• Home
  • Current News
  • NASA Data on Massive Solar Storm and Impact on Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

NASA Data on Massive Solar Storm and Impact on Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

Written by Dr Charles R. Anderson

Recent observations of the effects of a massive solar storm on the Earth’s atmosphere made by NASA using the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite have very important implications for the two main classes of hypotheses backing the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming.  burning earth

During this solar storm, gigantic quantities of energy were dumped into the Earth’s upper atmosphere by highly energetic particles.  The SABER instrument measures the infrared emissions from the Earth’s upper atmosphere.  The NASA measurements of those infrared emissions during the solar storm showed that 95% of the energy dumped into upper atmosphere was quickly re-emitted into space.  There was no significant warming of the Earth’s surface.

The significance with respect to the various man-made global warming hypotheses of this observation has often not been well-explained by critics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  The fact that the energy arrives in the atmosphere as energetic particles has often been glossed over in such commentaries, yet this is very important. 

The energy of the solar storm is not of the same nature as the mix of ultraviolet (UV), visible light, and near and mid infrared radiation which provides the Earth with heat energy on a daily basis.  Though this important difference exists, the results of the solar storm energy measurements by NASA are still crucially significant for one of the principal global warming hypotheses and somewhat significant for the other main AGW hypothesis.

There are two standard hypotheses for the global warming mechanism that CO2 is supposed to provide at a catastrophic level:

1)  A large back-radiation effect near the Earth surface caused by water vapor and CO2, which warms the surface.

2)  A delay or decrease in radiation in the upper troposphere or stratosphere caused by increased CO2 and NO.

As I have discussed many times on my blog, most recently in Simple Explanation of Why Greenhouse Gases Do Not Warm the Earth’s Surface, back-radiation at the Earth’s surface is insignificant because the mean free path for the infrared radiation absorptions of water vapor and carbon dioxide are very short and the corresponding temperature differences between the surface and the lower few meters of the atmosphere are therefore very small. 

The smaller than claimed infrared radiation from the surface is very quickly absorbed and distributed to nitrogen, oxygen, and argon in the air due to the very high collision rate in the lower atmosphere.  These primary air molecules do not radiate this energy and it is then mostly transported by convection upward or toward the poles.  Water vapor and CO2 actually slightly increase the rate of energy transport upward following the downward temperature and density gradients. 

Thus Hypothesis 1 fails to make physical sense.  As more and more proponents of catastrophic AGW have realized this failure, they have turned to the second hypothesis as the justification for AGW.

Hypothesis 2 also fails.  See: Does Increased CO2 Cause a Decrease in Infrared Emission to Space?  Once again the lack of a significant temperature gradient in the upper troposphere for radiation purposes and no temperature gradient in the tropopause is one significant  problem for this hypothesis.  It is hard to change the temperature much of the CO2 emitters.  Another problem is that more and slightly warmer infrared emitters causes any warming in the upper atmosphere to be reduced because more emitters are sending individually increased radiation into space.  For the same reasons that Hypothesis 1 fails, it is also not possible for the warming CO2 absorbers to transmit energy back to the Earth’s surface by radiation, so any effect of warming remains in the upper atmosphere. 

The major significance of the NASA SABER measurements on how effectively CO2 and NO eliminated the energy of the solar storm is that this is confirmation of my argument that Hypothesis 2 fails. 

A local warming high in the atmosphere does not result in a warming of the surface of the Earth.  Indeed, the infrared gases are highly effective in cooling the atmosphere, especially in the upper atmosphere where the mean free path for infrared absorption by CO2 and NO is longer than near sea level.

As I initially pointed out in Slaying the Sky Dragon, the back-radiation effects claimed for infrared active gases were so small that the role of such gases in absorbing solar radiation before it could arrive at the surface of the Earth was a very significant cooling effect of these wrongly designated greenhouse gases. 

A warming of the atmosphere thousands of meters above the surface is not an equivalent warming of the surface where we live.  Very little such atmospheric energy is transported to the surface.  This remains true as I have more thoroughly explained more recently here:  Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth’s Surface Temperature: A Relatively Simple Baseline Evaluation of the Physics.

The fact that I have pointed to my own explanations for the failures in the physics of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 is not a claim that I am the only scientist who has understood the bad physics of these crucial catastrophic man-made global warming arguments. 

Fortunately, more and more scientists have come to understand the physics either wholly or in good part.  More and more scientists have come to understand that the two hypotheses used to explain catastrophic AGW are either wrong or at least dubious.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (74)

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    This is another of a long series of misrepresentations of my ideas by Tom Cotton. He is perfectly aware that I do not think the troposphere would be isothermal if it were not for IR-active gases. He also knows perfectly well that I have over and over shown that back-radiation is minimal and insignificant, yet in this comment #71 he falsely claims that I believe it to be a major actor. In fact, I do believe the net effect of water vapor is a cooling effect, contrary to his claims here.

    In his comment #70, Tom implies that I do not believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is nonsense. While the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium at any given moment, it does have a baseline averaged over a period of time which is established by equilibrium conditions. I have used that idea in numerous posts at my website to discuss why the combination of the distribution of solar insolation absorption in the atmosphere and the surface acts together with the gravity induced temperature gradient in the atmosphere to provide a surface temperature high enough that a cooling effect is actually needed by water vapor to pull that temperature down to the approximate 287.5 K it averages. There is no 33K increase in surface temperature due to water vapor and other IR-active gases, which I have made perfectly clear in arguments I have made going back well before 2010.

    Tom Cotton is using the Big Lie technique, which assumes that if a Big Lie is told frequently enough, most people will believe it. He appears to be counting on the fact that I will not have the time to respond to all of his misrepresentations because I am too busy running a materials analysis laboratory specializing in the use of many types of radiation to characterize materials. In that he is right. I do not have time for this nonsense.

  • Avatar

     D o u g

    |

    So, John and Charles, why are the tropical oceans still cold in the depths? Why don’t they become isothermal like you think the troposphere would have been without that most-prolific of all greenhouse pollutants, water vapour sending all that warming back radiation back to the surface to warm it to a higher temperature than it was when it sent the original radiation and cooled in doing so.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    So, John and Charles, do you still think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect, and does not tell us that there will be a propensity for the troposphere of any planet to tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials?

    Do you still think, Roy, that you could have more mean gravitational potential energy at the top of the troposphere, and yet the same mean kinetic energy, and thus have unbalanced energy potentials with your own special version of equilibrium, not actually observed on any planet with a significant atmosphere?

    And do you still think the Sun can shine through your window (like the thin surface layer of the oceans) warm yourself and, presumably using the same energy twice, warm the window glass right through?

    And do you still think water vapour warms, rather than causing the mean surface temperature of Earth to be about 10 to 12 degrees cooler than it would be in dry air with a steeper temperature gradient – even though empirical evidence proves you wrong, Roy?

    I’m glad to see the Australian Prime Minister is not attending that climate conference, even though he will be in NY at the time. He’ll just send our female foreign minister, probably because he’s had so many emails from me pointing out the errors in the “fissics” promulgated by the hoaxers like yourselves, who still testify to the IPCC radiative forcing model?

    Now we learn that even the inaudible sound from wind turbines causes serious health hazards, in addition to all the death hazards that will result from the greatest hoax of all time.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    You see, John, no-one from PSI has any valid counter-arguments to what I have been saying about the gravito-thermal effect. Roderich Graeff’s 800 experiments proved its existence, even though he got his physics hopelessly wrong on several counts. The temperature data for the tropospheres of all planets with significant atmospheres proves its existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to prove its existence. As a direct corollary, there can be heat transfers up the temperature gradient and into planetary surfaces. If PSI authors could produce any other valid explanation I would be all ears. But they can’t, least of all with radiation calculations such as in several PSI papers and articles.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    (continued)

    What you need to understand is that gravity traps thermal energy “under” the thermal profile with its gravitationally induced temperature gradient. The “trapping” has occurred over the life of the planet. Planets are not cooling off in the long term – they cool at night and warm back up again each day – both their surfaces and their tropospheres. They are in radiative balance with the Sun, exemplified by the matched cooling and warming over the course of a revolution. It is because of this virtually unmoveable thermal profile that planetary surfaces are at the temperatures we observe. The vast bulk of the warming above what the direct insolation could achieve is not by radiation but by non-radiative transfers (downward convection) from the upper troposphere and above where the Sun’s radiation is in fact able to raise those cold temperatures found there.

