Thursday, December 4, 2014

US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell's Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the 'Greenhouse Effect' is Correct & Falsifies CAGW

Early in the "space race" of the 1950's, US Air Force Research Laboratory meteorologist and "rocket design climatologist" Norman Sissenwine "recognized the urgent need for complete data on the properties of the atmosphere" and thus became "a catalyst between the aerospace and meteorological community" to develop the US Standard Atmosphere physical model of Earth's atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature profile by altitude from the surface all the way up to the edge of space at ~100,000+ meters altitude.

This massive effort was critical to the entire space program and aeronautics, and hundreds of rocket scientists, physicists, meteorologists, aeronautical engineers, and atmospheric scientists contributed to this project necessary to physically model and then verify with millions of observations from weather balloons, research flights, and rocket launches, that their physical 1-D vertical model of the atmosphere was correct. The 1958 first edition of the US Standard Atmosphere was followed by revisions, mostly of the far upper atmosphere at the edge of space, as more data became available from the space program, with revisions published in 1962, 1966, and the final 1976 version still widely used as the gold standard today. 

This effort to model the atmosphere for NASA, NOAA, and the US military during the cold war began long before the field of 'climate science' or 'climatologists' even existed, long before anyone ever thought or knew about alleged "radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" causing "catastrophic man-made global warming or climate change," and twenty years before the first 'climatologists' gave us the ice age scare of the 1970's, immediately followed by the global warming scare of the 1980's that is still haunting us today [but now called 'climate change' since it's not warming]. 

These early atmospheric scientists began this effort to model the atmosphere with the basic physics of gases and air known since the 1800's from the ideal gas law, 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's second law of motion (F=ma=mg), the physical chemistry of molecular weights, partial pressures of each gas, heat capacities of individual gases and air at both constant pressure and constant volume, the gravitational acceleration constant, barometric formulae, Boltzmann's constant, Avogadro's number, mean atmospheric molecular weights, number density of individual species, total number density, atmospheric mass density, mole volume, scale height, geopotential height of gravitational potential energy (PE), mean air-particle speed, mean free-path of air molecules, mean collision frequency, calculated speed of sound, dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, coefficient of thermal conductivity, and on and on...

And never once used any "radiative forcing" from any IR-active greenhouse gases or any radiative calculations from any greenhouse gases whatsoever to produce an accurate 1-D model that could calculate Earth's entire pressure, mass density, temperature, and molecular-scale temperature as a function of geopotential altitude (geopotential height ~ geopotential altitude ~ gravitational potential energy (PE)) profile from the surface to the edge of space. 


Fig. 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document below. Note the "Molecular-scale temperature is a function of the geopotential altitude." Thus, the kinetic temperature of the particular molecular masses and compositions of the atmosphere is a function of the geopotential height (which is the gravitational potential energy (PE) accumulated at that height) which adiabatically sets the pressure at that geopotential height. This is another way of saying temperature is a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, which is exactly what the Maxwell atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure 33C greenhouse effect claims, not "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gases. 

The entire US Standard Atmosphere physical model was derived from physical laws assuming a completely dry atmosphere without any water vapor (the so called primary greenhouse gas) or any natural or man-made CO2 whatsoever (since CO2 at 0.03-0.04% contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass). It was only after the entire dry atmosphere model was finished that the average water vapor in Earth's atmosphere was added back in solely by changing one essentially constant parameter (on an annual & global basis):

the heat capacity of air at constant pressure (Cp) (on a global annual average basis)

of the atmosphere to calculate the tropospheric lapse rate, since water vapor has a high heat capacity more than double that of N2, O2, and CO2 (which are all lower and close to the same). This is the primary means (other than clouds) by which water vapor cools the Earth surface and atmosphere, since by the lapse rate equation

dT/dh = -g/Cp

where 

dT = change in temperature
dh = change in altitude
g = gravitational acceleration constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

the change in temperature dT is inversely related to a change in heat capacity (Cp). Note also that temperature T is a function of the constants gravity (g) and (Cp), and that neither g or Cp (within the temperature range of Earth's atmosphere) are a function of temperature (T). 

