Thursday, July 2, 2015

New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have 'essentially no effect' upon global temperature or climate

A new paper by USC Professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. George Chilingar (with three co-authors), finds that increasing levels of the greenhouse gases CO2 & methane will have "essentially no effect" upon global temperatures or climate. 

The authors utilize a one-dimensional adiabatic model of climate to demonstrate that the entire tropospheric temperature profile of the atmosphere on both Earth and Venus may be mathematically derived solely on the basis of atmospheric pressure/mass and solar activity, confirmed by observations on both planets, despite vast differences in atmospheric composition and mass/pressure on Earth and Venus. The paper corroborates the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory and thereby excludes the alternative 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.

Excerpts:
"The writers investigated the greenhouse effect using their adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar radiation. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate warming. Moreover, based on the adiabatic model of heat transfer, the writers showed that additional releases of CO2 and CH4 lead to cooling (and not to warming as the proponents of the conventional theory of global warming state) of the Earth’s atmosphere. The additional methane releases possess a double cooling effect: First, they intensify convection in the lower layers of troposphere; Second, the methane together with associated water vapor intercept part of the infrared solar irradiation reaching the Earth. Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate."
Physically, an explanation of the cooling effect of the atmosphere with the high content of “greenhouse gases” is the high efficiency of the convective heat transfer from the planet’s surface to the lower stratosphere, from which this heat is rapidly dissipating into the outer space through radiation. As the greenhouse gases absorb the Earth’s heat radiation in the lower layers of troposphere, its energy transforms into the heat oscillations of the gas molecules. This, in turn, leads to expansion of the gas mixture and its rapid ascent to the stratosphere where the heat excess is lost through radiation into the outer space.  
To replace these volumes of the warm air, the already cooled air descends from the upper troposphere. As a result, the global average atmospheric temperature slightly decreases. One particular consequence of it is that with an increase in the carbon dioxide and methane contents in troposphere the convective mass exchange of the atmospheric gases must substantially accelerate. Thus, it is not out of the question that the intensification of synoptic processes in Earth troposphere (but not temperature increase) may be a result of the carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” accumulation."
The primary equation of the paper [2] is similar to the 'greenhouse equation' described in a recent series of posts on the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory. 

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 (after density correction), where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and ERL respectively.

The primary differences between Chilingar et al equation [2] and the 'greenhouse equation' are:

1. Chilingar et al introduce a correction for solar insolation based on the Earth's precession angle of 23.44 degrees 

2. Chilingar et al assume an Earth surface temperature of 288K or 15C, whereas the HS 'greenhouse equation' only assumes the equilibrium temperature of the Earth with the Sun (255K or -18C) & atmospheric mass/pressure to derive the surface temperature, as well as that of the entire troposphere, replicating the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. 

An upcoming post will join the mathematics of these two equations to explain the entire temperature profile of the atmosphere from the surface to the edge of space at 100+ km geopotential altitude, without incorporating 'radiative forcing' from CO2. 

 

42 comments:

  1. In focusing on the variability of adiabatic processes within convective overturning as the regulating feature of Earth's surface temperature they are confirming propositions that I have been promulgating throughout the blogosphere for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, agreed Stephen, keep strong!

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


    "An attempt is made to reconcile the diabatic and adiabatic processes within a planetary atmosphere and in doing so show how changes in the radiative characeristics of constituent molecules in an atmosphere might not have an effect on the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere and of the surface beneath it."

    Published by Stephen Wilde December 15, 2012

    ReplyDelete
  3. HaHaHa. What total nonsense. :-P

    From the Chilingar paper that this post cites:

    "The conventional anthropogenic theory (backed and promoted by IPCC and other national and international organizations over the last 25 years) completely ignores the main physical phenomena of the heat transfer in the atmosphere. In particular, it assumes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs EXCLUSIVELY by radiation."

    Totally and utterly wrong!

    Convection (and evapotranspiration) is a fundamental part of the understanding of the GH Effect, going back to E.O. Hulbert in 1931. Without convection in the atmosphere there is no GH effect because the Lapse Rate is required to generate the vertical temperature profile needed for the GH effect to work. And the Lapse Rate is created by convective mixing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to have missed the word ANTHROPOGENIC in the first sentence. The authors are absolutely correct that the conventional ANTHROPOGENIC i.e. Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory DOES only consider "radiative forcing" from GHGs as the control knob of Earth's climate, failing to recognize that CONVECTION dominates over the radiative-convective equilibrium of the troposphere. Any increase in "radiative forcing" is easily overcome by negative-feedback compensatory increases in convection, evaporation, and latent heat transfer by water vapor to the tropopause.

      If you had bothered to read the whole paper, you would have discovered that the authors calculated (pg 823-824) that the relative contributions to heat transfer in the troposphere are convection: 66.55%, water vapor condensation: 24.9% and RADIATION from GHGs only 8.51%. RADIATION is the tail that cannot wag the dog of compensatory negative lapse rate feedback convection & water vapor condensation.

