Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?
#1
Hi All,
It is often stated that we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be, because of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

According to the greenhouse effect "theory" (and paradigm) the moon's surface is at an average temperature of -18C and the earth's surface is at an average temperature of 15C.
This is the 33C difference between the two surfaces that is explained by GH "theory".

In it's most simple form GH "theory" consists of four arrows.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

The four arrows can be described as follows.
1) Solar input received at earth's surface is a constant 240W/m2.
2) Earth's surface in agreement with P/4, Wien's law, and black body theory, radiates at 240W/m2, constantly, for a constant input..
3) The atmosphere which is warmed to -18C by arrow 2) radiates in accordance with Wien's law and black body theory at a power of 240W/m2 to space.
4) The atmosphere which is warmed to -18C by arrow 2) radiates in accordance with Wien's law and black body theory at a power of 240W/m2 to earth's surface.

This simple form of GH "theory" has many problems and indeed at least Five fatal flaws, which calls into question the above given explanation of the 33C warmer at earth's surface observation.

Is there any other possible explanation for the observed difference between the moon's and earth's surface temperatures? Yes, but first we need to check and understand the figures that are being used.

Most would agree that,
1) Earth's near surface average air temperature = 15C.
2) Earth's average actual surface temperature = 25C.
3) Earth seen as an object in space is at an average temperature of -18C.
4) The moon has no atmosphere (to speak of), so it can not have a near surface air temperature.
5) The moon average surface temperature = -18C.
6) The moon seen as an object in space is at an average temperature of -18C.
7) Greenhouse effect "theory" states the average surface temperature of earth is 30C.
8) Greenhouse effect "theory" does not predict a near surface air temperature.

The three types of average temperatures listed above are, the surface (2, 5, and 7), the near surface air (1, 4, and 8), and the object seen as a whole from space (3, and 6). Obviously surface and near surface air temperatures are two different things. BUT, when one compares the moons surface temperature to earth's near surface air temperature, ie, -18C and 15C that is exactly what is being done. Two quite different things are being compared as if they were the same thing, when they are not. The actual comparison should be -18C and 25C = therefore there is a 43C warmer surface effect to be explained, not a 33C effect. This problem is even worse when one remembers that GH "theory" predicts earth's surface temperature should be 30C, so it states there is a -18C to 30C = 48C warmer surface effect to be explained.

This is not the whole problem though, because the moon's average surface temperature is actually -15C (it does have a very thin atmosphere). So the real effect that has to be explained is a -15 to 25 = 40C warmer surface effect. Or, if we use earth's near surface air temperature -15 to 15 = 30C effect, or, or, or, any other incorrect combination one wants to use. Is it a (-18C to -15C) 3C warmer surface effect on the moon and a (-18C to 25C) 43C warmer surface effect upon the earth????

It all gets very confusing very quickly because two different things (1 and 5) are being compared, when they should not be. It would be a better starting point to say that there appears to be a (on average) 3C warmer surface effect upon the moon and a (on average) 43C warmer surface effect upon the earth. But, why? How?

Both the moon and the earth are objects in space, one with an atmosphere, one without, that are both 93.5 million miles from a star. At this distance from the star (our sun) both objects receive 1368W/m2 of sunlight, which warms them. How much does it warm them? Earth receives 1368W/m2 at the top of it's atmosphere, but as earth is a rotating globe, then the power of sunlight is divided by 4, and after allowing for reflection and refraction, causing a loss of 102W/m2 an average of 239W/m2 is received at earth's surface. The moon also receives 1368W/m2, and again this is divided by four because the moon rotates relative to the sun (although the moon is in tidal lock with the earth, so can be said not to be rotating at all). The moon apparently has a high albedo (it simply reflects 102W/m2) and so it also only receives 239W/m2 at it's surface.

The Stefan Boltzman law states that a black body receiving 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C. Both the moon and the earth when viewed as objects in space have an average temperature of -18C.
So, all seems well and good so far. Well, except for the fact that neither the earth or the moon are black bodies.