Since water vapor increases heat capacity (Cp) in the lapse rate equation, it decreases the temperature (T) at any altitude (h) including the surface where (h) = 0, and decreases the lapse rate by half from the dry rate 9.8 C/km to the wet rate of 5 C/km if the atmosphere is fully saturated with water vapor. 

The scientists involved with the US Standard Atmosphere calculated the global average lapse rate of 6.5 K/km on the basis of the known heat capacity constants of water vapor and measured global average water vapor concentrations, to calculate and confirm with observations that it is ~6.5 C/km, intermediate as expected between the dry and wet fully saturated adiabatic lapse rates, and thus this is the value used to calculate the global annual average temperature, pressure, and density profile of the Standard Atmosphere. We now know from weather balloon and satellite measurements that the global average total water vapor is quite constant, and there is little agreement about whether it has stayed the same or slightly increased or decreased over the past 35 years of the satellite era. 

The tiny 0.03-0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere does not contribute in any significant way to atmospheric molecular mass, molecular density, partial pressures, heat capacity (Cp), etc., thus in the multiple versions of the US Standard Atmosphere models, the calculated CO2 effect on the atmospheric temperature was so negligible that the atmospheric scientists thereafter completely discarded CO2 from their model calculations of the atmosphere. The same potential effects were calculated for what is called today the "20 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2" methane; these atmospheric scientists found the mass contribution and heat capacity to the atmosphere from methane was far too negligible to consider, thus, it was also discarded from the model along with CO2.

Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect "deniers" of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn't recognize any "radiative forcing" from any "greenhouse gases" at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen's (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn't arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of "back-radiation" or "radiative forcing" from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory.

Why not?

Because they knew, as did scientists including Maxwell in 1872, that the atmospheric temperature gradient is a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, not the other way around. Temperature is calculated in their model as a function of geopotential height (gravitational potential energy (PE)) and molecular mass of the constituents in each atmospheric layer, from which atmospheric pressure, density, etc. are calculated using the geopotential height (gravitational potential energy (PE) at a given height). After these intermediate parameters are calculated, then the temperature at a particular altitude is calculated as a function of mass/gravity/pressure, not the other way around. The only assumption about temperature made in their atmospheric model was that global surface temperature is, by international agreement and definition, 15C.

Ah, you say, they assumed the surface temperature and thus everything else is a function of that!

It's true that the only assumption made about temperature in their model is the surface temperature, by definition 15C. They, of course, had to do so because that is the surface temperature by definition from international agreement, and also because there were no satellite measurements at that time from the Sun and Earth to determine Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun. Therefore, they used 15C by definition as the starting point at the surface, and then calculated the entire remainder of the atmosphere as a function of the geopotential height (gravitational potential energy (PE) at a given height), and given the mass and molecular weights of the constituents of the air observed at each level of the atmosphere (without the greenhouse gases water vapor and CO2).

Now that satellite measurements make it possible to determine the Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun (Te = 255K), we can now use the greenhouse equation to bootstrap onto this huge effort by these pioneering atmospheric scientists, and thereby calculate the average global temperature at any altitude (geopotential height) in Earth's atmosphere all the way from the surface to the edge of space at ~100,000 km altitude, entirely without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases whatsoever, and based only upon the mass/gravity theory of the greenhouse effect (first described by the famous physicist Maxwell in 1872), and calculated atmospheric center of mass, and without knowing the surface temperature or any other atmospheric temperature other than the constant equilibrium temperature with the Sun in advance.

The "Greenhouse Equation" calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average "Effective Radiating Level" or ERL, respectively. 
Fig 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere description document below, with added annotations showing how the center of the tropospheric lapse rate is "triangulated" by the known constants of mass and the center of mass, the height where the center of mass can be calculated which is where the mass above is 1/2 of the total mass and the Pressure (1/2 atm) is 1/2 of the surface pressure (1 atm), and the known constant of equilibrium temperature Te between the Earth and Sun. This is the exact location of the ERL, where the temperature must equal the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. By determining the height of the ERL, the greenhouse equation then extends the linear adiabatic lapse rate up to the top of the troposphere at ~12,000 meters and down to the surface at 0 meters, from which the entire tropospheric temperature profile from the top of the troposphere to the ERL to the surface temperature can be determined by only knowing the constant equilibrium temperature with the Sun = Te = 255K. 