    So we have a “supporting temperature” at the base of the troposphere which prevents the surface continuing to cool at perhaps 2 or 3 degrees per hour all through the night, as it may have done in the late afternoon. The main process by which cooling is slowed is thus not by radiation but by conduction at the surface/atmosphere interface, and of course it is primarily the nitrogen and oxygen molecules that are involved and which hold about 98% of all the thermal energy in Earth’s atmosphere. Even if radiative cooling i slowed, it merely extends the warmth of the day by perhaps a few seconds or minutes, but it does not alter the supporting temperature or have any significant effect on the minimum temperature for that 24 hour period.

    Footnote: There is confusion over the use of the word “absorb” in that some consider that it always involves the complex internal process of converting electro-magnetic energy (from the radiation) into kinetic (thermal) energy in the molecules of the target. If you are saying there is such a conversion, then that is only the case for the radiation which comes from a warmer source to a cooler target and is represented by the area between the respective Planck curves. This, as physicists should realise, has the same numerical value as has been derived by engineers and scientists with their standard calculations of the difference in SBL fluxes. I am not saying the calculations don’t give the correct value, but I am saying that the physical interpretation (from the calculation process) that all the electromagnetic energy is converted to thermal energy in each body is incorrect. It is now common knowledge this century that “pseudo scattering” takes place for the radiation passing each way which corresponds to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body, So only that which is above that curve in the warmer body has its electromagnetic energy converted to thermal energy in the cooler target. All this was in my March 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which was ground-breaking at the time and which has never been correctly rebutted.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    John – this is why the IPCC (and PSI) radiative forcing paradigm is wrong …

    Physics is a universal science – meaning its laws apply throughout the Universe. Thus, if you think you have an explanation for Earth’s surface temperature, then the same physical processes that you think determine that temperature should be able to be applied to other planets with significant atmospheres. I have researched Venus and Uranus in great detail, for example, and applied calculations which give results comparable with known and estimated temperature data for these planets, but I don’t use the radiative forcing paradigm to do so – instead I use the gravito-thermal paradigm.

    So the gravito-thermal effect is certainly not disproved by temperature data for these planets. However, the radiative forcing paradigm absolutely crumbles.

    It also crumbles on Earth for one easily-understood reason. When you calculate temperatures using Stefan-Boltzmann you must firstly adjust the radiative flux to that which is neither reflected or transmitted. All that extra radiation that is transmitted through the thin surface layer of the oceans has to be rejected before you start your S-B calculations, just as you know we reject the radiation that does not reach the surface because it has been reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere,,and we should also reject the small amount reflected by the surface. The radiation that passes through the thin surface layer has another job to do when it is absorbed in the colder layers below. However, it is not correct to assume that any of that energy absorbed in the depths (and still leaving the water there at much lower temperatures than the surface) can raise the temperature of the surface either by radiation or by non-radiative heat transfer in calm conditions without upward non-adiabatic currents. So you have no explanation for any warming of the ocean surface layer by radiation which could exceed a very cold 200K or thereabouts. This is so far out of the ball park that it should surely be obvious that I am right about radiation not being the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    John, my comments here are pointing out why valid standard physics proves that Charles Anderson and all PSI authors who take the stand of “lukes” are incorrect in their assumptions that direct radiation to the surface of a planet can be used to determine the surface temperature.

    This has nothing to do with the gravito-thermal effect which I don’t have to prove – Loschmidt did that back in the 19th century. Nor do I have to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which directly implies the existence of the gravito-thermal effect.

    There [i]are[/i] reviews of my book in Amazon by suitable peers. But there is no satisfactory review system operating at PSI for the very reason that you refuse to entertain valid explanation of the errors that Anderson, Postma and Latour make time and time again.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Unless you resolve your problem of having no peer reviewers willing to come out and be named we can’t help you. PSI scientists stand up to be counted in the public domain. We are opposed to secret science and science peer-reviewed behind closed doors. The ball is in your court to find your own open peer reviewers, it is not our job to do it for you.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    The direction of convection can be debated with me on [url=https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/global-warming-realists/Uh2NjOhBoa0]this thread[/url] which I opened in the Google Group “Global Warming Realists”

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [b]PS [/b] I have now filed an official complaint to the Australian Government Ombudsman that Australian authorities have not carried out due diligence in checking the physics presented by the IPCC. In short, I am challenging the Australian Government to find any physicist in the world who can prove radiative forcing to be the correct paradigm, and I will confidently prove them wrong and force them to admit that [b]the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which explains downward convection that is restoring thermodynamics is the only correct explanation and the only possible explanation for observed planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    John, not one scientist has presented any proof that water vapour warms, rather than cools, and not one scientist has presented proof that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect and that my hypothesis (based on such) is also incorrect – all this despite there being on offer a $5,000 reward if I am proven to be substantially wrong in the content of my book.

    I carry out all this unpaid study (involving thousands of hours) and sell my book at about 50 cents “profit” towards the initial outlay of $3,000, because I want to help save the lives of those who will die because of the hoax, and I would hope that you might have similar motives.

    I have certainly proved the PSI literature pertaining to radiative forcing to be just as wrong as similar IPCC literature. Charles Anderson has also been faulted by Greg House in this thread. You will now see in the next day or so that Charles has no valid response to the points I have made. There is not a single objection of his which I cannot explain with valid physics.

    [b]If you wish to steer PSI in the right direction, then, frankly John, you need to learn some of this physics yourself so that you have a better understanding as to why I have been right all along, regardless of whether or not a few PSI members take the trouble to study and consider what I have written. Everything I have written is supported by empirical data throughout the Solar System. There are physicists who understand and agree with me, but they are not members of PSI. Claes Johnson also left with PSI members doubting what he said and what my paper enlarges upon. Why don’t you phone and discuss this all with me, John +61298733300.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    (continued)

    [b]My key point is that direct solar radiation to the base of a planet’s troposphere, or into any surface there, is not the primary determinant of the temperature of that atmospheric layer or surface.[/b]

    The base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, for example, is hotter than Earth’s surface, yet virtually no direct solar radiation reaches down there, where there is no surface anyway. Uranus is noted for the fact that there is no convincing evidence of any significant net energy loss, and thus no long term cooling of the planet or internal energy generation of any significance. I have explained how the required thermal energy gets down there, and likewise how the surface of Venus warms by about 5 degrees over the course of its 4-month-long sunlit period for any location on the equator, for example. Such a location cools by 5 degrees at night, so we can deduce that the planet could have cooled right down if our Sun did not radiate any energy, but just exactly how does the energy (which obviously comes from the Sun) get back into the surface to warm it (and the whole troposphere) by 5 degrees when the Sun shines? The direct radiation getting through to the surface is less than 20W/m^2. The atmosphere cannot amplify the flux received at the top and deliver more out of its base and into the surface.

    Think about these issues, all of which I have addressed and can explain with calculations and valid physics, backed up with empirical evidence.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    The temperature to which the thin surface layer of the ocean is raised depends upon the thermal energy it absorbs from all sources and its rate of cooling by all processes, including evaporative cooling which cannot be affected by radiation from a cooler atmosphere, and nor can such radiation slow the rate of conduction/diffusion at the surface/atmosphere interface. This surface layer has a local maximum temperature, being warmer than regions below and the air above. Hence thermal energy absorbed in the colder depths cannot raise the local surface temperature in the tropics, for example, and it may only warm anything perhaps when currents take such water towards the polar regions. In general, you cannot use emissivity in S-B calculations for this thin transparent surface layer because it does not act at all like a black or grey body. It does not absorb anywhere near as much energy from radiation as it emits by radiation. So, yes, you can determine its temperature with an IR thermometer or by using emissivity of about 0.984, but that does not tell you that it was radiation that got it to that temperature, any more than it was radiation from the air in your kitchen that caused the water in your electric jug to boil.