So, we have two objects in space that overall on average appear to be the same temperature. However, what we have are two different systems, one is simply an object, the other is an object with an atmosphere (and oceans). They are completely different systems. It is not surprising that an object with an atmosphere will have a warmer surface, because the object as a whole has to keep the appearance from space of a certain temperature (-18C in earth's case), and so at the bottom of it's atmosphere it must be warmer than at the top, and warmer at the bottom than it's mean weighted average, which must be in earth's case -18C. Earth's oceans and atmosphere store and redistribute heat / energy (heat merely being one way in which energy moves about from higher to lower). Latent heat is an almost invisible (and hence often neglected) way in which energy is moved from the earth's surface to higher in the atmosphere. Always though heat / energy goes from higher to lower, from warmer to cooler. So, it is not surprising that the more atmosphere an object in space has the higher it's surface temperature will be, compared to the temperature the object alone would be without an atmosphere. AND, that there will be a temperature gradient from the objects surface (high energy) to space (low energy). So, the surface temperature MUST BE higher than the object alone would be because of the presence, and thickness, of the atmosphere.

To suggest an atmosphere warms the surface by "back radiation" is an unphysical "explanation" that has never been observed. Yes, the surface is warmer because of the presence of an atmosphere, but that is not proof of an unphysical "explanation".

At present we simply do not understand how the system works, but one thing is certain, the current GH "theory" based paradigm has failed and is now holding back our attempts to improve our understanding of what is actually happening in the grey body reality in which we live. The misrepresentation by GH "theory" of the 33C warmer surface effect is proof of that.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
Derek,

the value -18°C is not correct since the value 239W/m² is not correct.

Putting aside the problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation, this 239W/m² would be correct if the sunshine stroke the whole area at the same time. This is not the case, of course, because the whole area is a sphere.

Let us simplify the case and assume that the Earth just makes a half-turn instantly instead of rotating gradually and the data used is otherwise correct. Both hemispheres are warmed by the Sun by 478W/m² each to the temperature +30°C according to the SB equation. The average temperature depends on how fast the heating of the one side and cooling of the other side are.

The second problem arises when you include the atmosphere. If you have a plate at -18°C and put a colder atmosphere on it, it is not possible physically, I am afraid, that the plate gets hotter and the air colder so that the average would still be the same -18°C.
Reply
#3
(01-20-2014, 02:54 PM)Greg House Wrote: Derek,

the value -18°C is not correct since the value 239W/m² is not correct.

Would you agree Greg that the weighted mean temperature of the atmosphere is -18C?

Would you also agree that this temperature is usually (ie, on average) found at about 5 kilometers height within earth's atmosphere?

However, if the average temperature of the atmosphere is -18C and this forms an effective surface of emission, what then happens to the IR emitted by earth's surface that escapes directly to space because of the IR window? It would add to the 239W/m2 figure, but no one seems to see this radiation???

I agree with a thermodynamics approach, and think it worth pointing out there is 12 hours between your simplified halves approach.

I am not sure how you get to "Both hemispheres are warmed by the Sun by 478W/m²",
both halves can not be warmed at the same time, one was warmed 12 hours ago???
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
Derek, somewhere above our heads you can find -18°C, -28°C and so on. I do not see how this makes the known calculation of -18°C ("average Earth surface temperature") correct. Those are two different things. Look, if the correct value were +50°C, you still would be able to find the altitude where the temperature is the same -18°C or -28°C.

To my "Both hemispheres are warmed by the Sun by 478W/m²", I mean first one hemisphere is warmed by 478W/m² and then the same happens to the other one (considering the area of a hemisphere and 30% albedo). By this power each hemisphere is warmed up to +30°C and then cools when it becomes the dark side. The warmists calculation is inherently wrong, it is a fallacy. Their trick is to apply the SB equation to the area of sphere, as if the whole sphere is warmed by the Sun at the same time. The correct way is to calculate temperatures of the hemispheres separately and then take the average.
Reply
#5
I guess I have to add something.