      "Without convection in the atmosphere there is no GH effect because the Lapse Rate is required to generate the vertical temperature profile needed for the GH effect to work. And the Lapse Rate is created by convective mixing."

      Duh. If you had bothered to look at the links to the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot 33C atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse effect above, as well as the link to the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above, you will find that the "greenhouse effect" or tropospheric temperature gradient from 220K to 288K is due to atmospheric mass/pressure/heat capacity which drives convection, the lapse rate and the TRUE GRAVITOTHERMAL greenhouse effect, which has nothing to do with concentrations of the trace gas CO2.

      Lapse rate = dT/dh = -g/Cp

      has NO terms for radiative forcing whatsoever. Read the whole paper to learn why greenhouse gases ACCELERATE convection to cool the surface. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is one-half the dry rate, proving that water vapor has a negative-feedback cooling effect upon the surface.

      Delete
    2. MS

      If you think about the Lapse Rate it defines relative temperatures in the air column - altitude X is Y degrees different from altitude Y. But it does not 'set' the ABSOLUTE temperature; something has to anchor the temperature profile then convection and the Lapse Rate then sets temperatures at different altitudes RELATIVE to that 'anchor'

      What sets the absolute temperature is the radiative balance for the planet - solar energy absorbed must, when every thing is in equilibrium, equal radiation out to space. So the Earth at equilibrium will radiate to space as a body that on average matches the appropriate temperature based on the Stefan-Boltzmann eqn: -18 Deg C

      Obviously the Earth's surface isn't that cold. But most of the IR radiation escaping to space doesn't originate at the surface, it is radiated from higher in the atmosphere. Although the IR radiation escaping to space comes from different altitudes for different wavelengths, from the mid-troposphere to the upper stratosphere, the average height at which emissions to space originate is around 5 kms up.

      Do the math, 5 km's at around -6.5 Deg C per kilometer is a temperature difference between the surface and the 5 km layer of around -33 Deg C. The 5 km layer is at about -18 Deg C. Spot on.

      What has the concentration of GH gases got to do with this. It is their concentrations that determine WHAT that altitude is. Increase the concentration of GH gases and the average altitude that radiation to space originates from increases. Because their concentration determines how thin the air needs to be before radiation to space can occur.

      So if increasing GH gas concentrations increased the average altitude at which radiation to space originates to, lets say 5.5 km, that would be a level in the atmosphere that is around 3.25 Deg C colder. Less radiation gets out to space as a consequence and the system is not in balance. The balance is restored when the 5.5 km level has warmed by 3.25 Deg C. And convective mixing and the Lapse Rate then propagates that temperature change so that the entire air column warms by 3.25 Deg C (this is keeping it simple, ignoring some other factors including that the Lapse Rate will actually change a little).

      - Radiative Balance anchors one single altitude in the the atmospheric column to a fixed absolute temperature (-18 C)
      - GH Gas concentrations set what that altitude will be.
      - Lapse Rate and convective processes drive RELATIVE temperatures in the atmospheric column.

      So your closing paragraph is largely correct. The Lapse Rate in the absence of evaporation is around -9.8 C/km, the wet adiabatic rate is around -5 deg C/km, and the actual environmental Lapse Rate is a hybrid of these at. at -6.5.

      All basic Meteorology 101, well understood for a very, very long time, and an integral part of the understanding of the GH effect. The reason there is no radiative component to the Lapse Rate calculation is that radiative processes don't determine the Lapse Rate. Radiative processes determine the effective emission altitude.

      Those figures you quote for "...the relative contributions to heat transfer IN the troposphere..." sound about right. Radiation is a very poor heat transfer mechanism WITHIN the troposphere - convective and condensation effects dominate. Try Googling Radiative Diffusion.

      to be continued...

      Delete
    3. Part 2... [stupid character count limits :-( ]

      In contrast radiation is the dominant heat transfer mechanisms INTO and OUT of the atmosphere. Around 80% of the heat transfer from the surface into the atmosphere is via radiation. and 100% of the heat transfer from the atmosphere out to space is radiation.

      Radiative processes dominate heat flows in to and out of the atmosphere but convective processes dominate heat flows within the atmosphere. And radiative absorption/emission processes determine the altitude at which emission to space occurs.

      And all of this has been known for a very long time (well over 1/2 a century) and is the basis of all climate modelling and projections of climate change.

      As to your reference to Arhenius, his original work laid the foundations but did not include any convective/evaporative aspects and was an incomplete theory.

      E O Hulbert in 1931 was the first person to attempt the inclusion of convection into the theory. But most of the work building a complete model of the GH effect including convection, evapotranspiration, Lapse Rate, etc was performed during the 50's and 60's as computer power made the first calculations possible.