    The solar radiation which penetrates down into the ocean thermocline is still nowhere near enough to raise the existing temperatures of successive layers of colder and colder water. Consider an oversimplification wherein 10% of the radiation is absorbed in each of 10 layers that might be, say 500cm thick at the surface, increasing to, say 2m thick at a depth somewhere between 10m and 20m. Even if you used a figure of, say 800W/m^2 at noon on a clear day in the tropics, 10% of that (80W/m^2) could not raise the temperature much above 200K, and of course it would be ice reflecting most radiation anyway. Even if the whole of Earth’s surface were covered in black asphalt paving (emissivity 0.93) the mean solar radiation could not raise the temperature above about 235K no matter how long the Sun shines. Yes you can argue that such a mean does not give the correct mean temperature, but the calculations give results which are not excessively different from those obtained by integration over the whole surface.

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Doug, despite your best efforts over several years promoting your ‘heat creep’ pet theory not one scientist has come forward to publicly back it. Give up and go elsewhere or we will resume removing your self promotions as spam.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    It’s time you conceded that I’ve been right all along, Charles. The problem is, of course, that you have no knowledge or understanding of the process of restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, as it is explained in my book.

    You continually skirt around answering (with appropriate calculations) the numerous questions which, I suggest, you or PSI ought to be able to answer.

    Then you make hand-waving statements about NASA proving me wrong. NASA really Charles? NASA who modified their original net energy diagrams (without back radiation) and added more back radiation into the surface than the radiation the Sun delivers at TOA. Do you seriously find NASA credible on these matters?

    Temperature is always measured on a macro scale requiring at least a few picograms of matter. There is no point in discussing individual molecules. Any spontaneous radiation from colder regions of the atmosphere cannot have its electro-magnetic energy converted to thermal energy in warmer solid regions of the surface, and does not even penetrate warmer water. It cannot help the Sun to raise the temperatures of these regions.

    [b]You have never explained, Charles, how the necessary thermal energy enters planetary surfaces in order to achieve the observed mean temperatures. I have done so, for the first time in world literature.[/b]

    Such radiation cannot slow the rate of evaporative cooling, nor the rate at which thermal energy crosses the boundary and warms nitrogen, oxygen and argon by conduction and diffusion. You implied radiation was primarily responsible for such warming, but that is not the case, especially in dry regions where there is little water vapour to absorb the surface radiation. Sorry to tie you in knots Charles, but you have not studied what I have written in the book and the cited paper, and so you don’t understand the mechanisms which control planetary atmospheric, surface and sub-surface temperatures.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And, by the way Charles, NASA is talking about absorption in the upper atmosphere, not the upper troposphere. There is reference in my book as to what happens in the stratosphere, for example, and why we do not expect new energy absorbed there to diffuse to the surface, because it just raises the temperature in the “valley” between the troposphere and the stratosphere. On the other hand, new energy absorbed in the upper mesosphere (above the stratosphere) can move up the temperature gradient there as it moves towards the Earth. But it is likely to be emitted to space in the hottest regions of the stratosphere.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [b]Show me your calculations, Charles[/b], as to how you explain the temperature of the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans. I will not accept a value of solar radiation having a mean of more than 30W/m^2 as being actually absorbed in such a thin, almost completely transparent layer, say no more than 500cm thick.

    To disprove the downward convection which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium you would have to disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also (somehow) prove that the absorption of new solar energy in the upper troposphere does not cause unbalanced energy potentials. Let me see your proof Charles.

    Then let me see your proof that water vapour causes the surface temperature to be warmer than direct solar radiation could make it. Unless, that is, you agree with my empirical stduy showing water vapour cools. If you agree it cools, as the evidence shows, then you must disagree with the IPCC GH radiative forcing mechanism.

    In fact, try to explain the rising of the Venus surface temperature and why this happens only in the sunlit hours. Please provide calculations also, as I have, which explain the 320K temperature at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere.

    When you can produce calculations which explain Earth, Venus and Uranus temperatures, as I have, then I’ll be all ears.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g”]And finally, Charles, I note that Greg also reiterated that it is impossible for radiation from a cooler atmosphere to raise the temperature of a warmer surface in his comment posted one second after mine.[/quote]

    I have never made such a claim and you know I have not done so. It is because I carefully separate out only those absorbing molecules which are not in equilibrium with the surrounding colder air, that I am able to place a very low upper limit on the power which is true back-radiation.

    It is all too clear why you are so frantically objecting to and misrepresenting my work here. The article on the NASA SABER results above is also a definitive rejection of your hypothesis of downward convection as a major energy transport effect.

    As for claims that I do not consider gravity in establishing an atmospheric temperature gradient, I recognized that it was an important factor back in 2010. I have several times made you aware of this.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And yes, Greg, I agree that the IPCC statements are the relevant “authority” for this fictitious fissics. The quotes in Chapter 2 in my book are just about all they say. Click the ‘Look inside’ link [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228#reader_1478729228]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Yes Greg, what is always glossed over is the fact that, around 1981, Hansen and Co (maybe NASA also) must have realised that the mere 161W/m^2 of direct solar radiation cannot possibly raise the surface temperature to what it is: it could only raise an Earth covered in black asphalt to about 50 degrees less than observed temperatures.

    So, ignoring the real reason (the gravito-thermal effect) they got the idea that back radiation must be helping the Sun to warm the surface. The only trouble was that a realistic estimate wasn’t enough. Hence they made the figures so large that the atmosphere is supposedly delivering far more energy out of its base and into the surface than it is receiving at its top, even including the 30% it reflects straight back to space.

    But wait, there’s less.

    Even if there really were all that radiation not just striking the surface but having its electro-magnetic energy all converted to thermal energy (which would decrease entropy) we do know that most of it passes straight through the thin surface layers of the ocean, being absorbed down in the somewhat colder regions of the ocean thermocline. Hence, what is absorbed down there is not affecting the ocean surface temperature in the regions where most of us live.

    Yet there is a local maximum temperature at the ocean surface where it’s warmer than below and warmer than above. Only the gravito-thermal effect with its downward convection (what I called in my book “heat creep” up the temperature gradient) during the sunlit hours can explain that maximum at the surface.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”CharlesRAnderson”]@#43, Greg House: It is not always clear of what the greenhouse effect consists. It is a constantly moving target.[/quote]

    The target is still where it was 20 years ago, in the IPCC reports. It is true though that trolls on the blogs are constantly trying to obfuscate this simple matter. One of their tricks is to state that the “greenhouse effect” is just about slowing down cooling. As I said, it is not true, because the core statement since 1995 has been that the “greenhouse gases” intercept the from the surface outgoing radiation and send it DOUBLED back, thus causing warming.

    Unfortunately, you joined the trolls, consciously or not. You have misrepresented the well known Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget diagram, which is in fact the core AGW statement, by claiming it is about “slowing down cooling”. I do not understand how that could happen, because there is absolutely nothing on that diagram suggesting that.

    As for fundamentals, you need a)to understand how the IPCC describes the “greenhouse effect”, which is warming the source by back radiation, b)to understand why it is physically impossible and c)to understand that what various trolls spread is politically irrelevant and pure obfuscation, only the IPCC reports are relevant, since governments refer to the IPCC as the highest authority.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Sorry – “witch” should be “which” in the above – a slip with the spell check. But I guess you’ll need a bit of witchcraft to make your calculations agree with the real world, Charles.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [i][b]”slows its cooling down”[/b][/i] from what temperature, [b]Charles[/b]?

    And how does the surface get to that temperature in the first place, [b]Charles[/b]?

    Show me your calculations, [b]Charles[/b]. Unless you can show calculations based on valid physics witch roughly agree with observations, then you don’t have real physics, [b]Charles[/b].

    My calculations work for all planets with significant atmospheres. Your calculations don’t get off Square One, [b]Charles[/b].

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    A physics based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037.

    The drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.