The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.  

The entire 241 page 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions) is posted below. It is an absolute goldmine of detailed information on the physical derivation of the standard atmospheric model and confirmatory observations. It thus provides overwhelming physical proof and overwhelming observational evidence that the Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect" is correct, and would necessarily falsify any significant "radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" affecting the lapse rates or various atmospheric temperature gradients, and thus as well negate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can account for the 33C greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the Earth would be an additional 33C warmer than present. 



38 comments:

  1. Tim Cullen has some articles on this subject on his forum.
    http://malagabay.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you a thousand times over. This is what I was taught in the late '60s. I thought I was going mad when I revisited the topic 40 years later!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto.
      It was easy enough for me to see the enormous errors in the GCM modelling, but it was a bit harder to reconcile all the doom-saying with what I knew about climate-responsive design in the tropics.Had we missed something? Checking through my old notes ... Maxwell's theory was there along with the Standard Atmosphere. "Greenhouse effect" is only mentioned in the context of window glass.

      Delete
    2. You're welcome. No doubt the real atmospheric rocket scientists who did this seminal work are turning in their graves, the documentation of exactly how they created their atmospheric physical model without any consideration whatsoever of "radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" long since forgotten and long out of print. Their outstanding physical derivations and resulting 1-D model relegated to tables of numbers, although those tables of numbers from their model still considered the gold standard today, and replicated internationally several times, and for which no one has called for any further revision.

      Most people probably assume that the US Standard Atmosphere is just based upon observations only (as I did until I just discovered this documentation). I'm happy to resurrect their very comprehensive underlying physical basis and calculations.

      Delete
    3. ""Greenhouse effect" is only mentioned in the context of window glass."

      Or possibly also in the context of dry cloud free (and therefore transparent )adiabatically warmed descending air beneath surface high pressure cells which inhibit convection and allow the surface temperature to rise above S-B

      Delete
  3. "Molecular-scale temperature is a function of the geopotential altitude." Thus, the kinetic temperature of the particular molecular masses and compositions of the atmosphere is a function of the geopotential height (which is the gravitational potential energy (PE) accumulated at that height) which adiabatically sets the pressure at that geopotential height."

    Good find.

    I too was taught all that in the 60s and was astonished when I came across all the radiative nonsense subsequently.

    I covered the basic principle here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/

    Have been explaining the basics on various blogs and getting my head blown off for my trouble.

    They just haven't been teaching it in the education system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "the change in temperature dT is INVERSELY RELATED to a change in heat capacity (Cp)."

    Excellent, you found the authority for that basic point that I have been subliminally aware of since my schoolday physics.

    " Note also that temperature T is a function of the constants gravity (g) and (Cp), and that neither g or Cp (within the temperature range of Earth's atmosphere) are a function of temperature (T). "

    Absolutely.

    Radiation is a result of the temperature profile and not a cause of it.


    ReplyDelete
  5. It all appears to be consistent with my article here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/

    MS, was it my earlier post telling you that the Standard Atmosphere made no reference to radiative characteristics that prompted you to seek out the 1976 document and database ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. That vertical section between 10 and 20 km height is where the cooling effect of conduction and convection from the surface gradually equilibriates with the direct solar radiative warming of ozone in the lower stratosphere.

    My guess would be that the height of that vertical section would be the distance along the lapse rate slope in which the temperature would change with height by an amount exactly equal to the mass induced greenhouse effect.

    That is, 33K.

    If the strength of the mass induced greenhouse effect were to change then the height of that vertical section would change too.