      So from your opening paragraph: "The authors are absolutely correct that the conventional ANTHROPOGENIC i.e. Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory DOES only consider "radiative forcing" from GHGs as the control knob of Earth's climate, failing to recognize that CONVECTION dominates over the radiative-convective equilibrium of the troposphere.". You, and they are totally wrong.

      Current GH theory isn't the theory of Arhenius, that was an early first cut at a theory. Current GH theory does totally include radiative, convective and evaporative aspects. The authors are wrong, not in the idea that GH theory ignores these other aspects when it should include them, they are wrong in that GH theory DOES include them and their statement is incorrect.

      They are criticizing a non-existant theory. A Radiation only GH theory. That hasn't been the theory of the GH effect for nearly a century!

      Also Arhenius's early work didn't really relate to any Anthropogenic aspect. The main interest back then was in understanding what drove the Ice Age cycles. A recognition that human induced changes in GH gas concentrations might influence the climate was only taken reasonably seriously from around the late 50's.

      Delete
    4. "If you think about the Lapse Rate it defines relative temperatures in the air column - altitude X is Y degrees different from altitude Y. But it does not 'set' the ABSOLUTE temperature; something has to anchor the temperature profile then convection and the Lapse Rate then sets temperatures at different altitudes RELATIVE to that 'anchor'"

      Correct, but the 'anchor' is NOT concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is the center of mass of the atmosphere which is located at 5km & P=0.5atm, the same location of the ERL and where T=255K=equilibrium temperature of the Sun. I have derived all of this mathematically from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's Second Law, and solar insolation (the only radiative forcing in the equation) to derive the 'greenhouse equation' above (and simplified versions). There are no terms in this equation for GHG 'radiative forcing,' yet this equation perfectly replicates the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, which continues to be the gold standard and verified with millions of observations. The equation perfectly replicates the tropospheric temperature profile solely on the basis of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure/heat capacity and solar insolation, without knowing the surface temperature in advance, and without any GHG "forcing."

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=center+mass+greenhouse
      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=Maxwell+greenhouse+equation

      I have mathematically proven from these basic physics that the center of mass of the entire atmosphere at 5km, 0.5 atm IS the "anchor" of the lapse rate and location of the ERL where Th=Te=255K=-18C, and is NOT determined or in any way dependent upon "radiative forcing" from GHGs. Please review the derivation in the posts above.

      Lapse rate = dT/dh = -g/Cp

      Note dT is INVERSELY related to heat capacity at constant pressure Cp of the atmosphere. GHGs INCREASE Cp, therefore DECREASE temperatures to cool the surface, troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere.

      Please read the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document I linked to in the post. The hundreds of rocket and atmospheric scientists who worked on this massive project never once used ANY radiative forcing calculations whatsoever to mathematically derive a computer model of atmospheric temperatures from the surface to the edge of space, and in fact, completely excluded CO2 from any consideration since it insignificantly contributes to atmospheric mass or heat capacity. Explain why that is if your radiative theory is correct.

      Those figures you quote for "...the relative contributions to heat transfer IN the troposphere..." sound about right. Radiation is a very poor heat transfer mechanism WITHIN the troposphere - convective and condensation effects dominate.

      Exactly, and that only serves to prove my point above that any change in the tiny contribution from GHG radiative forcing to 'blocking' heat transfer in the troposphere (8.51%) will easily be counteracted and erased by negative-feedback from the other non-radiative dominant (91.5%) processes of convection and WV condensation. The climate models DO NOT assume that convection & condensation dominate radiative-convective equilibrium of the troposphere and falsely assume temperature is a 1:1 function of RF from CO2. See 10th slide in this post showing 1:1 relationship:

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

      Delete
    5. Note my first sentence above should have read "Correct, but the 'anchor' is NOT concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is the center of mass of the atmosphere which is located at 5km & P=0.5atm, the same location of the ERL and where T=255K=equilibrium temperature with the Sun."

      Delete
    6. There are several things wrong with your mass/gravity arguments.

      Pressure in a gas isn't the 'weight' of the molecules above. In a solid and to a reasonable extent liquids, direct contiguous contact between molecules provides a mechanical means of transmitting forces from above so a lower level can actually experience forces transmitted as a result of the weight from above.

      For a gas the molecules are not in contact with each other most of the time; they spend the majority of their time moving through space in isolation and only a small percentage of their time colliding with each other or a surface if there is one in the way.

      For a gas pressure as measured by a surface exposed to the gas is due to impacts and rebound. Individual molecules impact the surface and rebound like billiard balls bouncing of the side cushion. Forces are transferred due to these impacts.

      So the question then becomes how much force is transmitted. And this depends on the Kinetic Energy of the molecules - if they have more kinetic energy for the same number of molecules the pressure is higher.

