 1.039) + (0.20 * 0.913) = 1.01 which is close to the value given in Engineering Toolbox of 1.005 for dry air. This can be modified in a similar way for one molecule of carbon dioxide (specific heat 0.791) in 2,500 air molecules. We get ...

(1 * 0.791 + 2499 * 1.005) / 2500 = 1.0049.

So carbon dioxide increases the gradient by about one part in 10,000 due to its specific heat. However, it reduces the gradient more due to its inter-molecular radiation, just like water vapour does.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#92 Doug 2014-09-01 20:36
Now, when you point an IR thermometer at Earth's surface you do indeed get a realistic temperature and the instrument is indeed receiving radiative flux comparable with what S-B calculations say we should expect. However, most of that radiation is pseudo scattered back radiation and that component is not transferring any thermal energy out of the surface. It is just like reflected radiation.

The amount of radiation coming from the surface tells us nothing at all about how the surface got to that temperature in the first place. We know that the 161W/m^2 of incident solar radiation cannot raise it to anywhere near the observed temperature. What happens on any planet is that thermal energy from the Sun is trapped by gravity (under the temperature plot, so-to-speak) and the warm temperatures at the base of the troposphere "support" the surface temperature, prevent it getting too cold at night, for example. It has nothing to do with back radiation (including that from carbon dioxide) and it is not even something that depends on that day's radiation from the Sun. The energy has been trapped over the life of the planet. That's why the core of Uranus is still about 5,000K even though it's nearly 30 times further from the Sun than we are. That's why the Venus surface is so hot. That's why Earth's surface temperature is what it is.
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug
#93 Doug 2014-09-01 20:59
Finally Pierre, I'm not the slightest bit interested in point scoring. I have summarised what is reality in the six comments written above today. Whether or not you agree I'm right is your prerogative. It's all been either in my March 2012 paper (about radiation) on PSI or in my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" about the gravito-thermal effect, published in March this year and available through Amazon and eBay Australia.
Quote | Report to administrator
JeffTemple
#94 JeffTemple 2014-09-01 23:59
Perrre Latour. Number 86. You know what you did, and you have the cheek, the dishonesty, to turn round and accuse others. You took quotations from two reputed sources, deleted words, but still maintained the quotation marks, and so changed the sense of the quotation, and claimed this as a victory for yourself. I think the description of SCOUNDRAL AND CHARLATAN fits this very well. We are still waiting for your correction and apology. I would be happy to post Mr Latour's original documents and the source of his quotations, if anyone would like to see the truth. His last reply shows his true character shining through.
My advice to anyone else. Do check Mr Latour's use of references and quotations very closely, since previous experience is that he manipulates facts to his own advantage, and then blames others for his own inadequacies.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#95 D o u g 2014-09-02 01:36
Yes Jeff, and of course he will not correct his mistake about the fact that the specific heat of carbon dioxide is less than those of oxygen, nitrogen and dry air. It is really laughable that he thinks his chemical reactions are going to somehow affect the weighted mean specific heat of the gases in our atmosphere, and thus the temperature gradient. That gradient is formed by plain old ordinary molecular collisions in the conduction-like process usually called diffusion when gases are involved. Any physicist understands this and knows it has nothing what-so-ever to do with chemical reactions. No-one pulls wool over Cotton's eyes, Pierre. You need to learn from someone like me who's had far more teaching (and learning) experience in thermodynamics than yourself. You don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics for starters.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#96 D o u g 2014-09-02 02:10
Pierre tries to claim that the emissivity of Earth's surface is only as in this quote ...

"Note surface emissivity = 0.1615"

Elsewhere he tries to imply that ocean emissivity is somewhat lower than 0.98. It is not, and published papers put it at around 0.984. Given that the oceans make up about 70% of Earth's surface, it is impossible for the mean emissivity of the whole surface to be only 0.1615. Furthermore, if he has ever pointed an IR thermometer at the ground he should know that it gives reasonably accurate temperatures if programmed at about 0.95 emissivity. It certainly would not do so using 0.1615. Pierre does not understand radiation and how and when it transfers thermal energy, or how and why the thermal energy transfer rate is slowed by opposing radiation.
Quote | Report to administrator
JeffTemple
#97 JeffTemple 2014-09-02 02:25
Thanks Doug. You just wait, he will never ever correct any mistake he made, not even blatant ones, or ones where he so obviously cheated, and will then turn round and attack you, as if you were the one who cheated. This sounds like we can devise a new rule, shall we call it the Latour Rule of Physics and Chemistry, in 2 parts. "Part A, Latour is always right. Part B, when Latour is wrong, or has screwed up his logic, or has cheated, please refer to the Latour Rule Part A". Good luck to anyone who debates with someone like Latour. I found it was just not possible, as he does not accept his mistakes, and then turns round and blames others for his own inadequacies. I also believe that people need to be warned about his history.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#98 D o u g 2014-09-02 02:39
Let's look closely at this quote ...

"Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C"

OK. So firstly, Pierre is clearly talking about the Earth's surface temperature. That, after all, is his 14.95C. But, but, but the radiative flux he uses is 70% of 1366/4 W/m^2, namely 239W/m^2. (Sure enough if we enter 239W/m^2 and 288K into a S-B calculator we get emissivity 0.612.)

But this 239W/m^2 is not the flux from the surface at all. It is the flux from the whole surface+atmosphere system. This is because all that has been deducted is the 30% that is reflected by the atmosphere. What has happened to the other 20% which is absorbed on the way in by the atmosphere? In fact NASA now says only 48% reaches the surface, and in fact Pierre quotes that figure of 161W/m^2 which is actually about 47% of 1366/4.

In effect he has assumed that the energy which never reaches the surface (20%) somehow boosts the radiation out of the surface. He uses the radiation from the atmosphere and the surface to determine, not the mean temperature in the atmosphere but the surface temperature.

So let's look at what goes into the surface and what comes out. Pierre agrees that only 161W/m^2 goes into the surface. Now some energy comes back out by evaporative cooling (latent heat) and some by conduction. How much does that leave to exit by radiation? Well, not 239W/m^2.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#99 David Cosserat 2014-09-02 04:10
Doug,

Briefly...

Re. your #87 comment, we are in agreement that the fraction of the Sun's energy flow that is absorbed by the atmosphere (78Wm-2) causes the temperature profile in the atmospheric column to be higher than it would otherwise be.

Because the temperature of the atmosphere is higher (whilst still being cooler than the surface) the rate of flow of energy (both radiative and non-radiative) from surface to atmosphere is lower than it otherwise would be.

Consequently the surface temperature is higher than it otherwise would be.

Be content with that. The rest is a relatively unimportant discussion about the best words to use when describing the process whereby the energy absorbed in the atmosphere re-distributes itself so as to maintain the isentropic steady state condition.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#100 D o u g 2014-09-02 05:34
David

To explain a planet's surface temperature you need to explain how sufficient energy gets there in the first place. It's no use just saying the rate of cooling is slowed. Slowed from what temperature? The Sun's direct radiation cannot raise the Earth's mean surface temperature above the freezing point of water. Try your thought processes on Venus, or Uranus. They don't work. And they don't work on Earth either. What I have explained in great detail, complete with diagrams and empirical evidence in my book is what happens.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#101 D o u g 2014-09-02 05:48
David, the vast majority of the solar energy absorbed on its way into a planet's atmosphere is in fact absorbed in the colder upper regions of the troposphere and above. Below that the temperature is already too high for the solar radiation, now attenuated, to have any warming effect. This is very pronounced on Venus. Hence the "redistribution" by diffusion is mostly from these cold regions to the warmer base of the troposphere and into the surface. Yes the whole temperature profile does rise, but you denied that thermal energy transfers from cooler to warmer regions in the process. Well it does. It is the level of the thermal profile which determines ("supports") the surface temperature, and this has nothing to do with the amount of solar radiation entering the surface. Well, on Earth it has almost nothing to do with solar radiation, except that direct sunlight on a clear day can make some regions warmer with temporary energy that mostly dissipates later that day. But the Sun cannot raise the mean surface temperature for Earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#102 David Cosserat 2014-09-02 07:27
Doug,

If we must discuss the minute details of what is actually going on when additional energy enters a gravitational air column, I do like your rain and lake analogy at #90.

Ignoring frictional effects, the extra weight of the rain that lands initially at the middle of the lake causes an immediate (almost but not quite as strong) balancing up-thrust. This prevents the rain equibriating across the lake in zero time.

As time goes by, the consequent (almost but not quite as strong) balancing reactive up-thrusts spreading progressively throughout the lake likewise hold portions of water above the eventual average lake height, but (being always weaker than the corresponding diminishing down-thrusts) do so to a lesser and lesser extent, until eventually all the water in the lake is at the same (increased) level and the isentropic condition of the lake is re-established.