    There is a similar smaller vertical section around 50km where the stratosphere merges with the mesosphere and I guess one will find there a 'reverse' greenhouse effect as the direct solar heating of ozone in the upper stratosphere gradually equilibriates with the radiative cooling of the mesosphere.

    Since it is all about mass we could never measure any effect from CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've just been permanently banned from a sceptic site run by Derek Alker for simply referring to the mass induced greenhouse effect and referring them to trhis site and the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere:
    Derek Alker 5 December 08:32

    "Stephen Wilde, this is a discussion group for those that question and want GH "theory" questioned publicly. You have plainly stated that you merely think the "theory" should be explained differently..
    "There is a greenhouse effect but it is mass induced and not radiative."

    Further to that you are simply avoiding questions asked of your statements, even when your statements are shown to be in gross error. Further to that, I do not see any point WHATSOEVER of discussing ANYTHING "Loschmidt" based, whether it be from you, Hans Jelbring, Doug Cotton, or even Loschmidt himself, if he could come back from the grave. Which is where his work should be anyway.

    I do not know if Stephen is aware but, Jeff Id at his Air Vent blog sometime back engaged Doug Cotton (I can not be bothered to find a link), followed through "the logic" of Cotton's argument and showed Cotton, and the "Loschmidt" based "explanation" is actually a warmist argument....

    Goodbye, you are permanently banned."

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/permalink/743460105684487/

    No statements (very brief as they were) have been shown to be in error, nor did I fail to address any points.

    Weird.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen,

      "Weird." .... eh, not all that "Weird" in my opinion. I have had the same thing happen to me at both WUWT and Real Science (StevenGoddard/Tony Heller). It is the very same M.O. They cannot stand to be challenged in any way. In my opinion, they are ultimately just attention seeking sophists that are not really all that interested in seeking the truth. Self-aggrandizing opportunists.

      Delete
  8. @SW
    "Goodbye, you are permanently banned."
    That's when you KNOW you are on the right track! First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they ban you ... then you win. (Or something similar!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. @HS,

    Been lurking for a while, and had my doubts, but this post goes a long way to erasing them. You are to be congratulated. Really this is excellent stuff,

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hockey Schtick, I appreciate the effort behind all this. However, I do have some (rather fundamental, I would say) objections to your approach.

    You say:
    "The only assumption about temperature made in their atmospheric model was that global surface temperature is, by international agreement and definition, 15C.

    Ah, you say, they assumed the surface temperature and thus everything else is a function of that!"

    Yup. The surface temperature is the baseline for the tropospheric temperature profile, climbing UP from that point, not DOWN from anywhere. They did exactly right. The surface temperature is set first, because that's where the heat comes in and that's where it subsequently tries to move back out. The heat exchange at the surface is what ultimately determines the steady state temperature of the surface.

    You continue:
    "They, of course, had to do so (...) because there were no satellite measurements at that time from the Sun and Earth to determine Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun."

    There is no 'Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun'. There is only an Earth's equilibirum mean radiation FLUX with the Sun. It is 239 W/m^2. Because this is the mean flux from the Sun absorbed by the Earth system from ToA down, evened out across the global spherical area and the diurnal cycle. To balance this INCOMING flux, the Earth system needs to also shed an equal flux back OUT to space. However, and this apparently cannot be stressed too often: This final outgoing LW flux to space from the Earth system does NOT originate from ONE specific layer inside the system. There is no ERL emitting the 239 W/m^2 to space due to some physical match with an S-B-calculated temperature of 255K. It is an accumualted flux, consisting of contributions from ALL layers of the system, from solid/liquid surface, up through all atmospheric layers to the ToA. The ONLY level from which Earth's flux to space is actually 239 W/m^2, is the ToA. Nowhere below this level has the accumulated flux out managed to reach this final intensity. Regardless of air temperatures on the way. There is no connection.

    The ERL is a pure mathematical construct, based on the average of LW flux from Earth to space readings by satellite-borne instruments like CERES.

    The construct works like this: We measure/estimate a mean total LW flux to space from the Earth system as a whole, balancing the incoming from the Sun, of 239 W/m^2. IF this flux were emitted to space from a solid black body surface, this surface would (through the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) have to have a temperature of 255K.