      Next your calculation method for determining the center of mass of the atmosphere is incorrect. The value you need to work with is density, not pressure. Your Center of Mass is that altitude where the area under the Density vs Altitude curve for all altitudes above is 1/2 of the total mass of the air column. Using the estimated mass of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface area,the mass of your air column is

      5.148 10^18 kg / 5.10 10^14 m^2 = 10,098 kg/m^2

      You are making a hash of understanding the Ideal Gas Law. Remember that in any equation, the term on the right leads to the term on the left. So the Ideal Gas Law would read as:

      'A quantity of molecules N, at a temperature T with a proportionality constant R causes a pressure P in a volume V'. If V is halved for the same N & T, pressure is doubled. This is intuitively simple - if the volume is smaller for the same number of molecules, more collisions will occur per unit surface area of the volume and the pressure is higher.

      So what about T. Why is it relevent? Because of the Thermodynamic definition of Temperature. The kinetic energy of a molecule is proportional to the temperature:

      "The equipartition theorem of kinetic theory asserts that each classical degree of freedom of a freely moving particle has an average kinetic energy of kBT/2 where kB denotes Boltzmann's constant. The translational motion of the particle has three degrees of freedom, so that, except at very low temperatures where quantum effects predominate, the average TRANSLATIONAL KINETIC ENERGY of a freely moving particle in a system with temperature T will be 3kBT/2." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Kinetic_theory_approach_to_temperature

      So the temperature of a gas is proportional to the total kinetic energy of it's constituent molecules. Thus why the PV relationship is proportional to temperature.

      The Ideal Gas Law could be restated as 'N molecules at an average kinetic energy E will produce a pressure P in a volume V according to some constant of proportionality.

      to be continued...

      Delete
    7. Part 2...

      The question then is; what causes the molecules to have that kinetic energy? And it can't just be gravity. Exchange between KE and PE will certainly cause molecules higher up to have lower KE and thus be cooler. But this still doesn't explain the average value of their KE. Just as easily the average KE could be 1/2. Temperature would be halved, pressure would be lower, but altitude change would still produce your vertical KE/PE effect. And the 2nd Law applies so this gravity system would slowly lose energy and wind down, cooling. Your gravity effect cannot maintain the total energy content of the atmosphere, only shape it's vertical distribution.

      So some source of external energy must maintain the total amount of energy in the system. And that isn't impacted by gravity. We know what that source is - energy flows into the atmosphere from absorbed solar radiation, absorbed IR radiation from the surface, and energy flows due to evapotranspiration and convection. And energy flows out of the atmosphere system due to IR Radiation to space and IR Radiation back to the surface. It is the balance of these flows that determines the energy content of the atmosphere.

      WRT you comment about the US Standard Atmosphere, the calculation doesn't produce the entire atmospheric profile from basic principles. It takes as a starting point various key values that are used as constants, inputs into the calculation, including particularly sea level temperature and pressure. It can then calculate the various values for other levels. As I have said previously, this is a RELATIVE calculation. They do not derive WHY sea level temperature has the value it has. They take it as a given.

      And the US SA also takes Lapse Rate as an input rather than calculating it. And you didn't mention the fact that layers above the Troposphere behave quite differently. At those altitudes your gravitational model breaks down because now radiative effects are the dominant factor determining the size of the energy pool at those heights. And above the Tropopause convection is supressed, condensation has ceased and radiative effects dominate. And this is included in the models - they model the atmosphere up well into the Mesosphere.

      Delete
    8. Your arguments once again consist of false claims regarding the derivation of the 'greenhouse equation', the center of mass of the atmosphere, the role of GHG radiative forcing in anchoring the lapse rate (which is NONE), and consist of high-school-level straw man arguments, and a whole lot of words devoid of any actual mathematics. The ONLY radiative forcing that "anchors" the lapse rate IS radiative forcing and the equilibrium temperature with the SUN, not from greenhouse gases, and that anchor point is located right at the center of mass of the atmosphere where T=Te=255K=-18C, the equilibrium temperature of the Earth with the Sun. You and your 'colleagues' at the 'Skeptical Science' propaganda site seem to think it's just a complete coincidence that the ERL where T=Te=255K happens to be located EXACTLY at the center of mass of the entire atmosphere at ~5.1km geopotential altitude.

      Further, your claim that I only used pressure, not density, in calculating the center of mass (COM) of the atmosphere is absolutely FALSE. Did you read in the legend above which clearly states,

      Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere (after density correction), where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and ERL respectively.

      Why do you think the LOG(P/2) and LOG(e) are in that equation? Hint: it is to correct for DENSITY:

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/quick-and-dirty-explanation-of.html

      Next, you absurdly claim I don't account for the ONLY source of energy & radiative forcing- the SUN! Do you see the Solar Constant (S) used in the 'greenhouse equation' TWICE??

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/quick-and-dirty-explanation-of.html

      Of course, without the ONLY energy source the Sun the atmosphere would completely collapse to the surface and there would be no kinetic energy to inflate the atmosphere, no convection, and no gravito-thermal GHE. GHGs are merely passive IR radiators which increase the radiative surface area of the atmosphere to COOL the atmosphere (just like a heat sink does on your microprocessor by increasing radiative surface area and convection). Another complete straw man argument shot down.