I see nowhere in this scenario where the upward reactive forces are ever larger than the corresponding downward forces.

Likewise, in the case of regions of the atmosphere that absorb energy directly from the Sun), I see nowhere where the heated areas receive increased kinetic energy from lower temperature areas, the relevant transfer equations being P = A.k.(T1^4 - T0^4) for each radiant transfer and P =A.k'.(T1 - T0) for each thermal transfer, in both cases from higher T1 to lower T0 regions.

Yet the atmosphere does indeed equilibriate, exactly as you have argued and exactly as everyone who has studied elementary atmospheric physics already knows it does.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#103 D o u g 2014-09-02 08:26
Assuming (in perfect calm conditions) a column of air (or gas) in a troposphere is in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with a non-zero temperature gradient) then newly absorbed thermal energy at the top of the column (the cooler end) raises the temperature locally above the normal level, though still colder than warmer regions below. What then will happen when there is the inevitable propensity to restore thermodynamic equilibrium? The new equilibrium will have a higher thermal profile (like the new level all over the lake) but it will have the same thermal gradient. So its plot is in a higher but parallel position. Hence some of the new thermal energy must diffuse downwards to warmer regions. And that is the only way in which sufficient energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by 5 degrees over the course of its 4-month-long day, thus compensating for the cooling the previous Venus night. You would find it easier to understand if you read my book and referred to the diagrams therein, thus saving my time here.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#104 D o u g 2014-09-02 08:35
PS Your equation P =A.k'.(T1 - T0) is only correct in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field. You are using school boy physics dating back to the initial and restricted concepts of the mid 19th century. Can you even quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics? You talk about the atmosphere "equilibrating" - well it does not have a propensity towards being isothermal in a vertical plane at all. How could it? That would never be the state of maximum entropy. You really do miss the whole point of what I am explaining.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#105 D o u g 2014-09-02 08:52
You only have to think about Venus. At night it cools about 5 degrees. By day it warms by the same amount. The only difference is the Sun. Hence the energy getting into the surface in order to raise its temperature comes from the Sun. But the Sun's direct radiation is less than a mean of 20W/m^2. At least 14,000W/m^2 would be required for radiation to do the job. The Sun's energy can only warm the relatively colder upper regions of the atmosphere where temperatures are less than 400K. So how does the solar energy absorbed in those regions get into the far hotter surface and raise its temperature from about 732K to 737K? If you can't answer this with valid physics (as I have) then you have no understanding of what's really happening on Venus, Earth or any planet.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#106 David Cosserat 2014-09-02 17:49
Well apart form your observation that "equilibriate" might not be the best verb to describe the development of an iso-entropic as opposed to an iso-thermal state, I think your response is unhelpful.

If you feel that the equations of heat transfer (both thermal and radiative) don't work in a vertical dimension subject to gravity then you should tell us all what alternative equations you propose.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#107 D o u g 2014-09-02 18:38
I did not say anything about radiation equations being incorrect. My paper on radiation covers that.

I have explained above (and in far more detail in my book) what happens. What I have explained is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It explains how the energy moves from the 400K region on Venus to the 735K surface. You have no explanation for such. We don't need to know the rate at which this happens, although 4 months appears to be sufficient time on Venus.

Until you think about how thermodynamic equilibrium (the isentropic state with a temperature gradient) is restored (after new energy is added at the top) then you won't have any idea as to what is happening in planetary tropospheres. When you've worked out Venus, try Uranus. Do you ever wonder why the temperature gradient in th nominal Uranus troposphere s so accurately very close to g/Cp?
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#108 D o u g 2014-09-02 18:53
Actually, to get valid non-radiative equations in a vertical plane you have to deduct from the actual temperature of the lower point the component that is added due to the gravito-thermal effect. For example, in dry air we expect a gradient of 9.8C per Km. So if the air at the top is 10C and the air at the bottom is 15C then we deduct 9.8C from 15C and treat it as if the lower temperature were 5.2C. We then get the heat flow from the top to the bottom.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#109 D o u g 2014-09-02 19:47
An easily-understood example. Suppose initial equilibrium has ..

At top: PE + KE = 20 + 15 (Total 35)
At bottom: PE + KE = 12 + 23 (total 35)

Add 4 units of KE at top and equilibrium is disturbed (now 39 total at top)

A new equilibrium evolves as 2 units of KE moves downwards.