    Find out why thermalization makes CO2 change NOT a driver in an updated paper at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    @#45 Greg House: One of the Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budgets claims the surface-absorbed incident solar radiation is 168 W/m2, the surface emitted IR radiation is 390 W/m2, and the back-radiation is 324 W/m2. In my article at [url]http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-earth-energy-budget-and-back.html[/url]
    I showed that surface emitted IR is about 78 W/m2 and the true back-radiation is less than 0.2 W/m2. Thus, surface-emitted IR is 20% of what Kiehl-Trenberth claim and back-radiation is 6 EXP(-4) times what they say it is.

    It is interesting that you are getting so worked up about my claiming 6 ten-thousandths of what the alarmists claim, especially when even under their models they have a hard time truly creating any catastrophe. That back-radiation that I believe may exist is emitted from a molecule near the surface whose temperature has been raised by surface emission radiation so that the molecule is in effect an extension of the surface. It is not in equilibrium with the gas molecules surrounding it.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    @#43 Greg House: One version of the Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget claims the incident solar radiation at the surface is 168 W/m2, the emitted radiation is 390 W/m2, and the back-radiation is 324 W/m2. Another version makes these respective values 161, 396, and 333 W/m2.

    I showed here [url]http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-earth-energy-budget-and-back.html[/url] that the actual surface emission radiation is only about 78 W/m2 and that true back-radiation was under 0.2 W/m2. The Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budgets hugely exaggerate both the surface radiative emissions and the back-radiation.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    @#43, Greg House: It is not always clear of what the greenhouse effect consists. It is a constantly moving target. In the broadest sense some might say it covers all such conversions of radiative energy from the surface into something that either warms the surface or slows its cooling down. The core of the problem with the catastrophic man-made global warming claims was certainly once Hypothesis 1 which I considered in my article and I have shown that back-radiation is virtually nil, unlike the huge effect shown in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams. You might note that those diagrams just show energy being dumped into the atmosphere and that energy being returned as radiation. That can be interpreted very broadly.

    As for my needing to learn the fundamentals, I suggest that you need to be able to understand why it is that back-radiation in a strictly local and very short time span is not zero, yet is also not very significant.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”carlallen”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air. [/quote]

    [b]Atomic mass:[/b]
    Diatomic Oxygen = 32
    Diatomic Nitrogen = 28
    Diatomic Hydrogen = 2
    H2O = 18

    Density is quantified in mass/volume-kg/m^3. Because of Charles Law the density of air either wet or dry is primarily affected by it temperature, but at the same temperature and pressure, because water vapor is lighter than both Oxygen and Nitrogen, a cubic meter of dry air has a greater mass than a cubic meter of humid air.

    Carl[/quote]

    Carl,
    At ambient temperatures H2O clusters into particles no less than ten per cluster. So, the minimum number in your equation for H2O is 180. Sorry to burst your bubble. But the reality is that our atmosphere is far too cools to support steam.
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-6R

    Why do you think it is that no Meteorologists will admit these facts?
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
    Did you know that meteorology is a cult, not unlike climatology?[/quote]

    Meteorologists refuse to test their convection assumptions, like climatologists with CO2 Forcing, they just choose to believe it and ignore anybody that points out the fact that steam cannot persist in our atmospher. H2O clumps into clusters, making convection as they envision it impossible.

    Where are the big names in meteorology? Where is D’aleo? Bastardi? They refuse to address this issue. This is strikes at the core of exposing meteorology as a pseudo-science. Convection should be tested like any other scientific concept. They know this. But they are all in hiding

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”CharlesRAnderson”]Thus, radiative cooling becomes of lesser importance compared to conductive/convective and evaporation cooling mechanisms and surface cooling rates are slowed, but by small amounts compared to those implied in a Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget.[/quote]

    Now you have misrepresented the well known Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget diagram, published in the IPCC report. This is really bad, because what we see there is in fact the core AGW statement. 😥

    It is not about “surface cooling rates are slowed” at all. It is about back radiation from “greenhouse gases” actually warming the surface by intercepting its outgoing radiation and sending it DOUBLED(!) back.

    Fundamentals, Charles.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Sorry, I misspelled “areas” in my #43.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    @#39 Charles, a)warmer air moving to colder ares and warming them is not the “greenhouse effect” and b)warmer air warming colder ares by radiation is not back radiation warming.

    I suggest again that you learn some fundamentals first before writing articles, because you are essentially misleading people by mixing up different things.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And Charles, I am quite aware of weather conditions such as Foehn winds wherein the air just above the surface is literally warmer than the surface, so of course radiation can transfer thermal energy into the surface in those cases, but, percentage-wise, they represent a very small portion of the total surface of the globe, and the net radiative transfer of thermal energy is most certainly out of a planet’s surface.

    On the other hand, the transfer of thermal energy into the surface by non-radiative processes (diffusion, downward convection and, at the actual interface, conduction) is far more prevalent. Why? Because it happens whenever there is a technical temperature inversion. Now, [i]”In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude.”[/i] (Wikipedia [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)]here[/url].) So meteorologists know that [b][i]the temperature at the top only has to be warmer than it would be with the normal temperature gradient in order for thermal energy to transfer downwards[/i][/b], even though the surface is at a higher temperature. Guess where else you will find this “heat creep” process explained using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Charles

    I too have explained that the slowing of radiative cooling of the surface does not necessarily lead to higher mean temperatures. There are four key reasons why …

    [b](1)[/b] Non radiative cooling transfers more thermal energy out of the surface than radiative cooling (about twice as much according to the original NASA net energy diagram in my book) and [i][b]non-radiative cooling can never be slowed by radiation[/b][/i].

    [b](2)[/b] In fact, [b][i]non-radiative cooling will accelerate[/i][/b] if radiative cooling is slowed. This may well compensate and thus cancel the effect of any slowing of radiative cooling.

    [b](3)[/b] The supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere is lowered by increases in water vapour. In any event, [b][i]that supporting temperature is what determines the minimum temperature for the day[/i][/b], probably in the early pre-dawn hours in calm conditions

    [b](4)[/b] Even if the net cooling is slower, it may just mean that it takes a few more minutes to reach the minimum, probably some time after midnight. So what? Climate records are based on the spurious assumption that [b][i]the mean temperature at any location is the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures[/i][/b], so, whatever warming might be detected in such records is not because of slower cooling rates extending the cooling a few minutes longer at night, but not affecting either the maximum or minimum temperatures.

    [b]Now, since you continue to cling to the incorrect radiative forcing paradigm (which is totally contrary to the gravito-thermal paradigm) how about you telling me to what temperature you think the solar radiation could raise the mean temperature of the thin, transparent surface layer of the oceans through which, say, 90% of that solar radiation passes and warms the deeper, cooler regions in the ocean thermocline. S-B calculations need only cite the input data and output.[/b]

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    The main context in which IR-active gases play a role in decreasing surface cooling is simply that they absorb IR energy emitted from the surface a very short distance above the surface, which would otherwise have been emitted directly to space and this warms the air near the surface as most of this energy is quickly transformed into added heat in all air molecules by virtue of the very high collision rates in the lower atmosphere. This in turn reduces the temperature gradient near the surface along with conduction between the air and surface to draw them into a nearer equilibrium. Since the mean free path for IR absorption by water vapor is commonly on the order of 1 to 10 meters, the amount of radiative energy transfer to the near-equilibrium temperature air is very small. Thus, radiative cooling becomes of lesser importance compared to conductive/convective and evaporation cooling mechanisms and surface cooling rates are slowed, but by small amounts compared to those implied in a Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget. The small mean free path for absorption of IR by CO2 of about 20 to 50 meters acts similarly. Because the temperature difference between the surface and altitudes of 1 to 50 meters is very small, the total energy transfer by radiation at those wavelengths absorbed by water and carbon dioxide is very small. The energy involved is much smaller than that claimed by man-made global warming alarmists and at the same time the back-radiation is even more greatly reduced. So while there is some slowing of surface cooling rates, that effect is much smaller than it is portrayed as being in the alarmists models.

    The small thermal gradient from surface to air also allows flowing air from a sunlit area to warm the surface at a shaded area more readily.