      Delete
    9. Next, you falsely claim the 1976 US Std Atm doesn't produce the temperature profiles from "basic principles.”

      Did you not read the 50 pages of “basic principles” in the US Std Atm document? You really should take a look since it is an absolute goldmine of basic physic and basic barometric principles that prove the temperature profile of the entire atmosphere can be calculated from basic principles. While it is true that they assumed the surface temperature was 15C, as they point out, they HAD to do so because by international agreement, the official global avg surface temperature is fixed and defined as 15C!

      Using these same basic physics known since the late 1800's including the 1st law, Newton's 2nd law, the gravitational constant, Cp, COM of the atmosphere, & the barometric formulas plus the equilibrium temp with the Sun, the 'greenhouse equation' exactly reproduces the 1796 Std Atm tropospheric profile, WITHOUT assuming the lapse rate or the surface temperature.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation-predicts.html

      The only concept I have added to the US Std Atm ‘basic principles” is that center of mass is what ‘anchors’ the lapse rate, entirely proven from basic mathematical & physical principles in the posts linked above.

      As I've pointed out on this blog a million times, convection cannot be sustained above P < 0.1-0.2 atm (and see link to Robinson & Catling Nature 2014 confirming this is true on all planet in our solar system with thick atmospheres) and thereafter radiation from GHGs takes over to COOL, not warm, the planet. As Chilingar et al have demonstrated in the paper above (and others), a planet with a pure N2/O2 atm without GHGs would be WARMER, not colder.

      Further, as demonstrated in US Std Atm figure 1.3.12, the dynamic viscosity of the atmosphere accurately reproduces the temperature profile from the surface to the edge of space, and the Kinematic viscosity (ratio of dynamic viscosity to density of the gases at each geopotential altitude) is a LINEAR function all the way from the surface to space. Neither dynamic nor kinematic viscosity are functions of GHG "radiative forcing.”

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-atmospheric-temperature-is-linear.html

      The 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal GHE completely explains the temperature profile from the surface to space, without any “radiative forcing” from GHGs.

      Game over for CAGW.

      Delete
    10. "Did you not read the 50 pages of “basic principles” in the US Std Atm document?" Yes

      "You really should take a look since it is an absolute goldmine of basic physic and basic barometric principles that prove the temperature profile of the entire atmosphere can be calculated from basic principles." No it doesn't!

      In section 1.2.5 (eqn 22) Tm = T * (M0/M) they define a 'molecular-scale temperature' as an adjustment for differences in average molecular weight of the air. However section 1.2.6 spells out that M = M0 for all altitdes below 86 km, which includes everything altitude we are interested in. So Tm = T for the altitudes we are interested in.

      Later parts of 1.2.5, th first few paragraphs on page 10 describe how temperature is defined as a linear function of geopotential height. Eqn 22 gives this:
      Tm = Tm,b + Lm,b *(H - Hb)

      b is the level number, in the case we are interested the first level, zero. Tm,0 is the thus the 'molecular-scale temperature' for the base of level zero - sea level. And since Tm = T below 86 km, Tm,0 is actually T0. As the state in the text 288.15 K

      Lm,b is the vertical temperature gradient for level b. The values for Lm,b each level are given in Table 4 on page 3. For level zero from sea level up to 11 kms Lm,0 is -6.5 K.

      So eqn 23 then has the familiar form Tm = 288.15 -6.5*(H-0)

      Notes.

      Lm,b is defined in table 4 but it is not derived anywhere in the document because it can't be. We can calculate the dry and saturated Lapse Rates frommtheory but we can only determine the actual environmental Lapse Rate from observation.

      Similarly To is defined as 288.15 K in section B of table 2. To is not calculated from first principles anywhere in the document because it can't be.

      You comment that they adopted 288.15 K to conform to international standards. True, although your assertion hat this was in some way forced is dubious. They could equally however have used some other value, perhaps derived perhaps from an independent set of observations. This might have given a value of 287.78 or 288.62 or something.

      However, and this is critical, this was a choice about WHAT VALUE TO USE for T0. It was not that T0 could in some way be derived from first principles. Nothing, I repeat nothing, in the document offers any argument for deriving T0 from basic physics because that is impossible. T0 (or any basic reference temperature cannot be derived. It must be treated as a constant input into the calculation ad spelled out in Table 2B and the associated discussion.

      They have not derived the atmospheric column from basic physics because you can't. They have included observational data for T0 and Lm,0.

      They have not derived an 'anchor' from first principles since you can't. Additional information is required.

      Delete
    11. Lets try your calculation approach for Venus.
      Cp is 850, g is 8.87

      So the dry Adiabatic Lapse rate -g/Cp is -10.45 K/km, slightly higher than on Earth. And since Venus is too hot for condensation to occur (and there is very little water) the environmental lapse rate will be very close to the dry adiabatic lapse rate.

