Geoffwood

. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.

This is how the goal posts are changing your going to have to run to keep up! Wikipedia, 'greenhouse effect' "The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.

Interitus, first we have the most basic approximation for the Earth whereby we assume it is a black body. Secondly we incorporate its albedo but still assume it radiates as a black body. Then perversely we attribute this function to the surface even though we know most of the emissions come from the atmosphere! As adopted and as you want me to accept. With a physical model as we add detail we add realism. Authenticity is the result of addition of physical detail. In reality gases are 'way from' black bodies and as a result have much lower emissivities. Deny the following; 1)at equilibrium an object will emit in the long wave the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised. 2) the portion of the object that answers to space is the last broadband optical depth. Uranus has come into equilibrium with the solar flux. It's troposphere includes the final optical depth that answers to space as a physical necessity. Go on, tell me that it describes a surface temperature!!!! On a planet that doesn't have one. You and yours are making massive assumptions that by leaving out the 'physics details' you can get away with illogical assumptions. As we add detail we inevitably arrive at the surface temperature as a basic physical consequence. Not a 33 deg anomaly.

Interitus. The rant about nocturnal ice making was about quantifying in understandable terms the lack of radiative losses from the surface with the current atmosphere. Surface radiative emissions are not slightly lowered but massively depleted. I'll write a longer reply later. Short of time now, but I will come back to this.

Interitus, you say, "Incidentally stratification means that convective processes from the surface are confined to the troposphere." I feel that I have ready answered this as advection largely stops at the tropopause but diffusion rates don't. The full atmosphere is processed by passing though the tropopause in several years. With respect to energy balance, the stability of the tropopause in terms of meteorological thickness, temperature and altitude reflect its energy balance. If that is not the question you require to be answered please be more specific.

Interitus. You say, "Forget obfuscation with physics, it is so very, very simple and this is the universal way it is calculated." But it doesn't represent the surface! The effective black body temperature describes as a single number how the system effectively behaves. The Earth's effective black body temperature is 255K. It in no way means that this is or should be associated directly with the surface. The main component of the Earth system that answers to space is the atmosphere producing 83% of Earth's emissions. As an average in quantity and spatial expanse it describes a mean height above the surface from which the effective assembly of radiators appears. We find 255K in the mid troposphere at a mean altitude of ~5km. An 'average' in intensity and space makes no assertions about the maximum number in the averaged range nor the extreme of its extent. The surface being the highest temperature at the lowest extent of the radiating range. It represents an average in both.

Hi knocker. Your attached thumbnail shows that solar radiation is more intense than that of the Earth. The Earth emitting less though from more places. The two fluxes are not directly comparable. The flux from the sun is near parallel, whereas the Earth's surface emits through 2pi steradians. The solar flux can therefore continuously exploit the short atmospheric paths continually shown to the Sun as the Earth rotates. Some 80% of the energy entering the Earth system does so within 40deg latitude of the seasonal equator. However, for all points on the surface many solid angles of emission encounter long atmospheric paths and therefore greater optical 'thickness' and attenuation. Only a those solid angles around the zenith can exploit short paths. This effect is independent of atmospheric composition and is a function of geometry. Atmospheric opacity can be quantified for incoming radiation from Trenberth's (that ok?) energy balance. The atmospheric opacity for incoming radiation is 0.46 or 46% leaving 0.54 transmitted to the surface. Of the netted, or real energy that we can express in Wm-2 as part of the surface energy budget, again from Trenberth's energy diagram 63Wm-2 leaves the surface and 40Wm-2 passes through the atmospheric window. Showing a long wave transmittance for the atmosphere of 0.63. So according to Trenberth's diagram the atmosphere attenuates a greater portion of incoming radiation compared to outgoing radiation. This diagram may help. The Sun emits at around 0.6um with over 50% of the band radiance at longer wavelengths than 0.7um (IR and beyond). The Earth's peak emission is centred around 10um for 300K.

