tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post1791322162826885079..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gasesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-85661998643876903472016-11-26T00:48:30.220-08:002016-11-26T00:48:30.220-08:00I think you are on the right track, but as far a V...I think you are on the right track, but as far a Venus not working out, well it's hard to apply something derived from the ideal gas laws to non-gases.<br />The surface of Venus basically has no gas at all, it really only has CO2 as a super-critical fluid.<br />For your formula to work, you need to apply it only to gases - I suggest only going down into Venus's atmosphere to the bottom of the gaseous envelope - not to the surface.<br />However, it's correct to say that Venus is not hot because of the GHE; how can greenhouse gases 'trap heat' and keep the surface warm all through the Venusian 58-day 'night' when there is no sun?<br />Less that 10% of the sun's energy reaches the surface anyway.<br />Dr Robert Ian Holmes (aka 1000Frolly)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17896869426219278823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6367074368751290052014-11-30T10:08:29.590-08:002014-11-30T10:08:29.590-08:00In the video shown here CO2 warming in the lower a...In the video shown here CO2 warming in the lower atmosphere is attributed to the following process: "....Near the Earth's surface, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation escaping Earth, but before it can radiate the energy to space, frequent collisions with other molecules in the dense lower atmosphere force the carbon dioxide to release energy as heat, thus warming the air.....". Does your model consider this?<br /> <br />http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/thermosphere.shtml<br /><br />tshAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62464301570885392372014-11-30T06:07:32.974-08:002014-11-30T06:07:32.974-08:00"If I may,
1) the tropopause is defined by t..."If I may,<br /><br />1) the tropopause is defined by temperature, not pressure. The tropopause is, on average, about twice as high at the equator than it is at the poles."<br /><br />"Please read Robinson & Catling Nature 2014. The whole point of that paper is to explain why the tropopause on all those planets is located at P=0.1bar, I.e. The height of the tropopause is set by pressure alone, not radiative forcing from GHGs. "<br /><br />OK...at first you disagree with me...then, here, you agree with me...that the tropopause height is 'not' fixed but varies with the surface temperature & is defined as a change in lapse rate which agrees with the WMO & AMS. Your web link confirms that. Please explain...which is it?<br /><br />Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-30399724365214351942014-11-30T05:56:53.479-08:002014-11-30T05:56:53.479-08:00"Please read Robinson & Catling Nature 20..."Please read Robinson & Catling Nature 2014. The whole point of that paper is to explain why the tropopause on all those planets is located at P=0.1bar, I.e. The height of the tropopause is set by pressure alone..."<br /><br />MS - Thanks, but I'm not going to pay the $5. I never once said or implied the tropopause is set by radiative forcing from GHG. You are all missing the point that these figures are based on a "Standard Atmosphere" of a fixed surface temperature. The tropopause is set from the surface temperature & the lapse rate that follows from the surface temperature. That is why the tropopause at the colder poles is lower in height (higher pressure) and is higher in height (lower in pressure) at the warmer equator. <br /><br />Also, convection in the troposphere is capped by the level of the tropopause (regardless what pressure level it is) because the tropopause is defined by the WMO & AMS as a change in the lapse rate not by a fixed pressure level. This has been known since it's discovery back in the late 1800s and is basic meteorology & just because Robinson & Catling want to redefine it does not make it so.<br /><br />Now, regarding your model/equation - if you can change the surface temperature & it will correctly reflect the change in the height of the tropopause, then it holds promise but if you are presuming the tropopause is at a fixed height for the whole globe (pole to equator), it has problems & is wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-59263385387002539072014-11-29T00:02:56.139-08:002014-11-29T00:02:56.139-08:00Note to Doug Cotton: I've received several com...Note to Doug Cotton: I've received several complaints from readers to stop allowing you to spam threads. You've made your same points many times. The purpose of this thread is my GHE derivation, not your book, so I'm not publishing any more of your comments. Take care.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-97825179155790802014-11-28T11:09:50.610-08:002014-11-28T11:09:50.610-08:00Doug,
As I recall, two years ago,you denied downw...Doug,<br /><br />As I recall, two years ago,you denied downward convection and insisted on downward diffusion.<br /><br />The former involves movement within the gravitational field thereby changing PE to KE whereas the latter does not.<br /><br />Furthermore, the energy that convects downward is not initially absorbed in the colder upper troposphere from incoming solar energy. Instead it is in the form of gravitational potential energy created by uplift from lower levels that then descends and reverts to heat as it does so.<br /><br />You can have direct absorption of energy from radiative gases higher up and that will be conducted downward as well as upward but it often doesn't reach the surface where there is convective overturning in a lower layer such as in our troposphere beneath or warmer ozone heated stratosphere.<br /><br />So, no we are not yet in agreement.<br /><br />There is indeed warming of the surface from convective overturning but that is not diffusion and describing it as a downward flow of thermal energy is incorrect because you miss out the conversion of thermal energy (KE) to gravitational potential energy (GPE) and back again.