Both of these "proofs" and strawman arguments fail because the troposphere is in horizontal equilibrium due to gravity and center of mass at a particular latitude, but is in complete vertical disequilibrium due to convection and the lapse rate between the surface vertically rising to the tropopause. Further, if an atmosphere was 100% non-greenhouse gases, it would still be subject to gravity and convection calculated by the greenhouse equation, and thus absolutely not isothermal. A container of pure nitrogen with a heat source at the bottom would definitely convect, and convection is what controls the lapse rate and vertical temperature profile in the troposphere.
Basically, the greenhouse equation determines the unique solution for temperature at any height given the opposing vertical disequilibrium from convection and the opposing horizontal gravitational equilibrium at that same height.
Thus, the apparent misunderstanding of these "refutations" has arisen from a false assumption that fails to differentiate vertical and horizontal equilibrium.
We have previously shown the greenhouse equation precisely determines the unique temperature at any vertical height from the surface up to ~11,000 meter top of the tropopause, based upon the local horizontal equilibrium at that particular height.
Satellite observations indeed show a remarkable horizontal equilibrium at a given center of mass of the overlying vertical atmospheric mass:
Newsflash: Heat rises
and the vast majority of that heat rise is vertical due to the vertical, not horizontal, disequilibrium due to the vertical vector of gravitational force with zero horizontal gravitational forcing. Deal with it, and I hope that clears it up.
h/t to ren at Tallbloke's talkshop for posting link to top graphic which was perfect to illustrate this point and said
"It is clear that the troposphere is heated uniformly from the surface of the Earth. Thus, the center of mass of the troposphere is logical."couldn't agree more.
MS, a very nice complete piece of work you have produced. Thank you for all the effort.ReplyDelete
You have produced a complete description of the “Gravitational GHE”, or GGHE that matches the known physical laws (Ideal Gas Law, etc.) and the observations (no observable correlation between CO2 and temperatures on short century like time scales). And you do not need to invoke radiation at all (forwards, backwards, or sideways). And contrary to some comments (from folks with little practical experience) your explanation does not in any conceivable way violate those honored laws of thermo, I say “honored” because they always match reality unlike some “concepts of reality”.
Yes, it will annoy those people that insist that radiation is controlling the temperature of the Earth. They cannot seem to get any sense of scale; the thermal capacity of the CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1e-8 of the thermal capacity of the Oceans alone. That would be one hundred billion times less thermal capacity. Arguing that CO2 (and other “rGHE” gases) is/are determining the temperature is like arguing that throwing an ice cube in your bathtub will cause to to freeze solid.
So, now we have a good explanation of the “GGHE” mechanism. We now need a good explanation of what exactly the “Radiative GHE” does. I would like to suggest we use the term “GGHE” for your explanation (with a capital “G”) and the term “rGHE” for the radiative “GHE”. Note the lower case “r” due to the insignificance of this effect.
If you research the “temporal response” of an Optical Integrating Sphere you will discover that an optical integrating sphere exhibits what a climate scientist would describe as “nearly 100% radiative forcing”. Nearly all of the light leaving the filament of a light bulb inside an integrating sphere will be “back radiated” from the interior of the sphere (a small portion leaves through an “exit port”). This “back radiation” causes some photons to make multiple trips bouncing back and forth multiple times (like backradiation makes multiple trips from the surface to the atmosphere) before reaching a trajectory that leads to the “exit port”. This merely delays the flow of energy through the system (in this case the sphere). A cursory calculation (distance to TOA = ~ 5 miles * Speed of light * tens/hundreds of bounces) shows that this delay is on the order of tens (perhaps hundreds) of milliseconds. Given that the “frequency/period” of the incoming sunlight is 24 hours = ~ 86 Million milliseconds this delay cannot “trap heat” and further has no effect on the “average” temperature of the Earth’s surface. If you inject a “pulse” of light (instantly ON then slightly later instantly OFF) into an integrating sphere you get out a “stretched” pulse of light (it resembles a “bell curve” with respect to elapsed time). This is admittedly an obscure result; I have used integrating spheres for decades and only recently became aware of this “effect”.
My alternative hypothesis is that the “radiative GHE” aka the”rGHE” simply delays the flow of energy through the system and MIGHT affect the response time of the gases (the component with the least thermal capacity). This would cause the gases to warm up slightly faster after sunrise and cool down slightly faster after sunset. This affect is so small that we probably cannot afford to measure it, and ironically the climate science community has been looking at the wrong end of the time scale, rather than examining tree rings from millennia ago they really needed to be looking at temperature changes in the atmosphere on a millisecond time scale. Of course the historical temperature records do not contain this data and no amount of water boarding will make them confess.
Thank you for your efforts and your high mindedness about this topic, it is in fact very refreshing to have a discussion that does not start with “My Explanation for Dummies”
Might I purchase you a blanket perhaps ?