knocker, you say, "knocker, you say, " Another way of putting the first bit is that the earth receives 340w of solar energy for each square meter of it's spherical surface, For a stable climate on earth the planet must radiate the same amount of energy back into space. However that would leave an average surface temperature of -18C. The earth emits almost as a perfect black body (slight adjustment of Stefan's Law) There are several gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit infra red radiation. Thus they allow incoming solar radiation but they trap radiation from the surface. Result reduced radiation back into space and an imbalance. So, quick adjustment and voila we have an average temp of 15C. The easiest way of seeing this is to look at a diagram of spectral distribution of solar and terrestrial radiation plotted logarithmically, together with the main absorption bands. So the atmosphere is partially 'thick'."

Interitus. You say, " Yes, the troposphere is warming up, at least you got that bit right." Unfortunately UAH MSU and RSS MSU disagree with you.

Interitus. "It should be obvious to all that radiative heat transfer from the surface can be VERY effective" So go and freeze some water when the air temperature is two above. It's simple. Select a fully insulated thermal container with high sides. Make sure no wind disturbs your experiment during the clear night. Otherwise it won't freeze.

Interitus, you know this is going to be slow and painful, you say, "Incidentally stratification means that convective processes from the surface are confined to the troposphere." I'm afraid this is 'another' physics lesson. Convection is the sum of advection and diffusion. By climate science's admission chemicals from the troposphere are regularly convected into the stratosphere otherwise they wouldn't be able to deplete ozone. The full atmosphere is stratospherically processed within 3 years. We learned that from the isotopes from the first nuclear tests.

stewfox, thanks for the feedback. That option to quote does not appear on all links. Not a big blogger, but set in my ways, sorry. Hope common grammar can be translated if more slowly.

knocker, "Another way of putting the first bit is that the earth receives 340w of solar energy for each square meter of it's spherical surface, For a stable climate on earth the planet must radiate the same amount of energy back into space. However that would leave an average surface temperature of -18C." You have just completely disregarded the Earth's atmosphere. Go look at Trenburth's energy budget.

knocker, you need to revisit Trenburth's energy budget. 184wm-2 reaches the surface. You are obviously and embarrassingly talking about a point above the surface?

knocker, Posted Today, 10:00 by knocker "And as we are tripping the light fantastic there is also Rancourt's alternative." Attached Files RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingfirst-revised-3.pdf 180.26KB 6 downloads This is from the abstract, "Earth’s radiative balance determining its surface temperature is shown to be two orders of magnitude more sensitive to solar irradiance and to planetary albedo and emissivity than to the atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2." Did you even bother to read it?

Interitus, you say, "Interesting stuff, but at the risk of sounding a bit thick, like with your example of 'if the earth was like the moon, it would be the same temperature as the moon', your theoretical example of parallel high emissivity plates in a vacuum doesn't represent reality that there is an atmosphere." Yes there is an atmosphere and the 'devil is in the detail'. The accepted temperature of the Earth, from which the 'greenhouse effect' raises the temperature, is 255K or -18degC and is a 'black body' temperature. The calculation is exactly the same as the 'moon's' temperature, except the calculation for the moon is more accurate. 273K includes a real world estimation of the moon's emissivity and it describes the surface. I'll show you the details if you require. 255K or -18degC for the Earth assumes the Earth has no atmosphere (taken for granted that it represents the surface) and that the Earth emits as a perfect 'black body' when 83% comes from the atmosphere! For an atmosphere to be like a 'black body' it has to be optically 'thick', which the transmission window proves it isn't. You are accepting the analogy whether you like it or not. The moon comparison is to show that the total effect of having an atmosphere upon the Earth's surface is actually 15K not 33K The calculation for 33K enhancement uses the raised albedo of having an atmosphere then neglects the FACTS that the average emission height is not the surface and that the average emissivity of the bodies that answer to space is not that of a black body. Again, I'll show the calculation if you require. ie it neglects the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere!!!!! Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. (Again).

BFTV, a fine response that doesn't compromise yourself by denial.