    That's where the 255K figure comes from. Nowhere else. It's a theoretical, virtual, conceptual figure. It has no bearing on the real Earth system. There is no such BB surface anywhere to be found in the Earth system. The 239 W/m^2 is rather the accumulated flux from discrete emissions originating from around the entire volume of the system. Sounds like anarchy? How can it end up balancing the incoming, then? No problem. The Earth system, in dynamic equilibrium with its heat source, simply adjusts continuously to emit a total equal to the absorbed. Whatever energy arrives is also shipped back out. More energy enters, more energy exits. Less energy enters, less energy exits. On average.

    I still haven't understood the rationale behind the 'atmospheric centre of gravity' somehow acting as the planetary ERL. Is the entire 239 W/m^2 to space emitted from this level? If not, then why does its 255K temperature matter?

    Also, you assume the atmospheric centre of gravity (~500mbar) is at 5.1 km. It's not. It's at 5.6 km. Still in the ballpark. But not at all an exact match.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Congratulations for taking a the great work, consistent with observations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The Earth system, in dynamic equilibrium with its heat source, simply adjusts continuously to emit a total equal to the absorbed. Whatever energy arrives is also shipped back out. More energy enters, more energy exits. Less energy enters, less energy exits. On average."

    I agree save for variations in the proportion of solar energy that reach the surface as a result of changes in global cloudiness. Such changes in albedo will mimic changes in top of atmosphere insolation and will affect temperature and such cloudiness variations account for most if not all internal system variability.

    As regards the dynamic equilibrium I have previously stated that due to the continual adjustment that occur in the adiabatic convective cycle the energy that arrives from the sun effectively gets a free pass straight through which is what okulaer seems to be suggesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies to oculaer, I accidentally fat-finger deleted oculaer's reply to Stephen Wilde's comment above, and can't get it back, so I'm reposting oculaer's comment here:

      "I agree save for variations in the proportion of solar energy that reach the surface as a result of changes in global cloudiness. Such changes in albedo will mimic changes in top of atmosphere insolation and will affect temperature and such cloudiness variations account for most if not all internal system variability."

      Clouds are indeed incredibly important. As are surface winds (pressure gradients and thermoclines). The former affects heat uptake, the latter affects heat release. I'm taking a much more general perspective in your quote.

      The ENSO process is the mode of internal variability that most affects global temperature swings, and it does it by modifying these parameters, cloud cover distribution, wind strength and thermocline gradient.

      Delete
    2. "The ENSO process is the mode of internal variability that most affects global temperature swings, and it does it by modifying these parameters, cloud cover distribution, wind strength and thermocline gradient. "

      Yes indeed oculaer, ENSO is very important.

      However ENSO responds to changes in solar induced cloudiness and I have acknowledged elsewhere that the bottom up ENSO variations are then engaged in a complex interaction with the top down solar effects.

      We are not in disagreement but as yet you have not absorbed the entirety of my New Climate Model.

      Delete
  13. For the purposes of the theory and symbolic derivation I used the theoretical constructs and assumptions which are also in widespread use by climatologists, meteorologists, etc. which include the

    "Effective Radiating Temperature" is assumed to be the temperature of a blackbody radiating an average flux ~239-240 W/m2

    "Effective Radiating Level" is assumed to be the average isotherm in the troposphere where the "Effective Radiating Temperature" is the average global outgoing flux of ~239-240 W/m2. The average isotherms above the effective radiating level are radiating less flux and have a lower temperature than 255K, and the average isotherms below the effective radiating level are radiating more flux and all have a higher temperature than 255K, as is clearly shown by the molecular temperature profile above.