At top: PE + KE = 20 + 17 = 37
At bottom: PE + KE = 12 + 25 = 37
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#110 David Cosserat 2014-09-03 04:49
Doug,

You are getting a little tedious and more than a little patronising. I think Pierre is correct when he says that you never properly read what anybody else says.

You still don't seem to appreciate that I AGREE WITH YOU that energy absorbed by the atmosphere at any height (top, middle, base, anywhere) re-distributes so as to maintain the familiar isentropic profile up the atmospheric column. And I LIKE THE LAKE EXAMPLE in your book (all of which I have read, by the way, and MOST OF WHICH I AGREE WITH).

What I have been trying to engage with you over (obviously unsuccessfully) is the precise mechanism whereby this atmospheric energy diffusion process occurs without violating the 2LT (as I interpret it). If you don't like my explanation (or my interpretation of the 2LT), so be it. I don't much like your explanation, which I find assertive rather than educative.

So let us put that minor disagreement on one side since we BOTH DO AGREE that the isentropic energy re-distribution DOES OCCUR and instead move on to the substantial question of Pierre's blog article:

To what quantitative extent (if at all) is the surface temperature of the earth affected by the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Although you have asserted in your book that CO2 only has a minor cooling effect of perhaps 1/10th degree C, you have not proved it. If we cannot keep resolutely on that topic, we are surely wasting our time.

David
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#111 D o u g 2014-09-03 06:11
David

The main content of the book is showing why the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the inevitable conclusion that the thermal gradient is indeed the very state of thermodynamic equilibrium which that law states will evolve autonomously. I then go on to explain the (also inevitable) conclusion that the process of restoring such equilibrium can lead to thermal energy being transferred from cooler to warmer regions. I consider this proven from standard physics.

I gave you a simple example in my most recent comment showing why this happens. It's not hard to understand. Yet it seems to me that you have no explanation yourself as to how the solar energy which warms regions that are cooler than 400K on Venus subsequently makes its way into the Venus surface.

So let me ask you three questions ...

(1) Does significant solar energy absorbed at less than 400K in the Venus atmosphere help to raise the surface temperature?

(2) If no, then what energy does do so and how does it get there?

(3) If yes, then how does the energy get from the upper atmosphere into the hotter surface?

Regarding carbon dioxide on Earth, the IPCC clearly states that radiation from carbon dioxide supposedly causes the Earth's surface to gain thermal energy (as shown in K-T diagrams) and thus rise in temperature beyond any temperature that direct solar radiation can achieve. There is no valid physics supporting this claim. Furthermore, climatologists claim that the surface temperature can be determined by the sum of the radiative fluxes from the Sun and from the atmosphere. Once again there is no valid physics supporting this claim. Yes there is physics supporting a very slight warming effect resulting from the lower specific heat of carbon dioxide, but I have shown that this only steepens the temperature gradient by about one part in 10,000 and is thus insignificant. As to the cooling effect due to intermolecular radiation, I did calculations based on the similar cooling effect of water vapour, but modified significantly due to the far smaller number of carbon dioxide molecules. That is how I came to an estimate of 1/10th of a degree, but I accept that it could be almost anywhere between perhaps 0.02 and 0.5 degree of cooling.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#112 D o u g 2014-09-03 06:30
As I see it David, PSI will never persuade the public that back radiation is not raising the surface temperature by that "33 degrees" unless they publicise the valid physics which explains both the gravitationally induced thermal gradient and the process whereby thermal energy can move up that thermal plot as it restores thermodynamic equilibrium.

This issue is the most vitally important issue in the whole climate debate.

The two opposing explanations of the surface warming are poles apart. Only the gravito-thermal explanation is correct, and it completely demolishes the radiative greenhouse conjecture. In fact, the gravito thermal effect provides more than enough warming (as per the dry rate of 9.8C/Km) but intermolecular radiation (mostly between water vapour molecules) reduces the gradient to about 6.5C/Km and thus has a cooling effect of several degrees - which is vital for life on Earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#113 D o u g 2014-09-03 07:51
So let's discuss Pierre's four points and show just how irrelevant all this is because you cannot determine what planetary surface temperatures ought to be from radiation considerations. After all, radiation is attenuated by atmospheres, so why aren't they colder at the base of the troposphere than at the top?

Pierre's 1st point:

Well, the emissivity of carbon dioxide on Venus hasn't helped cool it much. High emissivity also means high absorptivity. What do you think is storing over 97% of the thermal energy in the Venus atmosphere? Carbon dioxide molecules are.