BFTV, sorry, bit lengthy (but so are some of yours). Some may see this as off post. But I don't. There can be no 'definable human influence' if the current scientific stance and education put forward by authority is questionable. And questionable it is. Both NASA and our friend, Mr Trenburth, in their energy budget diagrams show massive, opposing 'energy' fluxes. The Earth emitting a massive upward radiative flux called 'energy' by NASA (that doesn't heat the atmosphere as it's not in the energy budget for the atmosphere). The 'back radiant', 'energy' transferred downward, and NASA do use the word 'energy' is held responsible for heating the surface with twice the efficacy of the solar flux, but is unavailable for work or power and is generally undetectable without special equipment!!!!! Look, climate science is thinking in terms of photon fluxes. Photon fluxes give the WRONG ANSWERS. Photons only describe REAL, as in NETTED, energy AT THE POINT OF ABSORPTION OR EMISSION ONLY. In all other respects electromagnetic radiation is a wave quantity and has therefore to be treated and described so. In order to account for interference, diffraction and refraction we require a wave analogy. In calculation of 'energy' electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY. This is the difference; Consider two high emissivity, infinite, parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each plate emits the same photon flux Q. Therefore as photons carry energy and energy is always positive, so at all points between the plates the total energy density is proportional to 2Q, (1Q from each of the plates)!!!! Energy multiplication is therefore available from zero thermal gradient. Work and power for nothing!!!! Hooray!!! But, Physical nonsense. Now back to reality; Two high emissivity, infinite parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each is producing thermal excitations of the mutual fields as described by Maxwell's equations. The superposition of equal monochromatic but opposite vector flows across the entire spectrum of emissions cancel at all intermediate points, to, wait for it.....,...zero!!! Slight difference there, eh? So this analysis of the equilibrium condition yields that there is NO AVAILABLE ENERGY from the distinct lack of spontaneous exchange. There's is NO 'energy' flow to tap into for work or power, with NO thermal gradient. Mmm....... correct answer. With one plate at a higher temperature to the other the only 'heat transferred' is the 'vector sum', or 'difference' of the opposing electromagnetic waves, see Poynting vector, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/electromagnetic.pdf So in reality ONLY the netted flux leaves the surface as a quantity we can describe as 'energy' in Wm-2! The superposition of the more complete and stronger surface em continuum annihilates all downward fluxes from cooler objects (sky). Downwelling signals can only be viewed as a temperature signal by a detector with an environmental shield. Fluxes from higher temperature sources (like solar) cannot be cancelled as there is no counterpart and impart themselves as REAL ENERGY UPON THE SURFACE. When calculating the surface emissions, line by line monochromatic subtraction of the opposing vector components across the entire spectrum yields the surface losses. The only radiative heat transferred. So to contradict you, IN CO2's spectral bands NO SIGNIFICANT ENERGY LEAVES THE SURFACE. It is not part of the surface energy budget any more! Therefore this energy cannot be 'absorbed' and re radiated by such gases. These gases obey local thermodynamic principles. Therefore double the CO2 if you like, this coupled thermal system is using other available routes. (Except for the slight broadening of lines, compensated by reduced energy reaching the surface and greater upper atmospheric losses to space.) So if it doesn't go up, it cannot come back down!!!! Or be passed to other 'powerful greenhouse gases'!!!! Ever wondered why your domestic 'radiator' is a convection heater? Ever wondered why your car 'radiator' uses forced convection (conduction to the air and a fan)? Ever wondered why the black CPU in your computer needs conductive paste and a heat sink and a fan? Radiative heat transfer at low thermal gradients in a coupled thermal system is INEFFECTIVE. The atmosphere is not in radiative balance.

BFTV, really? "The surface heats up and releases longwave radiation (heat) in order to cool. CO2 in the atmosphere then absorbs some of that long wave radiation at specific wavelengths and then re-emits it in all directions, some goes back to the surface, some gets reabsorbed by other greenhouse gasses, while some eventually escapes into space." With that statement you have proven that you know nothing about radiative heat transfer!!!! Or coupled thermal systems!!! Oh dear.