    I know you cannot properly average temperatures, but for illustrative purposes only,

    Ts = 288K = temperature at the surface
    Tt = 220K = temperature at the tropopause

    (288 + 220)/2 = 254 ~ 255K = equilibrium temperature with the Sun (which as noted above is a function of the flux assuming a blackbody by SB law)

    And the 1976 US Std Atmosphere data tables and calculator show that at 5100 meters altitude where the ERL by the definition above is located, the T = 255K the "equilibrium temperature" with the Sun as defined above, and the pressure at that same altitude is 0.5206049 atmospheres ~ 1/2 of surface pressure by definition 1 atmosphere at the latitude of Paris France, and as predicted by the center of mass theory (explained in the post)

    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/

    Assuming a constant Cp, the lapse rate at each atmospheric level is a linear function of gravity/Cp, so we know the slope of the lapse rate and therefore just need to calculate one (x,y) coordinate now to determine the linear temperature gradient of the troposphere.

    By "triangulating" the one and only geopotential height where all three of these must converge (as I annotated in the second figure above) located at the center of mass where the gravitational PE = 1/2 gravitational PE at the top of the entire atmosphere, where 1/2 of atmospheric mass is pushing down only from above, where the gravitational force (F=ma=mg for the entire atmosphere) at that geopotential height is F = (1/2m)g, where the barometric formulae calculate P = 1/2 surface pressure = 1/2 atmosphere units, and where the calculated Te with the Sun = 255K must be as well if the gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct.

    Thus, we can calculate the one and only geopotential height where all of these constants must converge, which must also be a point along the lapse rate we determined also from constants.

    Thus by calculating this point, and knowing the slope of the line, we can simply extend the linear lapse rate line up to the top of the troposphere and down from this same point to the surface, thereby determining the surface temperature and entire temperature gradient of the troposphere. This is what the greenhouse equation does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my comment immediately above should say

      Tt = 220K = temperature at the top of the troposphere ~10,500 meters (219.9 by US Standard Atmosphere), where the tropospheric adiabatic lapse rate ends because the atmosphere is too thin above that point (P < ~0.24 atmospheres by US Standard Atmosphere) to sustain convection/lapse rate

      Delete
  14. This is what we are up against from a poster at Tallbloke's Talkshop:

    "Stephen 12:16am: On US Standard Atm. 1976: “There is no denying those 241 pages of thoroughly worked out and observationally authenticated data.”

    The paper itself denies this in the Foreward. Stephen should actually read this stuff before commenting.

    Pg. xiv: “…this U.S. Standard Atmosphere…is as follows: “…A hypothetical vertical distribution of atmosphere temperature, pressure, and density…”

    Sure, the eqn. agreed to and adopted by fiat “is roughly representative of year-round mid-latitude conditions.” One has to realize the surface (0m) temperature 288.15K was determined by a committee. As was the lapse rate. The HS eqn. in top post is for hypothetical atm. not the actual atmosphere."

    He is obviously completely oblivious to the flatness of the snow line on mountains even in stormy conditions and the need for precision in aeronautics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MS your finding about CO2 and CH4 I have mentioned for a long time. My findings comes from knowledge and experience with heat transfer. I know about the lapse rate and Cp but have not worked it through the way of the standard atmosphere. I would like to down load the book and read through it. The link does not seem to work -it just gives a blank page. 10 Mb should download in a few minutes at most. When I download a pdf file it normally opens in the Acrobat reader- sometimes it opens on the web page and then I click the download it is immediately there in the reader.
    At the bottom of your post I can turn the pages to read the book but highlighting and download does not work.
    Re methane - have a look at the post on my poor blog. The 20* CO2 is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi cementafriend, here's the uploaded pdf link of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B74u5vgGLaWoNnlXUjlBSGl5U1k&authuser=0

      Delete
    2. Thanks that worked. Here is the link to my post on methane https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/
      keep up the good work. Happy Christmas