      Surface pressure is around 92 bar
      In fact pressure vs height is approximately:

      Height (km) Pressure (bar)
      0 92.1
      5 66.65
      10 47.39
      15 33.04
      20 22.52
      25 14.93
      30 9.85

      So 1/2 surface pressure is at around just over 10 km.

      Surface temperature is around 740K so in round numbers that gives us roughly 100 -110 K cooler at the 50% pressure level, approximately the centre of mass by your method - where you expect the ERL to occur.

      What is the equilibrium temperature of Venus?

      It is closer to the Sun at only 0.723 the distance from the Earth so solar intensity is 1.91 wht it is on Earth. However Albedo is higher. Much higher.

      The Bond Albedo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo) is the correct value to be used to determine what percentage of the power in light an astronomical body reflects or scatters. For Earth it is 0.306 while for Venus it is a whapping 0.9 - that's why Venus is so bright in the sky, it reflects so much.

      So the amount of sunlight absorbed by Venus compared to the Earth is 1.91 * (1-0.9)/(1-0.306) = 0.275 of what the Earth absorbs.

      So the equilibrium temperature of Venus is the 4th root of 0.275 times that of Earth = 185 K

      So by your argument your centre of mass level should be at 185 K. It is actually at around 630 K! Rather radically wrong don't you think?

      In contrast the effective emission level based on calculation from radiative theory requires the pressure to be less than around .25 bar before any radiation escapes to space with the average altitude for ERL somewhat higher. More than 50 km. For a back of an envelope calculation lets say 52 km.

      So 740 - (10.45 * 50) = 197 K. There is some inaccuracy in the exact albedo of Venus, it's exact lapse rate, its exact ERL. But as ball park figures the GH/Radiative answer is in the ball park. Your Centre of Mass version is out by 100's of degrees.

      Delete
    12. They have not derived an 'anchor' from first principles since you can't. Additional information is required.

      Are you conflating the 3 different papers/works on purpose, or do you just not understand that I’ve already pointed out now several times that the US Std Atm HAD to use 15C by international agreement as the ‘anchor’ point, BUT that my contribution was to show that the 1976 Std Atm can be replicated by using the center of mass of the entire atmospheric as the anchor for the LR WITHOUT any advance knowledge of the surface temperature OR lapse rate. That is what the HS ‘greenhouse equation’ does. I have linked to the step by step mathematical derivation of the COM as the anchor point for the tropospheric lapse rate, using only the 1st LoT, Newtons 2nd Law of Motion F=ma=mg, the ratio of specific heats, & the barometric formulas.

      Please read-up on why the center of mass (COM) is used with Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion (which is integral to the derivation of the ‘greenhouse equation’) for a system of particles (i.e. the atmosphere):

      http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_sp01/Notes/Chap10.htm

      At this point, I’m not continuing to go around and around with you as to why the center of mass of a system of particles is crucial to the basic physics of Newton’s 2nd Law, and that Newton’s 2nd Law F=ma=mg is crucial to the derivation of the barometric formulas, adiabatic processes, the greenhouse equation, etc. etc.

      Therefore, either prove I made a mathematical error somewhere in applying this center of mass concept to basic atmospheric physics or stop wasting my time conflating/confusing the works of the US Std Atm, the HS, and Chilingar (and others) all of which corroborate the basic gravito-thermal GHE using partly dependent and partly independent means.

      In addition, I’m still waiting on an answer to several questions to you above that you have carefully avoided, including an explanation from you why the 50 pages of the US Std Atm “basic principles” completely excluded concentrations of the trace gas CO2.

      Delete
    13. Next, you claim the gravito-thermal GHE and ‘greenhouse equation’ do not apply to Venus. I have already discussed this many times on the blog. Venus, as you know, is a unique planet in our solar system with a dense/opaque cloud cover at the TOA. Some works have suggested that heat is even conducted downward from this cloud cover unique to Venus. Robinson & Catling Nature 2014 have also shown that convection on Venus is unique to all the other planets in our solar system in that convection and the lapse rate persists well beyond the point where P=0.1 atm, therefore this and the 92 bar pressure greatly extend the LR to warm the surface.

      http://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Robinson_Catling_2013_f1.png

      Also note from Robinson & Catling the tropospheric lapse rates on all of these planets with thick atmospheres are very close to the same rate despite vast differences in IR-active gases. Why is that?

      The Magellan mission shows that in the overlapping region of interest, and despite the vast differences in atmospheric mass/pressure/composition between Earth and Venus, the 1976 US Std Atm is remarkably close to the observed temperature profile of Venus:

      http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/02/venus-vs-earth-atmospheric-mass.html

      and a mere tweaking factor of 1.176 is all that needed to match the overlapping T?P profiles of the 2 atmospheres:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yZzvLOd9VgQ/TpgQEYqXijI/AAAAAAAAAEI/PP_qjMO7REU/s1600/venus%2Bearth%2Bcomparison.JPG

      Chilingar et al also show how the gravitothermal GHE explains the Venus temp profile, please read the whole paper.