    There are ways in which IR-active gases decrease the cooling of the surface of the Earth, but there are also ways in which they decrease its warming as well. For instance, both water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb solar insolation well above the surface. Water vapor creates clouds which have an important cooling effect. Water vapor and CO2 decrease the lapse rate. So if the mechanisms whereby they slow surface cooling are small, then it becomes very important to understand the degree to which these cooling mechanisms affect the surface temperature. When I first addressed these cooling mechanisms, most people dismissed them as small out of hand. But now that we understand that the “warming” or slowed cooling mechanisms are very small, these cooling mechanisms can be seen as important and well-worthy of understanding.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    There are at least two contexts in which the air decreases the rate of surface cooling by radiation. Of course this is distinct from an actual transfer of energy to the surface. But in the context of does the Earth’s surface temperature average higher over the daily cycle or not, these effects may result in a higher average daily temperature.

    There is at least one in which radiation from the air to the surface actually warms the surface. The case in which actual warming occurs is one in which the air flowing over a warm surface absorbs radiation from the surface and then re-emits it as radiation from IR active gases to a cooler area on the surface. For instance, the air blowing across a sun-warmed field in the afternoon blows into shady woods at the edge of the field. This violates no thermodynamic principle and is a conversion of surface-emitted IR into a surface warming IR.

    Let us return to the slowing of cooling effects. One of these effects is the one I explained well enough in my previous comment. Yet some have misread it and claimed I am saying a cooler atmosphere is “warming” the surface. I said no such thing. I said that an IR-active molecule very near the surface can absorb IR from the surface and before it has returned to an equilibrium with the air molecules around by virtue of a collision, it can re-emit that radiation and a small portion of it may be re-absorbed by the surface. Why? First, we have to consider that any particular micro-spot of the surface may have just seen a water molecule evaporate or have just emitted a photon of IR, and may consequently be cooler than the surface average. Second, statistical fluctuations are bound to occur. Third, even at uniform temperature, a black body cavity is supposed to be able to emit and re-absorb energy characteristic of that body’s temperature. Perhaps even gray bodies do this to some extent. And note that the re-emitting IR-active gas molecule in this case is not one which is cooler than the surface because it absorbed surface energy and it had not had time to transfer that energy to the air molecules around it. I will also reiterate that this is a very small effect, but it is not zero.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    John,

    I’ve responded now to what you wrote about my “heat creep” on this thread, and I suggest it’s time to bring this to a head. In continuing to promulgate the opposing (and false) radiative forcing concept (no matter how much Postma thinks he can bend it to fit with reality) PSI is acting just as reprehensibly as the IPCC itself.

    Direct Solar radiation cannot warm the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans even to within 100 degrees of observed temperatures, because most of it passes through down into the colder ocean thermocline. That single fact rubbishes the radiative forcing paradigm. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong, John and you’ll never prove it right.

    If PSI continues to push the radiative forcing paradigm and deny the gravito-thermal effect, then the Slayers themselves will be slain.

    As PSI member Hans Jelbring has been saying for over a decade, the gravito-thermal effect is the correct paradigm.

    Now I have been able to show with valid physics just how the energy is distributed to create and maintain the observed temperature gradient.

    I have been right all along, John, and you are very welcome to write an article trying to prove me wrong, assuming you allow me right of reply. It will be embarrassing for PSI, but it is the right thing to do in the pursuit of valid science. This is a huge issue John.

    Doug

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    dev…

    You do have a good point about how mankind could indeed increase the water surface area of the globe with, for example, artificial inland lakes. Greater levels of water vapour in the air above any region will lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures. My study showed the maximum temperatures decreasing more than the minimum temperatures decreased. I’m led to think of the artificial lake in Canberra, the inland capital of Australia, for example. I’m confident that it would have a cooling effect for nearby suburbs.

  • Avatar

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

    |

    First prove gases cause global warming. Can you?
    GH gas theory is ridiculous, imaginary, false, spurious and so on. Gases can’t form green house. So, green house effect due to gases is impossible. They are actually helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission. Gases have freely moving molecules, so you can’t fix any fluid to make a structure. CAN YOU?? Shame on you IPCC / NASA !!!! dev bahadur dongol
    let us first have water for everybody and everywhere! by developing water supply networks. Moisture content on land surface controls our climate. No dry part on the land surface of the earth! Nature will take care rest. We are expanding more and more dry land surface by urbanization, deforestation and deserts formation causing climate change and power crisis.
    It is possible to run turbines in series without decreasing their efficiency. Running turbines does not decrease the power of running water, it remains constant.
    CC is real. It is reversible. We can control Climate, since we are chaNGING. Man-made not gas-made. For solution to power crisis and climate change visit my blog for details

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

    Ozone
    Ozone as such can’t exist as a layer. It is extremely unstable. It breaks into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms (if not kept pressurized in a closed container).It is formed when oxygen molecules breaks into atoms with heat of high temperature (UV). Stratosphere is tremendously cold zone and extremely low pressure. Ozone formed breaks down into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms and release heat. Even at sea level at NTP ozone is unstable. So ozone layer exists only in theory. Intermittently forming of ozone will continue until the oxygen is in the atmosphere and we receive UV from the sun. So ozone depletion is not possible.

    For solution to power crisis and climate change visit my blog for details

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [i]”The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. [b]But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.[/b]”[/i]

    —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

    Take note, Charles, that if one-way radiation were to transfer thermal energy from a cooler source to a warmer target then entropy would decrease. It is only convection (that is, diffusion and/or advection) which does not decrease entropy in a gravitational field when it is restoring a disturbed state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The kinetic energy appears to transfer to hotter regions, but there is a greater loss of gravitational potential energy, so that entropy is increasing.

    [b]And that, Charles and John, is why “heat creep” does not violate the Second Law. And that is why I am right.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And finally, Charles, I note that Greg also reiterated that it is impossible for radiation from a cooler atmosphere to raise the temperature of a warmer surface in his comment posted one second after mine.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    The Sun’s direct radiation could not raise the temperature of the Venus surface by a tenth of a degree in a billion years if other factors remained constant. If you use Stefan Boltzmann calculations with 735K and 20W/m^2 you’d need emissivity unbelievably low at 0.0012.

    So, Charles, John or any PSI member, what is your explanation as to how the necessary energy actually gets into the surface of Venus so that its temperature rises during the sunlit hours? Hint: the energy must come from the Sun as the warming correlates with the daytime, but the Sun can’t warm even the lower troposphere, let alone the surface, with its direct radiation.

    The same goes for Earth, and the Sun’s radiation cannot warm the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans through which most of its radiation passes as it continues down into the ocean thermocline.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    You can talk all you like, Charles, about back radiation slowing the cooling of a warmer surface. That is not the whole truth. It only slows the radiative cooling of the warmer surface: it does not slow non-radiative cooling as explained in my March 2012 PSI paper.

    In general the mean temperature difference between the surface and the various sources that send radiation back to the surface is orders of magnitude greater than the mean distance between molecules colliding at the interface. So the mean temperature gap is also far greater for radiation than for conduction at the interface. But if radiation does slow surface cooling, the temperature gap at the interface will widen and so non-radiative cooling (both conduction and evaporative cooling) will accelerate.

    However, in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours [i]all[/i] the cooling slows right down and may virtually stop, because all the temporary thermal energy imparted primarily to the solid surface (not the oceans) by the Sun has been dispersed. It is then the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere which slows and stops surface cooling, and also enables the Sun to raise the temperature the next day more than it could have done if the supporting temperature were lower.

    And guess what supports the supporting temperature: thermal energy arriving in the sunlit hours, especially above the water surfaces, by downward convection from regions warmed by incident solar radiation all over the troposphere, or maybe only above the clouds on a cloudy day. That is why the surface can warm even on a cloudy morning. Did you ever think about that one?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Charles, so, it is possible, then it is impossible and you even stated it many times, then it is possible again… 😆

    As I said in my previous comment, you apparently have problems with some fundamentals. Take some time and try to understand why warming the source by back radiation is physically impossible. I mean, completely impossible, not a little bit possible.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And Charles, I don’t know how many times Prof Claes Johnson and I would have to explain it to you but spontaneous radiation from a cooler black or grey body source (sending a full Planck distribution of radiation) has the same amount of radiative flux and electro-magnetic energy in that flux as it would if it were in space. It does not “know” what its radiation is going to strike. It is the target which “knows” something about the source by virtue of how much of the incident radiation resonates with it. That amount will be equivalent to the radiation under the Planck curve for the source – now attenuated by the distance, of course.