As you can possibly see from my explanation, to calculate the average surface temperature it is not sufficient to know the solar constant alone. Because the result depends also on the rates of heating and cooling.

Considering just a black body is nonsense, because the light side would be at +30°C according to the SB equation but the dark side at -273°C (0°K), since the dark side receives nothing. So, the "black body average" would be -121°C (152°K) and not -18°C.
Reply
#6
(01-20-2014, 11:51 PM)Greg House Wrote: Derek, somewhere above our heads you can find -18°C, -28°C and so on. I do not see how this makes the known calculation of -18°C ("average Earth surface temperature") correct.

Greg, the average mean weighted temperature of the atmosphere, through the depth of earth's atmosphere globally, is, to my understanding -18C.
I am not aware anyone says differently.

I would agree that to say, as GH "theory" does, that the sun only warms earth's surface to -18Cis utterly ridiculous.
Trenberth's global energy budget plots are even worse... Solar input at earth's surface is depicted as a mere (overall average) of 168W/m2, then 161W/m2, and now 163.3W/m2...

The average near surface air temperature of earth is generally agreed to be 15C.

The average surface temperature of earth is generally agreed to be 25C.

SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C.
and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2.

I agree that is as far as SB law should go as such, but GH "theory" and AGW just keep on misusing these overall averages to eliminate night and day, and the thermodynamics of reality.

Are we furiously agreeing?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
Derek, the warmists point as presented in the IPCC reports is that the Sun can heat the surface only up to -18°C, but in fact the temperature is +15°C, so, they say, there must be more powerful source of heating and this is "back radiation" from "greenhouse gases".

There are 2 ways to conclude that this is wrong. First of all, the back radiation heating of the source is physically impossible. This alone proves that surface temperature can not be "otherwise" lower, so the -18°C value must be false.

The other way is to look at their calculation closely and find out where the error or trick is. I humbly hope that I did exactly that.

I did that because some people, not only you, accept this false value and try then to reconcile this false value with the reality. This leads inevitably to other errors, so what I intended to do was to demonstrate that that key value was simply the result of a calculation based on a false approach, that is all.

There is no need to explain "why we are warmer than we would be otherwise", because we are not.
Reply
#8
(01-21-2014, 04:38 AM)Greg House Wrote: Derek, the warmists point as presented in the IPCC reports is that the Sun can heat the surface only up to -18°C, but in fact the temperature is +15°C, so, they say, there must be more powerful source of heating and this is "back radiation" from "greenhouse gases".

Greg, I will repeat,
SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C.
and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2.
The point is that earth is not the complete object in this case. The complete object is the earth AND it's atmosphere, and that is seen from space as an object at, on average, -18C.
To deny this is to deny a fact / observation all that I know of accept. It has to be explained, as I have tried to do.

GH "theory" is that the sun, on average, only warms earth's surface to 239W/m2, in the simple four arrows version, and 168 / 161 / 163.3W/m2 in the more complex Trenberth / global energy budget version of the "theory".
I agree this is ridiculous, we all know the sun is not cold. It is at this point the overall average should not be used, because of, the thermodynamics of reality. It would be like saying because one can cook a chicken at 200C for one hour you can get the same effect by cooking a chicken at 50C for 4 hours. Ridiculous, and I have asked several "climate scientists" to eat a chicken cooked in such a manner. They have all refused so far... So, there has to be another explanation. Just dismissing it, as you seem to be saying we should do, is not the best way forward in my humble opinion.

The surface temperature IS NOT 15C. No one says that. It is an issue many people confuse as if they are the same thing, when they are not. The surface temperature (25C) and the near surface air temperature (15C) are two different things. For example, on a hot day if one holds ones hand 1.25 to 2 meters above the surface (WMO specified height for a Stevenson's screen), the air will be quite cool, comparatively speaking, to when one puts one's hand directly on the ground / car bonnet....