Very good points as usual Kevin. A day lasts 12 hours and the rGHE theory claims a few milliseconds extra tacked on at the end of the day from GHGs makes the Earth 33C hotter.Delete
and that's before subtracting the few milliseconds delay at the beginning of the day.
The greenhouse or GGHE equation predicts greenhouse gases would increase heat capacity of the atmosphere Cp, which is inversely related to the temperature calculated, thus greenhouse gases are cooling agents. The whole theory is backwards.
Whoops, my sentence;ReplyDelete
" This would cause the gases to warm up slightly faster after sunrise and cool down slightly faster after sunset."
Should in fact be;
" This would cause the gases to warm up slightly faster after sunrise and cool down slightly SLOWER after sunset."
" Further, if an atmosphere was 100% non-greenhouse gases, it would still be subject to gravity and convection calculated by the greenhouse equation, and thus absolutely not isothermal. A container of pure nitrogen with a heat source at the bottom would definitely convect, and convection is what controls the lapse rate and vertical temperature profile in the troposphere. "ReplyDelete
Absolutely right and a point I have made frequently at Roy Spencer's site, WUWT and Tallblokes's amongst others for years past and got my head blown off for my trouble.
The cooling with height must occur even without GHGs because the reduction of density and pressure with height converts KE to PE and PE is not heat.
"The cooling with height must occur even without GHGs because the reduction of density and pressure with height converts KE to PE and PE is not heat."Delete
I understand what you are saying, but at some point the earth has to radiate energy out to space, no? That requires gasses that will radiate, no?
If the atmosphere were completely non radiative then all energy would leave by radiation from the surface. That is why one needs a motre vigorous convective overturning for a non radiative atmosphere.Delete
Convection has to ensure that enough PE gets back to the surface as KE to enable as much to radiate out to space as comes in from space. No GHGs needed in that case.
Losing some from within the atmosphere via radiative gases results in less being radiated to space from the surface.
Convective changes make the appropriate adjustment depending on the location from which radiation departs for space.
"Basically, the greenhouse equation determines the unique solution for temperature at any height given the opposing vertical disequilibrium from convection and the opposing horizontal gravitational equilibrium at that same height. "
and back in 2012 I said:
"The key to it all is the energy budget balancing process provided by variable atmospheric heights in the vertical plane and shifting surface air pressure distribution in the horizontal plane.
It really is that simple."
in one of my responses to comments on my greenhouse effect article here:
The temperature in the tropics.ReplyDelete
Wow thanks again ren!Delete
I'll add that to the post
Very good posts.ReplyDelete
Could you explain a litlle on how or how not different amounts of water vapor would change the temperature profile.
I believe it should have some influence because of the change in lapse rate.
The very process of evaporation cools the surface, while water vapor behaves like other gases in the atmosphere.Delete
Water vapor decreases the lapse rate by half, which causes about 25C cooling from that alone.Delete
This is what James Clerk Maxwell had to say on this topic in his magnum opus "Theory of Heat" (p330):ReplyDelete
“The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout, or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top.
This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material."
Are you purposely trying to deceive or why else would you leave out that immediately after your quote on the same two pages p330-311 Maxwell saysDelete
”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air [i.e. the horizontal convective isotherms very clearly seen in the observations above]. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.
In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29.
The extreme slowness of the conduction of heat in air, compared with the rapidity with which large masses of air are carried from one height to another by the winds, causes the temperature of the different strata of the atmosphere to depend far more on this condition of convective equilibrium than on true thermal equilibrium.” [end Maxwell quote from Theory of Heat]
Maxwell's statement "In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29." is referring to γ defined as the "heat capacity ratio" = Cp/Cv [ratio of specific heat capacity at constant pressure to specific heat capacity at constant volume]
also referred to as the Poisson relation based on the ideal gas law & 1st law, which shows remarkable agreement with the gravito-thermal "greenhouse effect" found on all the planets with thick atmospheres.
So Captain Curt, did you leave out the full Maxwell quote on the exact same page that supports the gravitothermal GHE on purpose, or was that just a careless error on your part?
Note to Curt: I'm not publishing any more of your false information and claims on this blog and wasting my time debunking them. I've already proven using derivation of a Boltzmann distribution of pure 100%N2 atmosphere that the convection, lapse rate, and temperature gradient would be almost the same as Earth. All you have provided is a lot of words (many false), zero mathematics, astonishing ignorance that convection requires IR active gases, etc.Delete
I've got much better things to do than have to respond to your false claims and strawmen. You can't even seem to understand the concept of global averages. I know the lapse rates in a particular time and location can go very high and low, but makes no difference to the global average I'm calculating. If you don't like the theory and overwhelming proof I've provided & matching the observations essentially perfectly, that's fine. Don't read or respond to my posts any further then.