    So, if the source is cooler than the target, all the radiation resonates, being immediately re-emitted without any of its elecro-magnetic energy being converted to thermal energy.

    On the other hand, if the source is hotter than the target, and the overall intensity is still sufficient, then [b]the radiation which corresponds to the area between the Planck curves will have its electro-magnetic energy converted to thermal energy in the cooler target, but no conversion happens in a warmer target.[/b]

    So, radiation from “Hot A” will have some of its energy converted to thermal energy in “Warm B” and the rest used for part of Warm B’s quota as per its Planck function. Then the radiation from Warm B may strike “Cool C” and likewise have some of its energy converted and some re-emitted with “temperature” that of Cool C, etc, etc, etc.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    And John, in Section 8 of [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf]this[/url] PSI paper Alberto Miatello writes three pages about Venus, which you should read.

    We all write about other planets because, in some cases, we see in those planets magnified effects of the same processes which occur on Earth. We can easily see that direct solar radiation cannot be what is raising the Venus surface temperature, but on Earth we may “feel” the Sun can do so as we lie on a tropical beach at noon on a clear sunny day. But that’s not what happens on a global basis 24 hours a day – not what the Sun is doing as most of its radiation just passes straight through the thin surface layer of the oceans.

    [b]Have you noticed John how every PSI member avoids discussing this issue of the transparent ocean surface?
    [/b]
    Joe Postma certainly overlooked it in his radiation calculations in his early paper and that book.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    An additional comment on Greg House’s comment near the top of the comment chain:

    There is a legitimate back-radiation case which I have explained elsewhere. When an IR active gas very near the Earth’s surface absorbs IR radiation from the surface, that transfer of energy from the surface is small due to the small drop in temperature in the usual case within a couple of mean free paths from the surface or less. Most of the time, that energy is transferred to the most prevalent gases of the air by collisions. But perhaps one of five times, the IR active gas molecule re-emits IR radiation prior to any such collision. Half of that radiation is emitted toward the surface and some fraction of that will be absorbed by other IR-active molecules between the emitter molecule and the surface. The remainder will not be so absorbed by a gas molecule and will be incident upon the surface, where some fraction of that energy can be absorbed by the surface since the IR energy packet is of the same energy as was originally emitted from the surface.

    So, the surface IR radiation absorbed was small to begin with, was cut down by a factor of about 5, then by a factor of 2, then by a further fraction because some molecule between the emitter molecule and the surface might absorb the energy, then by some further factor depending on the fraction which the surface might absorb should no intervening molecule absorb it. That amount of energy is most certainly insignificant, but it is not zero.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    It’s ironical that you, John, wrote an article welcoming Hans Jelbring into the fold [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html]here[/url].

    You wrote ..

    [i]”Sharing in the joy is Dr. Hans Jelbring, a long-standing independent critic of the greenhouse gas “theory.” Dr Jelbring provided PSI with a further boost by declaring, “The initiative of PSI is much needed and I will be glad to be informed by PSI and contribute to the goals of PSI as much as my skill allows me to do.” Jelbring’s 2003 paper, published in Energy & Environment is seen as being much in accord with PSI science as well as that of Nikolov and Zeller.”[/i]

    Well, that 2003 paper of Jelbring’s is all about the gravito-thermal effect (including discussion of Venus) as is the work of Nikolov and Zeller which analyses the gravito-thermal effect on several planets.

    I have merely extended the work of these guys in that I have used the Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain how the gravito-thermal effect actually functions, and how the required thermal energy gets down into the base of planetary tropospheres and into their surfaces and sub-surface regions in order to maintain the gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

    I am aware of only one other exposition in world literature which also explains what I call the “heat creep” process with much the same explanation as mine. We each came to this conclusion independently, and I only discovered Teofilo’s writings well after mine were first published.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    If the Earth had only half the existing force of gravity, then the temperature gradient would be only about half what it is, and so the surface temperature would be at least 15 degrees cooler. Where does the radiative forcing paradigm give you that result? If the mean surface temperature were the same as it is now, but gravity only half, then how could valid physics explain a “dry” temperature gradient with magnitude [i]2g/Cp[/i] rather than [i]g/Cp[/i]?

    What keeps the core of the Moon so much hotter than the surface ever is? Gravity.

    What keeps the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere hotter than Earth’s surface? Gravity.

    What keeps Earth’s surface temperatures as observed? Gravity.

    What causes the 100,000 glacial cycles? Answer: the gravity of Jupiter which affects Earth’s eccentricity, causing a 100,000 year cycle in such which affects the annual mean distance between the Sun and Earth.

    The 21st century new paradigm in climate science is all about gravity and the gravito-thermal effect, which completely negates any need to “explain” surface temperatures with back radiation or any radiative forcing.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [b]Trivialities John?[/b]

    The amount of energy which the whole of the Venus surface and all its troposphere loses during the 4 month long Venus night (as the whole lot cools by 5 degrees) is simply huge.

    Exactly the same amount of energy has to get back into the surface and the whole troposphere to raise the temperature of all this by five degrees, thus maintaining the same temperature gradient – as the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will happen because it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials.

    Trivial John?

    [b]The issue is as big as the hoax itself.[/b]

    [b]The radiative forcing hoax is completely crushed because there is no need for it anyway – gravity has already raised the surface temperature, as it does on every planet.[/b]

    [b]PSI members are still partly brain-washed by the radiative forcing hoax. They need to step back and realise that solar radiation which mostly passes through the transparent thin water layer covering 70% of Earth’s surface can never in a billion years raise its temperature to within 100 degrees of what is observed. Only gravity can.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    John, you will be awarded the $5,000 reward if you are the first in the world who can prove with valid physics the content of my book to be substantially incorrect, and produce a study with similar methodology which proves the opposite, namely that water vapour warms rather than cools.

    [b]Only the gravito-thermal paradigm shows why water vapour cools. The radiative forcing paradigm requires warming by water vapour.[/b]

    The magnitude of the warming is not the issue. The question you cannot answer is how does the required energy actually get from the colder regions with temperatures below 400K (where the Sun [i]can[/i] raise the existing temperature) to the base of the troposphere and into the surface where radiation from the Sun cannot do any warming what-so-ever? Direct radiation from the Sun would never provide the required 14,000 to 16,000W/m^2 – never in a billion years could about 20W/m^2 even start to raise the temperature.

    This transfer must be by non-radiative processes (diffusion and advection) which are actually transferring thermal energy from cooler to warmer regions. As explained with diagrams in my book (which you obviously have not read or understood) the process is exactly the process which is described in standard statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, namely a process in which entropy is increasing and the system is restoring the state of thermodynamic equilibrium after it has been disturbed by the absorption of the new solar energy.

    Now, exactly the same process allows the necessary thermal energy to get down to the base of the tropospheres of Uranus, Earth and all planets in our solar system that are gaseous or have a significant atmosphere.

    What you cannot explain in relation to Earth is how the necessary thermal energy gets into the nearly completely transparent thin surface layer of the ocean – say, the top 1m. Radiation from the Sun could not raise it to within 100 degrees of the observed temperatures, because perhaps less than 20W/m^2 is absorbed in that layer on average.

    [b]So John, invite any member of PSI to respond to these points and bring in a qualified physicist to adjudicate and advise you who’s right and who’s wrong. I will debate the issue confidently with anyone in the world.[/b]

  • Avatar

    josullivan

    |

    Doug Cotton’s climate theory is not considered credible by PSI for various reasons. One of which is his statement of supposed ‘heat creep’ effect he claims applies to Venus in which he says that the 735K surface of Venus is warmed over a 4 month period by downward convection from high in the atmosphere. In our view, if it takes 4 months to warm a 735K surface to 740K, that is an insignificant warming effect!
    Because of his obsession over such trivialities we prefer to ignore him.

  • Avatar

    CharlesRAnderson

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Written by Dr Charles R. Anderson: “back-radiation at the Earth’s surface is insignificant because the mean free path for the infrared radiation absorptions of water vapor and carbon dioxide…”[/quote]

    Warming the source by back radiation is not insignificant, it is impossible.