Thermodynamics can explain the temperatures / regime / and differences, GH "theory" can not. GH "theory" in both the simple four arrows version, and the more complex Trenberth global energy budget versions gets the wrong surface temperature (30C in four arrows version, and 32 to 33C in the Trenberth versions). GH "theory" also dismisses day and night at earth's surface, and it dismisses the extremes of the thermodynamics of reality (hot and cold, it only considers the averages - the point of the above cooking a chicken simile). The "theory" also dismisses any geothermal inputs, and the heat retention and later release by the land, and particularly by the oceans..

I hope it is fairly obvious that the thermodynamics of reality can explain all that GH "theory" can not, AND, thermodynamics can also explain the 33C "effect" that has been so distorted by GH in order to justify GH "theory". Which is the point I have tried to explain in my first post on this thread.

May be these two plots (below) will help. Please note on a second to second basis anywhere on earth's surface, night or day, an atmospheric "back radiation" warming effect of earth's surface IS NOT NEEDED..
Thermodynamics that we all know and experience on a day to day basis explains it all.
Inputs per second.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]
Outputs per second.
[Image: Slide2.jpg]
= temperature and temperature change from one second to the next.

Err, the above plots may have missed a few minor processes, such as work of size, etc, but, I think they are minor enough to ignore. Certainly they will not leave a big enough "hole" for "back radiation" to be required...

btw - Trenberth global energy budgets depict the earth's surface warmed to -
Mk 1 168 + 324 = 492W/m2 = 32.06C
Mk 2 161 + 333 = 494W/m2 = 32.37C
Mk 3 163.3 + 340.3 = 503.6W/m2 = 33.84C
Calculated using attached excel sheet.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Derek - Excel sheet calculator, disc, sphere, hemisphere temps Mk 7.xlsx (Size: 2.16 MB / Downloads: 1)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#9
(01-21-2014, 08:54 AM)Derek Wrote: SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C. and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2. The point is that earth is not the complete object in this case. The complete object is the earth AND it's atmosphere,

Derek, my central point and the explanation above was that this value 239W/m2 was not correct for the Earth, with atmosphere or without. It is not correct that the Earth overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2.

Additionally, my second (and secondary) point was that if some planet receives this 239W/m2 (which corresponds to -18°C) from the Sun, you can have neither +15°C nor +25°C average surface temperature (in absence of a more powerful source of energy than the Sun).

To avoid confusion, those two points should be discussed separately.
Reply
#10
Greg,

you need to specifically address what Derek wrote here,before you can say it is wrong since you provide no rationale to support your position:

Quote:Greg, I will repeat,
SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C.
and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2.
The point is that earth is not the complete object in this case. The complete object is the earth AND it's atmosphere, and that is seen from space as an object at, on average, -18C.To deny this is to deny a fact / observation all that I know of accept. It has to be explained, as I have tried to do.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#11
I guess I am starting to understand where the problem is.

Coming back to my simplified example, at any given moment the light side (hemisphere) receives 478 W/m² input and the other side receives nothing, so yes, mathematically it is 239 W/m² on average, but the SB equation is not applicable to this average value.

The hemispheres are in fact 2 different things that are heated by the Sun and cool separately independent of each other. That is, any number of things can be heated to the same temperature by the same power. If we had 100 hemispheres heated by the Sun in succession, each of them would be heated to the same temperature +30°C by the same power 478 W/m², not to -177°C by 4.78 W/m². The real average temperature of all those hemispheres at any given moment depends then on the rates of heating and cooling.


It is interesting that if we consider the situation at the very beginning before the planet has made the first turn, mathematically you would have the same 239 W/m² on average, but the average temperature would not be -18°C. It would be +30°C on the light side and -273°C on the other one, which yields -121°C average. This is a good example of the SB equation not being applicable directly to the total area of things being warmed in succession, one after another.

(01-21-2014, 04:44 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Greg, you need to specifically address what Derek wrote here,before you can say it is wrong since you provide no rationale to support your position:
Quote:SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C. and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2. The point is that earth is not the complete object in this case. The complete object is the earth AND it's atmosphere, and that is seen from space as an object at, on average, -18C.To deny this is to deny a fact / observation all that I know of accept. It has to be explained, as I have tried to do.