<br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-24731954627576222672014-11-27T15:01:01.145-08:002014-11-27T15:01:01.145-08:00Well Stephen, I'm glad to see that you now app...Well Stephen, I'm glad to see that you now appear to agree with me (and what's in my book published in March) that <b>there is downward convection transferring thermal energy originally absorbed in the colder upper troposphere (especially on Venus and Uranus) to warmer regions and even into the warmer surface.</b> <br /><br />When I wrote (two years ago) about downward heat transfer by convection (which includes diffusion) you seemed to think I was mistaken. I am not mistaken Stephen, and your comment clearly agrees with what I have said all along, namely that there has to be a non-radiative (convective) heat transfer downwards in lieu of the assumed transfer of thermal energy by radiation into the surface which cannot happen for a warmer surface.Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-21891204844232663312014-11-27T11:19:30.242-08:002014-11-27T11:19:30.242-08:00Thanks. Blogger doesn't have a "sticky po...Thanks. Blogger doesn't have a "sticky post" feature to keep posts at the top, but I am going to be posting more on these issues with new posts linking back to these posts, so hopefully the discussion will continue. Thanks for your interest.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90962259944017731292014-11-27T10:57:27.666-08:002014-11-27T10:57:27.666-08:00MS, I think you should consider highlighting the t...MS, I think you should consider highlighting the two last posts of yours as features posts or something. They are both beyond my professional skills but seem to warrant a wider discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-21783989962778524042014-11-26T17:31:09.380-08:002014-11-26T17:31:09.380-08:00Thanks Bryan, that's a very helpful point, and...Thanks Bryan, that's a very helpful point, and probably explains why the CoM works for Earth and Titan, but not Mars and Venus.<br /><br />Titan atmosphere has similar non-greenhouse-gas percentages to Earth:<br /><br />"98.4% nitrogen with the remaining 1.6% composed mostly of methane (1.4%) and hydrogen (0.1–0.2%)"<br /><br />Any other thoughts on the center of mass concept?<br /><br />Thanks again. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39808877430254510902014-11-26T07:23:48.784-08:002014-11-26T07:23:48.784-08:00You have no data the Stephan?
W R PratYou have no data the Stephan?<br /><br />W R PratAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68773400772463121362014-11-26T06:58:12.139-08:002014-11-26T06:58:12.139-08:00MS,
Having had a quick look at the radiosonde dat...MS,<br /><br />Having had a quick look at the radiosonde data in the link I gave, I'm not seeing any direct link between pressure @ .5 and ERL of -18º C.<br /><br />All the evidence I have, indicates that Earths atmosphere is heated by direct incident EMR. Pressure is the result, not the cause, but to a large extent pressure, is determined by gravity. <br /><br />While obviously there is a certain amount of variation, the vertical pressure gradient appears to be fairly stable compared to the temperature gradient. <br /><br />W R Pratt Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-75949537722674759412014-11-26T05:55:31.584-08:002014-11-26T05:55:31.584-08:00A general point in the hope that it will assist.
...A general point in the hope that it will assist.<br /><br />Any planet can only retain an atmosphere if energy in equals energy out over the long term.<br /><br />That requires a specific rate of cooling with height which is the 'ideal' lapse rate determined only by mass and gravity. Insolation then determines the length of vertical travel for that ideal lapse rate.<br /><br />Every planet has an atmosphere with a different composition and there is vertical layering plus horizontal mixing which creates a vast plethora of different lapse rates from place to place and time to time.<br /><br />However, ALL those different actual lapse rates MUST net out to the ideal lapse rate if the atmosphere is to be retained.<br /><br />Variable convection sees to it that they do all net out to the ideal lapse rate.<br /><br />There will be differences from planet to planet depending on how the different compositions configure convective overturning but the basic principle applies regardless.<br /><br />The head post is essentially correct even if refinements are possible.<br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-11441172635076023672014-11-26T05:44:41.867-08:002014-11-26T05:44:41.867-08:00climatepete said:
"say you have an atmospher...climatepete said:<br /><br />"say you have an atmosphere with no CO2 and you add some CO2. From the "primary cooling agents" comment above the temperature of the stratosphere goes down, and therefore so does the radiation emitted back into space from the stratosphere and hence the radiation emitted back into space from the top of the atmosphere also goes down."<br /><br />Radiation to space from within the atmosphere increases from the introduction of GHGs but the amount of energy returned to the surface in adiabatic descent declines so that less energy is then radiated directly to space from the surface leaving the net radiative exchange with space unaffected.<br /><br />Meanwhile the surface temperature is unaffected too because the reduction in energy returning to the surface in adiabatic descent is offset by the increased density of the air at the surface which can then conduct more of the solar energy passing through.<br /><br />Leakage from the adiabatic cycle of ascent and descent (caused by the presence of radiative gases) simply results in a less high atmosphere (less work is done against gravity due to the leakage) and so surface density becomes higher at the same atmospheric pressure.<br /><br />Gas Laws apply at all times.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55617886931551513232014-11-26T05:26:46.557-08:002014-11-26T05:26:46.557-08:00The temperature of the near surface atmosphere doe...The temperature of the near surface atmosphere does indeed closely track the temperature of the ocean below. Meteorologists rely on that for predicting temperatures over land when air flows off the nearby ocean.<br /><br />The rest of your post is too confused to merit a response.