      Triton is by far the closest Earth analogue in the solar system, and as I’ve already shown in prior posts, the center of mass of Triton atmosphere IS where the ERL and lapse rate 'anchor' in the Triton troposphere is located.

      I know, you think it’s just an incredible coincidence this is true for both Earth and the closest Earth analogue by far, Triton.


      Now, while we’re on the topic of other planets, explain why the base of the troposphere on Uranus is ~40C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth. Please show your work.

      Delete
  4. This may be of interest:

    http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

    The 'anchor' provided by mass and gravity is the point of hydrostatic balance where the upward pressure gradient force (from that 'extra' 33K of kinetic energy at the surface) matches the downward gravitational force.

    Any radiative imbalances are countered by convective adjustments - established science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Stephen for that useful link.

      Delete
    2. BTW I like the two diagrams near the end of that link which show air parcels of different buoyancies both converge with the lapse rate exactly at Ze, where the center of mass & "ERL" & equilibrium temperature with the Sun are all located.

      Delete
  5. Which journal has this paper been published in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's right at the top of the paper: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences

      Delete
  6. tiny bubbles in the Pepsi. You know that co2 boiling off of my soda keeps the drink cooler compared to a glass of water.
    Tested it out with an aquarium thermometer. We have bottled water next to the soda in the fridge.

    It's true on my countertop. Maybe one of you fellows would like to confirm my discovery?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confirmed on my countertop AND with beer! Good work.

      Delete
  7. Convection and evaporation continually move heat from the surface of the earth to higher regions of the atmosphere bypassing a significant portion of the greenhouse gas molecules and hence the greenhouse gas effect. Radiation is not the primary mechanism to move heat within the atmosphere. That assertion is consistent with basic atmospheric physics and is supported by hundreds of thousands of atmosphere temperature measurements over multiple decades.

    As one moves higher in the atmosphere there are more ions and there is evidence of significant free electrical charge both of which negates/limits the greenhouse gas effect. The greenhouse gas theory assumes no ions and it is assumed there is no free charge in the earth's atmosphere and in the solar system.

    The assertion that there is free electrical charge in the earth's atmosphere, the origin of that charge, and the reason for cyclic changes to that charge, is fundamental to solving the puzzle what causes cyclic abrupt climate change (glacier/interglacial cycle, what terminates/initiate the cycle) in the paleo record, in addition to correctly modeling radiation from the earth's atmosphere.

    There are multiple observations that support the assertion that there is a solar charge imbalance (the anomalous orientation of the Uranus and Neptune magnetic fields (both planets, I repeat both planets magnetic field is not aligned with the planetary rotation axis and offset from the center of both planets which is extraordinary) for example or the anomalous cyclic (which is extraordinary) very, very abrupt cyclic changes to the earth's magnetic field which correlates with cyclic abrupt climate change (Remember the burn marks on multiple continents that correlates with the Younger Dryas 11,900 yr BP abrupt cooling period, which correlates with a geomagnetic excursion), or the measured change in atomic decay rates that correlates with earth sun distance with a slight lag. The assertion that there is a solar charge imbalance is support by over a hundred different astronomical observations (paradoxes/anomalies in peer reviewed papers, known for almost two decades which are ultimately explained by charge imbalance) that there is quasar, stellar, and galaxy charge imbalance. The charge imbalance occurs due to a mechanism by which very large bodies resists/stop collapse. What forms when large bodies collapse is an active object that evolves with time. The fundamental physics implications of the mechanism by which large bodies resist collapse is fascinating and has practical implications.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Convection and evaporation continually move heat from the surface of the earth to higher regions of the atmosphere BECAUSE of the greenhouse gas molecules and hence the greenhouse gas effect [is a myth created by shysters to defraud the public] . Radiation is not the primary mechanism t

      There was a bit wrong in the above. I fixed the first sentence. You're on your own for the rest.

      Delete
    2. Convection and evaporation continually move heat from the surface to higher regions because of uneven surface heating leading to density variations in the horizontal plane at the surface. Nothing to do with GHGs.

      Delete
    3. GHGs are the vehicle of evaporation.

      Are you trolling me, or do have one of those mental tics that will never let you admit a mistake?

      Delete
    4. You are right, I should have just referred to convection.

      Water vapour being lighter than air doesn't need uneven surface heating. A typo on my part.

      Note that I am not the initial poster known as Anonymous. I was just commenting on your reply to him.

      Delete
  8. A pity that this thread has attracted such a way out idea as climate changes being primarily a consequence of electric charge variations.

    There is a tenuous link with changes in the magentic field in response to solar changes but there are many other possibilities for climate changes to occur at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Observations trump theory. Significant charge imbalance inhibits/limits the greenhouse gas effect. That is a scientific fact.