I thought I did that, but no problem.

To Derek's "SB law states that an object receiving an IR input of 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C. and this is also correct as an overall average if the object overall is receiving an IR input of 239W/m2.", in our case the SB equation is not applicable to this average value, I explained why in my previous comment.

To Derek's "The point is that earth is not the complete object in this case. The complete object is the earth AND it's atmosphere, and that is seen from space as an object at, on average, -18C.", even if it is correct, it is just a sort of coincidence and irrelevant to the central point, since the calculation of that -18°C by applying the SB equation is not correct. Anyway, since the atmosphere is heated by the surface and is getting colder with the increasing altitude, the average would be, of course, lower, than in case of a surface without atmosphere, so you can have e.g. like maximum possible average surface temperature (without atmosphere) of +50°C, but average (surface+atmosphere) temperature of -20°C, no problem with that, but this is irrelevant to the central point.

This is a funny thing, I desperately tried to make my last comment separately, but I failed miserably Sad
Reply
#12
I see Greg has been through all this with Joe Postma at his blog too.
Revisiting the Steel Greenhouse
Posted on 2013/12/08

Greg misses the point "we" are trying to explain to him there and here.
I will have a ponder and see if another way to explain it springs to mind.
It revolves around the fact the moon and the earth are both observed from space as objects at -18C.
One has an atmosphere, the other does not, so they must get the same result, but by different means, because of the presence of earth's atmosphere.

NB - Greg, the forum software adds any immediately posted comment to your previous comment. Leave replying about an hour and it comes up as a new comment.

NNB "Coming back to my simplified example, at any given moment the light side (hemisphere) receives 478 W/m²" ???
TOA is a solar constant (which does vary slightly) of 1368 W/m2. Please explain. This is not a trap, I just want to try to understand your logical steps.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#13
(01-21-2014, 10:37 PM)Derek Wrote: I will have a ponder and see if another way to explain it springs to mind.
It revolves around the fact the moon and the earth are both observed from space as objects at -18C.

Derek, a sphere like the Earth or the Moon warmed by the Sun can be indeed at -18°C, but not necessarily. It depends on the rates of heating and cooling.

Coming back to my simplified example, we can "choose" the rate of heating and cooling so that the result would be -18°C. Here we go. The maximum temperature, as you possibly remember, is +30°C and the sphere changes sides every 12 hours. Let's say, at the very last moment before the turn the light side has reached +30°C and the dark one -66°C, so we have that lovely -18°C as the average. Then the turn happens and the former light side starts cooling at the rate 96/12=8°C an hour. The other side starts warming at exactly the same rate. Thus we'll have the average -18°C at any given moment. So, as you can see, -18°C is possible. But, of course, if we choose another cooling and heating rate, we'll get a different result.

The warmists calculation is, however, inherently wrong, and I hope to have successfully demonstrated that by the example, where they would get -18°C by their approach, although the correct value would be -121°C. That example is actually sufficient to debunk the warmists approach.

(01-21-2014, 10:37 PM)Derek Wrote: NNB "Coming back to my simplified example, at any given moment the light side (hemisphere) receives 478 W/m²" ???
TOA is a solar constant (which does vary slightly) of 1368 W/m2. Please explain. This is not a trap, I just want to try to understand your logical steps.

I can do that. I assume you are familiar with the warmists calculation where they land at -18°C. I do not question the data at the moment, I question only their reference to the whole area of the sphere, so I do the same calculation for the hemisphere and this would be logically 2x239=478. 478 W/m² for the side that is actually heated by our lovely sunshine. Here the SB equation is applicable, for the hemisphere.
Reply
#14
(01-21-2014, 11:06 PM)Greg House Wrote: I can do that. I assume you are familiar with the warmists calculation where they land at -18°C. I do not question the data at the moment, I question only their reference to the whole area of the sphere, so I do the same calculation for the hemisphere and this would be logically 2x239=478. 478 W/m² for the side that is actually heated by our lovely sunshine. Here the SB equation is applicable, for the hemisphere.