Have a look at the first graph here, http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/training/tutorials/goes_39um/ir_bands.asp The region from 8.0um to 13um is the Earth's surface as seen in the same infra red region that the Earth emits long wave radiation. It is the atmospheric window. The region near the 300K BB curve is the surface, nothing else in the field is that warm. Where we can 'see' through the atmosphere 'no significant' physical process exists to absorb or emit radiation in that portion of the band. A spectral analysis reveals this 'band pass' to be around 0.35 of the total energy within the 300K integration of the Planck continuum. Meanwhile, at NASA we have http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php The second diagram here shows massive vertical fluxes described as 'two large opposing energy fluxes'. The one from the surface is 117% of 340Wm-2 or 390Wm-2 just above a black body emission from 288K. The second from the atmosphere down is 340Wm-2 or 1.82 times the average solar energy incident upon the surface!!!!!!!! But no device exists to exploit it. Twice the power of the Sun! From an atmosphere with a big hole in its ability to absorb or emit and existing at a low temperature! The first diagram from NASA shows that the two MASSIVE FLUXES cancel to a piddling amount (17%) AND 70% of the piddling amount is NOT absorbed by the atmosphere. The 397Wm-2 does not heat the cooler atmosphere as it is not in the atmosphere's energy budget!!!!!!! However the undetectable downwelling, mythical, unavailable for work or power 340m-2 heats the warmer surface to 33K above what it should be. From an atmosphere with a 35% window in its Planck continuum necessary to produce anything like black body radiation, and from a relatively cool and rarified gas !!! The surface only provides as the warmer object 8% of the atmosphere's energy by radiation. Yet 340Wm-2 is supposed to heat the surface to balance the books! The answer is geometrical and not species dependent. It's a mockery when the potential temperature of the upper atmosphere, ie a parcel brought down to 1000mb reveals that there is NO RADIATIVE ENHANCEMENT IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE. The tropospheric thermal gradient is one of equal total energy as derived from the mechanical lapse. A consequence of gravitational containment.

Great list mullender! Might just have missed off fertilisers though. Slightly stronger wording of 'farm chemicals' in our dependence upon. Oh and Thorium is the way out. But doesn't provide weapons grade waste, so no super power will want it!

stewfox, "Topology the holy grail that's used to explain the differences but is it ? How do we know that in the Arctic winter, without the constraint of the Canadian and Siberian coasts, sea ice wouldn’t be increasing there, which would perhaps make this Antarctic phenomenon less of a peculiarity?" We don't know stew', because of the topology.

MIA. This is not in disagreement, so please do not take this the wrong way. Temperature is an already averaged quantity, being a measure of a 'mean' kinetic distribution. The averaging of already averaged quantities requires very careful weighting to retain significance. With temperature this average is both over time and space, increasing the dependence upon accurate weighting for accuracy. AGW is dependent upon radiative flux which is non linear. Flux proportional to T^4. You cannot simply average a non linear function. The output of this model is supposed to reflect the physical ability of the surface element of the globe as an arbitrary layer as it responds dynamically to entropically driven equilibrium to return to space the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised, as a single number. Not a trivial calculation. But still delivered to three significant figures as an anomaly when we do not know the Earth's temperature to that degree! So the output of the model is highly dependent upon the algorithm. No smoothing required. That is why I prefer global ice extent and mean position of the circumpolar vortex as the flux integrators. Fewer calculations Regards.

stewfox thanks for the input. I totally agree on the issue of albedo. However, Trenburth's energy budget shows the same surface albedo for the Earth as the moon. So I am comparing rock vs rock. I have shown the calculation from knockers link. Therefore the modification of Earth's albedo to 0.29 from 0.125 is due to the atmosphere. Look at the budget diagram. I am the one pulling it to pieces, not you!

Polar Maritime, "The way you are trying to conduct the conversation, Im not surprised one bit that knock isn't responding! " My apologies. I will endeavour to remain civil. Wrist slapped!