    Maybe you need to understand some fundamentals before enlightening the wider audience.[/quote]

    Greg House is right that actual transfer of heat from the air to the surface when the surface was the source is impossible. I have many times clearly stated this.

    It is also the case that when the temperature gradient within the mean free path for IR absorption is small, there is only a small loss of radiant energy by the surface. This effect of reduced heat loss is commonly called back-radiation, despite it being the case that all energy flow is from source to sink. It is a poorly defined concept in general use and that general use obscures that actual physics. To save space in this short article, I did not try to set this concept straight here. So, in this usual context of talking about back-radiation, when radiant energy loss is much smaller than is supposed by the alarmist theory, one might say that back-radiation is insignificant, as I did here.

    Of course, down-welling radiation does sometimes warm the Earth’s surface when the air blowing across it is warmer than the surface. That is not actually back-radiation, but it is radiation from the air to the surface.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    So, which is it, PSI members?

    Radiative Forcing

    or

    The Gravito-thermal effect with consequent downward convection supplying the energy that back radiation can never supply?

    If you say it is radiative forcing, then you need empirical evidence that water vapour warms, contrary to the conclusions of my study of real world temperature records spanning 30 years and three continents.

    Only the new 21st century paradigm pertaining to the gravito-thermal effect (which explains temperatures on all planets in the Solar System) presents valid physics that shows why water vapour and carbon dioxide cool.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    [b]Charles:[/b]

    So, where [b]the above article[/b] says [i]”A local warming high in the atmosphere does not result in a warming of the surface of the Earth”[/i] it [b]is not correct[/b]. The thin surface layer of the oceans does in fact receive energy that was originally absorbed from incident solar radiation in the upper atmosphere. That is where solar radiation is more intense and the temperatures are lower so that it can in fact raise temperatures. This is even more obvious on Venus where incident solar radiation can only raise the temperature of regions colder than about 400K, and yet the energy then transfers even to regions >700K and into the 735K surface.

    As Prof Julius Sumner Miller used to ask us in our physics lectures back in the 1960’s, “Why is it so?” The reason is in my book.

  • Avatar

    John Nicol

    |

    This is a good article John. Both these mechanisms are realistic but have been given no place in the many parallel universes occupied by “climate” scientists sitting in the many Geography departments around the world.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    An example of how convection can work is seen in the thin surface layer of the oceans. If there is no nearby land, this layer (let’s say 1m deep) is hotter than the atmosphere at, say, 500m above it. The surface layer is also hotter than the water 500m below it.

    Now, how does it get so hot? Direct solar radiation mostly passes right through it. Maybe 10% is absorbed, but in general most solar radiation is absorbed in the next 10 to 20m below in the ocean thermocline. So you obviously cannot explain the surface temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations with less than 20W/m^2 of radiation being absorbed.

    OK – so you tell me where the thin surface layer of the ocean gets the necessary input of thermal energy to counter the losses of thermal energy by radiation, evaporative cooling etc.

    Most of the required energy reaches the base of the troposphere by convection, yes, downwards from regions above that have been warmed by incident and some reflected solar radiation. The temperature gradient is still, however, in the normal direction – cooler at higher altitudes. It’s all explained in my book.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    I also see people echoing the climatology “explanation” of convection. Convection includes advection and diffusion. As Wikipedia rightly says [i]”Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them.”[/i]

    In fact, as diffusion accelerates it reaches a point where actual movement can be detected (even though quite slow) and then it is called advection. It is convection whether or not you can detect physical movement.

    [b]The direction of convection is determined by one and only one thing, namely the absorption of new thermal energy which raises the local temperature above that which it would be if the state of thermodynamic equilibrium had been attained with its appropriate temperature gradient induced by gravity.[/b]

    In all such cases, [i]convection is in all accessible directions away from the new source of thermal energy[/i], yes, even towards warmer regions at lower altitudes.

    Just because you observe a temperature gradient in the troposphere (or the Earth’s outer crust) does not mean that you know thermal energy is moving down that temperature slope.

    For example: the solar radiation reaching Venus can only raise the temperature of the relatively cooler regions below about 400K in the upper troposphere and above. Below that the intensity of the radiation is even more attenuated and the existing temperature is already far to hot for the solar radiation to be able to raise its temperature, in accord with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. So, even though the temperature gradient in the troposphere is similar to that on Earth, thermal energy must move by convection from the 400K region to the 700K region and even into the surface throughout the 4-month-long Venus daytime. There is no other explanation for the fact that the surface temperature at any location on the equator rise by about 5 degrees during its daytime. Of course it then cools by 5 degrees as it passes through the night. The same downward convection must also occur during the sunlit hours on Earth and on all planets with significant atmospheres.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Al Shelton”]@ Claudius Denk…..
    So the Hyrological cycle is not convection?
    If not, what is it?[/quote]

    Structure:
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Al Shelton”]@ Claudius Denk…..
    So the Hydrological cycle is not convection?[/quote]Yes. This is provably true. (Moist air heavier than dry air.)

    [quote name=”Al Shelton”]
    If not, what is it?[/quote]You should look into it.
    Regards,
    Jim McGinn
    www dot solvingtornadoes dot com

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @ Claudius Denk…..
    So the Hyrological cycle is not convection?
    If not, what is it?

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    Do we live in a vacuum? No the air convects when heated by surface contact, wet or dry.

    That air can convect and/or that convection exists is not at issue. Address the issue I brought up. The notion that convection powers storms has never been tested, measured. Stating that you know something to be true despite the fact it has never been tested, measured, or even honestly evaluated is the epitome of the kind of pseudo-science we see with global warming.

    water at the surface evapourates due to solar radiation which removes heat from the surface. This is basic physics. Wet or dry if the air is heated it expands and reduces density so convects. I have seen clouds from convection forming at above 65000ft so wat air can rise.

    You didn’t see convection. You saw air rising. Be objective. Don’t be a sheep. Be a scientists. Don’t blindly submit to the cultish belief in convection that is so pervasive in meteorlogy.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”carlallen”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air. [/quote]

    [b]Atomic mass:[/b]
    Diatomic Oxygen = 32
    Diatomic Nitrogen = 28
    Diatomic Hydrogen = 2
    H2O = 18

    Density is quantified in mass/volume-kg/m^3. Because of Charles Law the density of air either wet or dry is primarily affected by it temperature, but at the same temperature and pressure, because water vapor is lighter than both Oxygen and Nitrogen, a cubic meter of dry air has a greater mass than a cubic meter of humid air.

    Carl[/quote]

    Carl,
    At ambient temperatures H2O clusters into particles no less than ten per cluster. So, the minimum number in your equation for H2O is 180. Sorry to burst your bubble. But the reality is that our atmosphere is far too cools to support steam.
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-6R

    Why do you think it is that no Meteorologists will admit these facts?
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
    Did you know that meteorology is a cult, not unlike climatology?

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air. [/quote]

    [b]Atomic mass:[/b]
    Diatomic Oxygen = 32
    Diatomic Nitrogen = 28
    Diatomic Hydrogen = 2
    H2O = 18

    Density is quantified in mass/volume-kg/m^3. Because of Charles Law the density of air either wet or dry is primarily affected by it temperature, but at the same temperature and pressure, because water vapor is lighter than both Oxygen and Nitrogen, a cubic meter of dry air has a greater mass than a cubic meter of humid air.

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”John Marshall”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”John Marshall”]The major heat loss mechanism from the surface is not radiation but convection. This is virtually ignored by the Climateers. There is also latent heat of evapouration of the water to take into account, probably more heat loss than convection to the upper atmosphere.[/quote]

    Convection of what? Meteorologists dimwittedly believe that activity of storms and jetstream is convection. It’s not convection. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air.
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com[/quote%5D
    Do we live in a vacuum? No the air convects when heated by surface contace, wet or dry. water at the surface evapourates due to solar radiation which removes heat from the surface. This is basic physics. Wet or dry if the air is heated it expands and reduces density so convects. I have seen clouds from convection forming at above 65000ft so wat air can rise.[/quote]

    The notion that convection causes (provides the energy) thunderclouds, storms, tornadoes, hurricanes was established by the same consensus seeking type of dimwittedness that underlies the notion that CO2 causes warming. It’s pseudo-science.