      There must be and is a physical explanation for everything that has and will happen. The general public is not aware that it is a fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record and even specialists are not aware that there are cyclic abrupt very, large, geomagnetic field changes that are ten times faster than possible for a core based change which correlate with the cyclic abrupt climate change events which is likely why $500 million was spent to put three real time geomagnetic field satellites into orbit.

      It is a fact that there are hundreds of astronomical observations/paradoxes that support charge imbalance.

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

      http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/full
      http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...than-expected/

      " Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. "

      Delete
    2. The paper this thread is discussing has demonstrated (as ICAN had already) that there is no 'green house effect'. Therefore, your argument that a charge imbalance inhibits/limits an effect that does not exist is a trifle moot.

      Delete
  9. " ... An upcoming post will join the mathematics of these two equations to explain the entire temperature profile of the atmosphere from the surface to the edge of space at 100+ km geopotential altitude, without incorporating 'radiative forcing' from CO2."

    I want you to know I am looking forward to that post. I really enjoyed the series you did on the greenhouse equation. ~ Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Mark, your support & many others including Stephen Wilde keeps me motivated. It's truly a shame that the basic physics of the atmosphere known since the late 1800's were forgotten and have to be revived over a century later.

      Delete
  10. Salby in one of his lectures eluded to an incorrect assumption that the IPCC had made concerning the troposphere and radiative forcing of lack of radiative forcing that has been made to increase the calculated greenhouse effect.

    I am looking at his text book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate to see if I can find the incorrect assumption.

    First he notes that due to convection there is no radiative 'equilibrium' in the troposphere and that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere which is consistent with the papers and calculations which we are discussing in this thread.

    Page 237
    "Radiative-convection equilibrium
    If air motion is accounted for, the conditions produced under radiative equilibrium cannot be maintained. Convection develops spontaneously, neutralizing the unstable stratification that has introduced by radiative transfer. ....

    Below a height ZT, thermal structure is controlled by convection overturning that is driven by radiative heating and its destabilization of the stratification.

    Except for ozone, the primary LW absorbers cool the atmosphere. Water vapor dominates LW cooling in the troposphere. Accounting for 80% to 90% of overall cooling, it leads to a globally averaged cooling rate of 2K/day."

    Next he explains the assumption that is made to calculate IPCC AGW forcing following the party line. If I understand what he has written the IPCC radiative forcing calculation at the tropopause is made with the assumption that there is no convection motion in the troposphere.

    Page 238
    "Because convection overturning operates on a time scale much shorter than radiative transfer, it drives stratification below ZT to neutral stability.

    ... This process maintains a uniform profile of equivalent potential temperature, ....
    For example, taking the height of the convection layer to equal the maximum height of instability under radiative equilibrium predicts one tropopause height. Taking the air temperature at z=0 to equal the surface temperature under radiative equilibrium leads to a different tropopause height.

    An alternative that circumvents ambiguities surrounding convection requires the convection layer to supply the same upward radiative flux at the tropopause as would be supplied under radiative equilibrium (Good and Yung, 1995). This formalism is tantamount that the stratosphere is unaffected by vertical motion below."

    A few pages later Salby quotes the IPCC table of Radiative Forcing of Climate values from IPCC (2007) which is the party line and then refers to the equations which use the Good and Yung incorrect assumption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, confirms models & IPCC fail to consider that convection + WV condensation dominate radiative-convective equilibrium of the troposphere

      Delete
  11. Section 4 of the paper contains errors see https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/ I will contact the author. However, that does not alter the conclusion that CO2 and CH4 have an unmeasurable effect on the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks cementafriend. I just tweeted a link to your post.

      BTW are you on twitter? Since we think alike, I'd love to have your help and comments on my tweets and those of ATTP, Gavin, etc.

      Delete
    2. Sorry MS, I avoid Twitter and Facebook. At one time thought LinkedIn maybe OK but have not had time to respond to invitations from others. I use email. You have my email and I will respond.

      Delete
  12. what a fantastic discussion. as someone who had a tremendous interest in physics as a youngster that was eventually beaten out of me (sometimes literally) i find this fascinating. seems it really is never too late to learn .

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's laughable how frequently the contrarian refer to the IPCC as if it were THE one, monolithic source of all climate science relevant to AGW. The propaganda has worked very well. The facts that the IPCC does no research (merely summarizes research from any and all sources) and relies almost exclusively on volunteers to do so are suppressed by the denial machine and the IPCC is deliberately portrayed as the top-down dictator of preconceived conclusions.

    BTW, this blog is named after a denial meme that the "hockey stick" is "broken" and a product of the "giant global science conspiracy". That meme would be dead as a door nail if the denial industry and community had any integrity at all. After all, the shape of the curve has been reproduced two dozen times with many data sets. The denial industry yammer on about one cherry-picked data set with long-known problems. Typical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you have a scientific point to offer Kyle?

      Delete