Pierre's 2nd point:

Yes CO2 does absorb incident solar radiation around 2.1 microns. Some is re-emitted to space and some of the energy can find its way to the surface by non-radiative diffusion. But to cite the K-T diagram (which clearly implies that back radiation helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature) is surely crossing the floor.

Pierre's 3rd point:

This point should be removed altogether because he got it round the wrong way. The specific heat of carbon dioxide is lower than those of both oxygen and nitrogen.

Pierre's 4th point:

He fudges the 288K figure by ...

(a) assuming the radiation into the surface is 70% rather than the NASA figure of 48% of the mean TOA solar flux. In other words, he ignores and does not deduct the 21% or so absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in.

(b) fudging the surface emissivity to just the right figure which works with his incorrect 70% to get the right answer. Given that 70% of Earth's surface is ocean with emissivity measured as about 0.984, then the mean for the whole surface is sure to be greater than 0.612. Even if the emissivity of the solid surface were zero, the mean would be higher than 0.612.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Cosserat
#114 David Cosserat 2014-09-04 17:49
Doug,

On your #111 and #112 comments:

1. I AGREE that additional energy received (via radiation, conduction/convection and evapo-transpiration) into a planetary atmosphere at any height (including from the surface) will be re-distributed in such a way that a (higher) isentropic temperature profile is produced.

2. There is an important corollary of 1. This is that additional energy exiting to space from the earth-atmosphere system can also do so from any height (including the surface). Consequently the remaining energy in the atmosphere will be redistributed in such a way that a (lower) isentropic temperature profile is produced.

3. But we are meant to be discussing here the long-term-average steady-state situation, where the fraction of the Sun's incoming energy flow that is absorbed by the earth-atmosphere system exactly matches the outgoing energy flow from the earth-atmosphere system to space. In that case it is clear that processes 1. and 2. exactly offset one another. So the isentropic temperature profile will remain constant.

However...

None of the above would happen without the radiative gases, principally H2O with a little assistance from CO2. They are essential for the absorption in the earth's atmosphere of a significant proportion (78Wm-2 according to Trenberth) of the Sun's radiation. They are also essential for transferring 100% of the outgoing energy from the atmosphere to space (199W-2 according to Trenberth).

Obviously in the earth as it is today, they are doing both of these vital jobs. The resultant mean surface temperature is an empirically determined 288K. The question is: if we double the concentration of atmospheric CO2, how much will this change the long-term-average steady-state temperature profile as defined in 3. above (and in particular, the surface temperature)?

I don't see anything in your writings that answers that vital question. Making assertions such as "Only the gravito-thermal explanation is correct, and it completely demolishes the radiative greenhouse conjecture" just isn't going to cut the mustard. You need to provide a reasoned quantitative scientific analysis of what change in surface temperature would occur as a result of doubling CO2. Although your ideas are on an interesting track I predict that, unless and until you can provide that analysis, you will simply be ignored. That would be a pity.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#115 D o u g 2014-09-04 19:09
David

Planets like Earth and Venus have day and night. Yes the whole temperature profile in the troposphere rises by day and falls by night, with a propensity towards maintaining parallel positions on the sloping plot of temperature against altitude, because that is the (isentropic) state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law tells us will evolve autonomously. Do you agree so far?

Now, sure the cooling process at night is easy to understand. But, it's not so easy to understand, and it's not documented elsewhere, just exactly what happens during the warming process. That's why I asked you three specific questions to help me to understand what you may or may not understand about the "heat creep" process whereby thermal energy transfers by convection (which includes diffusion in physics) up the temperature profile when thermodynamic equilibrium has been disturbed by the absorption of new solar energy near TOA.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#116 D o u g 2014-09-04 19:10
(continued)

It's not really relevant to say none of this would happen without molecules that absorb and emit radiation at atmospheric temperatures, because no atmosphere in our Solar System lacks such molecules. But you should note that in the lower troposphere S-B calculations easily confirm that incident solar radiation is not strong enough to raise the already-warmer temperatures, especially on Venus.