    Air rising in thunderstorms is NOT proof that they air rose due to convection.

    It’s comical how many people claim that they can look at a cloud and know that updrafts therein are caused by convection. The reality is that you can’t see convection. You are fooling yourself.

    Meteorologists refuse to apply scientific methods to the problem/issue. Instead, like yourself, they casually observe updrafts in clouds and assume they are watching convection. No measurement. No testing. No concise definition. No consideration of alternate hypothesese.

    Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is lighter than dry air.

    http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Once again I see people echoing the IPCC “explanation” of convection. Convection includes advection and diffusion. As Wikipedia rightly says [i]”Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them.”[/i]

    In fact, as diffusion accelerates it reaches a point where actual movement can be detected (even though quite slow) and then it is called advection. It is convection whether or not you can detect physical movement.

    The direction of convection is determined by one and only one thing, namely the absorption of new thermal energy which raises the local temperature above that which it would be if the state of thermodynamic equilibrium had been attained with its appropriate temperature gradient.

    [b]In all such cases, [i]convection is in all accessible directions away from the new source of thermal energy[/i], yes, even towards warmer regions at lower altitudes.[/b]

    Just because you observe a temperature gradient in the troposphere (or the Earth’s outer crust) does not mean that you know thermal energy is moving down that temperature slope.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Some people here still echo the IPCC argument that absorption of up welling radiation leads to slower surface cooling.

    There are two key arguments against this assumed process supposedly leading to warmer surface temperatures ….

    (a) Back radiation only slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation: it cannot and does not slow non-radiative cooling, and in fact evaporative cooling and conduction can and will accelerate to compensate for slower radiative cooling. This is a fairly complex and relatively new 21st century finding in physics, but I am convinced it is correct. Very briefly, the electromagnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, but it does supply electromagnetic energy for some of the quota of the Earth’s surface radiation as per its Planck function. Hence the surface does not have to use as much of its own thermal energy for its quota of radiation, and that is why radiative cooling is slowed. But, because there is no conversion of the EM energy in the back radiation to thermal energy (which would violate the Second Law) there can be no effect on non-radiative cooling. There’s more in my PSI paper on Radiated Energy.

    (b) None of what is in (a) matters much, because all the cooling is ultimately controlled by the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere which is determined by the gravito-thermal effect. That is why the rate of cooling slows right down, or virtually stops in the early pre-dawn hours. The temporary “dump” of solar energy into the solid surface on a clear day does indeed raise the surface temperature in some regions and that temperature is above the supported temperature. Hence, in the late afternoon and evening that temporary extra energy will dissipate relatively quickly, and the solid regions of the surface can easily cool by, say, 2 degrees per hour. But these regions do not keep cooling at this rate all through the night. When they get close to the supporting temperature all the radiative and non-radiative cooling slows down, because then the whole troposphere has to shed energy in order to maintain the thermodynamic equilibrium with its gravitationally induced temperature gradient. This is why the Venus surface can only cool by about 5 degrees during the whole of its 4-month-long night.

    If there were no gravito-thermal effect, then planetary tropospheres would be hotter at the top and cooler at the base of the troposphere, because the solar radiation is attenuated by atmospheric absorption. As I have pointed out, only a mean of 161W/m^2 reaches Earth’s surface, and only about a tenth of that reaches the Venus surface. Yet the Venus surface is far hotter, and even the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere is a little hotter than Earth’s surface despite there being far less direct solar radiation in the lower troposphere of those other planets. Those planets are hotter at the base of their tropospheres for no other reason than that the heights of their tropospheres are far greater than that of Earth.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K . Manuel

    |

    Thank you for this encouraging report. Obviously some scientists ar NASA are trying now to get reliable information to the public about the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.

    This is a remarkable improvement over past NASA efforts to blindly support the government’s consensus model of the Sun [“Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)]

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”John Marshall”]The major heat loss mechanism from the surface is not radiation but convection. This is virtually ignored by the Climateers. There is also latent heat of evapouration of the water to take into account, probably more heat loss than convection to the upper atmosphere.[/quote]

    Convection of what? Meteorologists dimwittedly believe that activity of storms and jetstream is convection. It’s not convection. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air.
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com[/quote%5D
    Do we live in a vacuum? No the air convects when heated by surface contace, wet or dry. water at the surface evapourates due to solar radiation which removes heat from the surface. This is basic physics. Wet or dry if the air is heated it expands and reduces density so convects. I have seen clouds from convection forming at above 65000ft so wat air can rise.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    (continued)

    This is like saying water can run uphill to a lake at the top of a mountain provided that it flows further down another creek on the other side. It can’t because the two processes are independent. Only where there are dependent processes (as in a siphon) do we see water flowing upwards. Every one-way transition of spontaneous radiation can only ever transfer thermal energy from a warmer source to a cooler target. Only the electromagnetic energy in the radiation corresponding to the area between the Plank curves is converted to thermal energy in the target. For more on this 21st century understanding of radiation see my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    The reason that planetary surface temperatures are hotter than radiating temperatures is wholly and solely because, just as gravity induces a density gradient in the troposphere, it also simultaneously (by diffusion) forms a temperature gradient. The single most important thing for you all to understand is that the temperature gradient in the tropospheres of all planets with significant atmospheres is the very state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with no unbalanced energy potentials) which the Second law of Thermodynamics states will evolve autonomously. The so-called lapse rate does not depend upon a planet’s surface being heated by the Sun and then convection rising upwards. The temperature gradient is still there on Venus, for example, during its four-month-long night, and it is also in the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus where virtually no solar radiation at all reaches down to the lower troposphere, and there’s no surface there anyway. (For more detail see my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.)

    Douglas Cotton, B.Sc (physics), B.A.(econ), Dip,Bus.Admin
    (Sydney & Macquarie Universities 1963 to 1971)

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    It was NASA who initially published net energy diagrams (without back radiation) showing about 161W/m^2 of direct solar radiation entering the surface of Earth.

    In the early 1980’s James Hansen and his followers realised that the solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface (a mean of 161W/m^2) would not raise the surface temperature to more than about 235K. They then modified that by first adding back the incident solar radiation that is absorbed in the atmosphere (about 21% of the flux at the top of the atmosphere) and only deducting the 30% that is reflected. This gets them the 255K figure which is obviously wrong.because the surface is not out there half way up the troposphere.

    Now they still didn’t have enough radiation to explain the 33 degree gap between 255K and the guessed value of 288K for a mean global surface temperature. So Bingo! They just had to convince the world that back radiation from the colder atmosphere feeds twice as much thermal energy into the warmer surface and thus the Sun helps the back radiation warm the surface with its extra contribution of about a third to the total.

    Obviously all this is absurd and would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So they needed their own version of the Second Law in which they claimed it was OK for there to be heat transfers from cold to hot in the sunlit hemisphere because Nature knows there are greater transfers on the other side of the globe.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”John Marshall”]The major heat loss mechanism from the surface is not radiation but convection. This is virtually ignored by the Climateers. There is also latent heat of evapouration of the water to take into account, probably more heat loss than convection to the upper atmosphere.[/quote]

    Convection of what? Meteorologists dimwittedly believe that activity of storms and jetstream is convection. It’s not convection. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Don’t believe it just because you were told to believe it, like an AGW groupy. Believe it based on empirical evidence.
    Fact: there is no empirical evidence that moist air is ligher than dry air.
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Dr Charles R. Anderson: “back-radiation at the Earth’s surface is insignificant because the mean free path for the infrared radiation absorptions of water vapor and carbon dioxide…”[/quote]

    Warming the source by back radiation is not insignificant, it is impossible.

    Maybe you need to understand some fundamentals before enlightening the wider audience.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    The major heat loss mechanism from the surface is not radiation but convection. This is virtually ignored by the Climateers. There is also latent heat of evapouration of the water to take into account, probably more heat loss than convection to the upper atmosphere.

Comments are closed