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-48183643409309633512014-11-26T05:23:18.215-08:002014-11-26T05:23:18.215-08:00Indeed, and further, ALL energy that goes into lif...Indeed, and further, ALL energy that goes into lifting the atmosphere against gravity but which is not radiated to space from within the atmosphere goes to gravitational potential energy.<br /><br />Then it returns to kinetic energy during the inevitable descent and THAT is what raises surface temperature by 33C above the S-B prediction.<br /><br />It is all about mass, gravity and insolation.<br /><br />It is variations in the rate of convection that regulates the flow of kinetic energy back to the surface from gravitational potential energy higher up which negates the thermal effect of radiative gases.<br /><br />Convection controls the balance between radiation and conduction in order to maintain system stability.<br /><br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-7100856285201195142014-11-26T03:37:08.400-08:002014-11-26T03:37:08.400-08:00Good article
Comment has been made that the resul...Good article<br /><br />Comment has been made that the results above do not apply very well to Mars and Venus.<br /><br />This is only to be expected.<br /><br />The Barometric Equations and the Perfect Gas Laws are only true if the Specific Heat Capacity stays constant while the temperature changes.<br /><br />This is true for our atmosphere mainly N2 and O2.<br />It is not true for Mars and Venus where CO2 forms a major part of the atmosphere.<br /><br />http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html<br /><br />BryanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44421318219685876722014-11-25T16:37:00.847-08:002014-11-25T16:37:00.847-08:00I believe the Mars discussion founders on empirica...I believe the Mars discussion founders on empirical observations. Mars is subject to "dust devils" and thus, convection is definitely actively cooling the surface, regardless of the density of the atmosphere. Evidently the same principles applied in the article pertain to Mars.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194064717163420038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-58913410294491974112014-11-25T15:52:28.467-08:002014-11-25T15:52:28.467-08:00You are welcome.
I do have another piece of corr...You are welcome. <br /><br />I do have another piece of corroborating evidence I would like to share with you as I said in the email I sent you. If you could reply to that we can discus it further offline.<br /><br />WAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-52268314351205634182014-11-25T15:24:45.648-08:002014-11-25T15:24:45.648-08:00Thanks much, when I get a chance I hope to work ou...Thanks much, when I get a chance I hope to work out several specific examples, and if you have any to share, please let me know. Thanks again for your help.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50895986154296225262014-11-25T14:56:51.359-08:002014-11-25T14:56:51.359-08:00We are dealing with global averages in this post, ...We are dealing with global averages in this post, but the same general principle should apply most anywhere since the lapse rate = -g/Cp everywhere. The heat capacity at constant pressure Cp varies widely depending on the pressure and water vapor content, adjusting the lapse rate accordingly. Also the equilibrium temperature with the Sun varies with solar insolation, thus the surface temperature calculation at a given location, but as a global average it is 255K. <br /><br />Fig showing lapse rate of the "standard" average atmosphere, poles, and tropics:<br /><br />http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/non-standard.jpgMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-10850170442988882052014-11-25T13:37:46.485-08:002014-11-25T13:37:46.485-08:00Please forgive my ignorance with these questions.
...Please forgive my ignorance with these questions.<br /><br />How does the fact that the depth of the atmosphere at the equator is more than double the depth at the poles affect these discussions? (ie: 7km poles vs. 18km equator)<br /><br />Is this fact considered within the relevant calculations? Further, how is this determined and factored in on other planets? Is the Venusian atmosphere also twice as deep at the equator than the poles? If not, how does this change things?Squidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916585097070823476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-28534731796667417592014-11-25T13:35:11.833-08:002014-11-25T13:35:11.833-08:00Hi MS,
This is the link to the soundings I use: h...Hi MS,<br /><br />This is the link to the soundings I use: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html<br /><br />I would say it looks to me, though I haven't looked at pressure until now, that -18º C will be at approximately .5* the surface pressure in ant given sounding. Close enough to back up your work above. <br /><br />W R PrattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-1361778553002935432014-11-25T13:01:34.808-08:002014-11-25T13:01:34.808-08:00"This can be achieved by finding the altitude..."This can be achieved by finding the altitude of -18º C in any particular sounding and then using the normal lapse rate of 6.5º C per km, to calculate the surface temperature"<br /><br />Nice, and do you have a link to the barometric pressure readings that correspond to height where temperature = -18C? And the surface pressure at that same location. By what I'm showing, that height should be where pressure = ~.5*surface pressure.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-1994542292069958442014-11-25T12:56:01.138-08:002014-11-25T12:56:01.138-08:00Here's an illustration of the "atmospheri...Here's an illustration of the "atmospheric window" from the surface, showing between 8-12 microns [near-IR with higher energy/frequency] most of IR radiation travels directly from the surface to space without running into any GHGs [except O3 a bit], a large negative radiative forcing. Earth's peak IR emission is at 10-11 microns, where most of it isn't impeded by GHGs at all.<br /><br />http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.pngMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com