The key issue you gloss over is in your statement "The resultant mean surface temperature is an empirically determined 288K." That statement cannot by supported by radiation calculations. It can only be supported by calculations based on the gravito-thermal effect, as is very easily demonstrated in the Uranus troposphere where no solar radiation penetrates very far down. And, when it comes to non-radiative heat transfers from the cooler atmosphere into the Venus and Earth surfaces very very few scientists understand what is happening. That's why I spent $3,000 of my own money putting it in writing for the first time by anyone in the world. You don't see "anything in my writings" because you haven't read the book and understood the physics involved. You need to make the effort, because it is crucial to understanding what is happening. Climatologists have not correctly explained the 288K. The solar energy of 161W/m^2 reaching Earth's surface would not on average raise an asphalt paved Earth even to 235K. That's over 50 degrees colder than observations.

And I have provided empirical evidence that water vapour cools and I have provided the physics which explains that both it and carbon dioxide cool for the same reason in that inter-molecular radiation reduces the temperature gradient that would otherwise be steeper (with a hotter surface) due to the gravito-thermal effect. I have made reasonably-well supported calculations quantifying the cooling effect of carbon dioxide. In that climatologists have done none of this with any sound physics, I suggest that I've come a long way further than they. Meanwhile you still seem to believe that radiation calculations can show why the Earth's surface is 288K and the surface of Venus rises and falls between about 732K and 737K. Well show me your calculations, because nothing else in world literature proves radiation alone does this.

And don't forget to try to answer those three questions.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#117 D o u g 2014-09-04 19:29
There is not space here to reproduce my calculations, but I estimated the pivoting altitude to be in the vicinity of 3.5Km to 4Km. This is the altitude where the net radiated energy to space above that altitude equals the net radiated energy to space from below that altitude, including that from the surface. We know empirically that water vapour can reduce the temperature gradient by about a third from a "dry" gradient of 9.8C/Km. So, in 3.5 to 4Km the resultant surface cooling is in the vicinity of 12 degrees. Without water vapour the Earth's surface temperature would be close to 300K.

Now carbon dioxide molecules are outnumbered by water vapour molecules by roughly 50:1. They also radiate in fewer bands at atmospheric temperatures, so their temperature levelling effect will be less per molecule than water vapour. Broadly from these considerations I place the cooling effect of carbon dioxide in the vicinity of 0.1 degree. Double the CO2 and I suppose you could get 0.2 degree of cooling. To be any more accurate would require extensive research. As far as I'm concerned it is sufficient to know that it has just a small cooling effect.
Quote | Report to administrator
D o u g
#118 D o u g 2014-09-04 19:43
My key point is that there is no valid physics which supports the conjecture that water vapour and carbon dioxide raise the mean temperature of Earth's surface. I have presented a study based on 30 years of temperature data for inland tropical cities on three continents which clearly shows water vapour cools.

It is the responsibility of people like James Hansen and all his subsequent followers to prove their conjectures with which they have bluffed politicians and the world in general. They can't.
Quote | Report to administrator
 D o u g
#119  D o u g 2014-09-23 18:27
Why are the tropical oceans still cold in the depths? Why don't they become isothermal like you think the troposphere would have been without that most-prolific of all greenhouse pollutants, water vapour sending all that warming back radiation back to the surface to warm it to a higher temperature than it was when it sent the original radiation and cooled in doing so.

Well the tropical oceans are colder in the depths because the poles act as a heat sink. Isothermals (such as 4 degrees C) are deep down in the tropics, but break out at the surface in the polar regions.

So too would the atmosphere be colder at the base for the same reason. If the whole globe were paved in black asphalt the surface would be about 235K - nearly 40 degrees below freezing. You can work it out yourself with an on-line Stefan Boltzmann calculator using solar radiative flux of 161W/m^2 and emissivity 0.93.

So there is a lot of thermal energy entering the ocean surface in non-polar regions, moving downwards through the thermocline and exiting in the polar regions.

But why is the thin transparent ocean surface so hot? Before you say it's the back radiation, I have to tell you that radiation from colder regions does not penetrate the warmer ocean surface more than a few nanometres. It is "pseudo scattered" because it merely raises electrons to higher energy states and then those electrons immediately drop back and emit an identical photon. The electro-magnetic energy is not converted to thermal energy, and so it does not raise the temperature.

In fact there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in any planetary troposphere, and thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the upper troposphere can flow up that sloping thermal profile restoring thermodynamic equilibrium as it does so, and even entering the oceans. Water vapour reduces the temperature gradient (fortunately) making the surface about 10 to 12 degrees cooler. Carbon dioxide makes it another 0.1 degree cooler for the same reason.
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link.
Most recent comments first.


Security code
Refresh