      Delete
  16. GCR cosmic radiation produces radioactive carbon in the stratosphere. This can cause a sudden rise in temperature in the stratosphere in the winter. The carbon reacts with oxygen immediately. Thus, during low solar activity must be more 14CO2 in the stratosphere. This growth is driven by the local magnetic field of the Earth.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t05_nh_f00.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first two absorption bands of CO 2 is approx. 2μm and 2,8μm (Figure 2). The radiation emitted by the sun. The earth does not emit waves in this regard. Absorbing agents reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface in these bands, which play a role similar to ozone and ultraviolet absorber that protects the earth from the excess of the issue. The amount of energy that can absorb CO 2 in these areas can be estimated at about 4% of the total capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
      Another extent of absorption of CO 2 4 - 4,5μm. Earth emits a minimal amount of radiation. These are the waves on the boundary frequency emitted by the surface of the planet. In part this goes beyond the scope of the issue of the Earth. The graphs showing the amount of radiation emitted by the Earth, we see an almost horizontal line by selecting the energy of the emission wavelength. In this band the carbon dioxide absorbs about 8% of the total amount of infrared which is able to absorb. Due to the fact that the absorption in this band is only a fraction of CO 2 absorption capacity, as well as itself is extremely small infrared emission at this frequency can not be regarded as meaning that the absorption climate because it is the interaction is too little, and maybe even trace.
      Fourth clearly marked on the said plot (Figure 2), the absorption band, the scope of the largest infrared absorption by carbon dioxide. It includes a wavelength of about 14μm to 18μm, so it is very large, and in addition to a large amount of radiation - in this field is absorbed approx. 88% of the total absorbed by CO 2 radiation. Infrared absorption peak for CO 2 falls to about 15μm, as shown in the following figure (Figure 3). It was at this fairly large absorption band of environmentalists see their greatest source of influence on the climate. It does not surprise me personally, because they have to search some data in support of their theory. It seems that this is evidence - infrared absorption band of high, but again, this is evidence of perverse. What matters is not the amount of radiation in fact, but its quality, that is the real power of influence. We are dealing here with high radiation wavelength, and the greater the wavelength, the lower the energy. By means of such radiation will not change in any significant way the temperature of the reasons why these wavelengths are not applicable in heating. There frequencies used bordering with visible light (from 0,78μm) and slightly larger wavelength, but those larger than 10μm did not play the role here (although they are present there, because of infrared filaments emit large range of wavelengths). Commissioned by the atmosphere part of such radiation is certainly not lead to a significant increase in the Earth's surface temperature and will not increase the average temperature of the atmosphere.
      https://translate.google.pl/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fekotest.republika.pl%2FEfekt%2520cieplarniany%2520-%2520krytyka%2520i%2520dyskusja%2520strona%25201.html&edit-text=

      Delete
  17. "What they discovered was a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. These events typically occur every other year and at random, they said. Consequently, the cosmic-ray data revealed in this latest study can be used to effectively identify these events."
    http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/30377_en.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. I like that new approach and it has a lot of merit. I just do not understand the ERL.
    If the atmosphere had a lot of active gasses (infrared active) it makes sense, but it becomes meaningless when these gasses are abundant or not at all present. Like the content of H2O from 5000km and up or with a pure N2 atmosphere. What does it mean to the ERL that the atmospheric window lets radiation from ground escape to space without attenuation (clear sky)?
    You have to incorporate clouds, the attenuation and real radiation by the GHG gasses to make a consistent theory.
    Gravitation can not supply an ever lasting energy input indefinitely without the earth evaporating out in space. A sinking parcel of air gets heated by the gravitation (pressure rise) but the same amount of air must rise and cool.

    ReplyDelete
  19. When you talk about adiabatic rising and falling of air parcels somehow forming the gravity-induced gradient you appear to forget that adiabatic processes do not involve new solar energy. Yet the planets warm by day and cool by night. So you are not explaining the necessary sensible heat transfer into the surface from the atmosphere. What you describe would happen with or without a Sun. But at least you understand that planetary temperatures have something to do with gravity, not back radiation or direct solar radiation to the surface.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, I'm not sure who you're referring to, but my model shows solar heating is necessary to inflate the atmosphere which would then boil off without accumulating gravitational PE for rising air packets and then gravity pulling those cooled packets back to Earth. In the 1st Law:

      dU =0 = Q- W
      Q = -W

      Most of the Sun's heat is lost by the atmosphere cooling back to space (about 98%), the other 2% is lost to the Work done =(-W) on the atmospheric air masses moving them around & expanding/compressing. The atmosphere in effect a very inefficient Carnot heat cycle engine and does not "trap" the 2% is used up by the Work done on the atmosphere by the Sun's heat.

      I liked you comment below and it's a good intro to a post I was going to do about the atmospheric Carnot engine, so I hope you don't mind if I elevate the comment to a post, as we are in agreement. Thanks

      Delete
    2. The radiative imbalance at top of atmosphere is nearly always within 0.4% and so there is no scope for as much as 2% to be "used up in the work done on the atmosphere." You are welcome to use the comment "To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface" in a post.

      Delete
  20.  

    To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface:

    Firstly, you need to understand how and why gravity forms a density gradient. Why don't molecules keep on falling? The answer lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve. When such equilibrium evolves it has maximum entropy, and that means there are no unbalanced energy potentials and so no further net movement of energy or matter across any internal boundary in, for example, a column of air.

    This happens when molecules tend towards having the same kinetic energy when they collide. This is why temperatures even out in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy is the same for all. However, in a vertical plane molecules with downward components in their velocity gain kinetic energy between collisions. But when they next collide they must have the same kinetic energy as the one they collide with at a lower level.

    So this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a temperature gradient because molecules at lower levels have greater kinetic energy in order to maintain the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    You should never confuse this state with an isothermal state which evolves only in a horizontal plane. Likewise, the corollary of the Second Law that heat transfer is always from hot to cold also applies only in a horizontal plane.

    This is a critical point, because when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet's troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface.

    This then is the extra energy which James Hansen thought had to be explained by back radiation. It is very obvious on Venus that such extra energy is required to warm its surface (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit hours, but it also happens some of the time on Earth, because solar radiation does not fully explain our mean surface temperatures either.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On reflection, I would rather that the 4:06pm comment stand alone as a post. Personally I don't subscribe to the concept of "pockets" of air because there is nothing to hold them together and molecules will in fact cross any imagined boundary in all directions.

    There is no need for this concept of Maxwell's because Loschmidt said it all by explaining that the gradient forms in solids, liquids and gases at the molecular level. You won't get "pockets" in solids, but if Loschmidt were wrong about solids then the core of the Moon would be cold, not hundreds of degrees hotter than the surface. Also, convection is always a heat transfer mechanism. When the upper atmosphere of Venus is warmed by the Sun after the Venus dawn then heat transfer starts to occur downwards and even into the hotter surface by the mechanism that involves restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, as explained in my 4:06pm comment.

    Convection is driven by newly absorbed energy (such as when Earth's surface is heated by the Sun in the tropics) and without new energy the whole column of air just remains in a static state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a gravity-induced temperature gradient reduced a little by the temperature-levelling effect of radiation. This equilibrium state requires no energy input. It is often observed in calm conditions before dawn when convection stops but the temperature gradient remains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply used air packets/pockets/balloons, etc just for illustrative purposes for most people unfamiliar with adiabatic processes. Of course I know the underlying process is really as you described, but too much detail to rise in this introductory post.

      Delete
  22. Is Alex Hamilton actuall Doug Cotton?

    Doug is the only persn I know of who relies on downward movement of heat other than by reconversion of PE to KE in descending adiabatically warmed air and that seems to be what Alex is implying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you're probably right, he has multiple aliases I'm told so thanks for the heads up.
      Doug if that is you, please stop harassing me any further as requested.

      Delete
  23. Alex (Doug) said:

    "when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet's troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface."

    That suggests that warmer gas molecues descend through an atmosphere in order to heat the surface.

    In reality gas molecules always rise adiabatically when warmed by the surface below.

    If this is Doug then he is desperately trying to salvage his 'diffusion' process and going into extraorddinary contortions to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sea surface temperature depends on the insolation as seen in the graphic.
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/color_newdisp_sst_160W_95W_15N_65N_ophi0.png

    ReplyDelete