So, you are still dividing power of sunlight to get an average, and then only using the average. You are excluding the thermodynamic reality of the actual extremes.
Your chicken is still half cooked! You are presenting the warmists argument slightly differently, and in a very confusing manner to my mind.

"Here the SB equation is applicable, for the hemisphere."
REALLY.. Oceans and land heat absorption. Then there are the other cooling mechanisms, other than radiative losses at earth's surface such as sensible and latent heat losses convected in a "fluid" atmosphere. There are also geothermal inputs, particularly to the oceans.

S/B can be applied to the whole, as viewed from space, but not in part. You appear to me to be starting from a false basis by using the warmists (radiation obsessed / only) logic.

I also see some confusion about which -18C is being referred to. There are three that spring to mind.
1) Earth as an object (with an atmosphere), when viewed from space, is -18C.
2) The earth's atmosphere's average temperature overall is -18C.
(Which may be an artifact of the 2 parallel plane model used in the warmist "theory")
3) The supposed, ridiculous and imaginary, warmist view that the sun only heats earth's surface up to -18C.

1 and 2 are facts. 3 is part of the failed greenhouse effect hypothesis.

I would suggest we all go back to the start of this thread a read some of what we may have missed or skipped over before Greg. I will, certainly, when I get time, read the latter comments in the above linked to thread at Joe Postma's blog. I have already noted in passing some excellent remarks by Kristian, which may form part of a later more considered answer here.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#15
I'm keeping out of this discussion until I find out how a TRANSPARENT GAS cools once it has been warmed. Wink

99.9% of Earth's atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, are essentially transparent to ALL BANDS of electromagnet radiation. And that gas is pressing down on the surface of the Earth with a pressure of 10.3 TONS PER SQUARE METRE. That is pretty good contact! Especially for HEAT CONDUCTION from the sun warmed surface. Most people say warm air rises and cools. Not so! A thermometer says it cooled because the molecular collisions are further apart yet the actual KINETIC SPEED of the molecules can be slightly greater. It warmed, didn't it? Then they say there was WORK DONE lifting the molecules against gravity. Of course there was work done. Nothing is free in this universe. Those molecules now have POTENTIAL ENERGY. There is NO LOSS OF ENERGY up the air column. It has been redistributed such that a thermometer will still record a lapse rate.
I repeat, a thermometer measures molecular collision rates, not energy in a parcel of air.
When there is no sunlight on the surface it will cool. Does the air pressing down on the cold surface cool? Only the bottom few centimetres and then that cold air is insulating the warm air above.
Now those are HEAT TRAPPING GASES! Luckily we have some excellent self radiating molecules spread through the atmosphere. H2O, which increases as surface temperature increases and helps to control the bulk of the air temperature below the tropopause, and good old CO2 which is most effective above the troposphere where kinetic speed of air molecules could exceed escape velocity and the atmosphere would slowly boil away into space.
Anyway, now you know why I don't discuss 'greenhouse gases'. Angel
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#16
(01-22-2014, 10:41 PM)Derek Wrote: I would suggest we all go back to the start of this thread a read some of what we may have missed or skipped over before Greg.

Derek, you started the thread with the question "Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?". My point is that your premise "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be" is false.

On your side, before you ask "why?" you have to prove your "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be". This 33°C difference is one of the central warmists points, it is not mine. I demonstrated earlier on this thread that their calculation of this value is inherently wrong, because they apply the SB equation where it is not applicable. You seem, however, to accept this value still after my refutation.

Your "Earth as an object (with an atmosphere), when viewed from space, is -18C" is neither relevant to the warmists point nor to mine. The average temperature of the atmosphere is of course much lower than that of the surface, right, and if you put the average temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface together, you'll get a much lower value, than for the surface alone, right. However, even if it is coincidentally -18°C, it has nothing to do with the warmists' -18°C and does not mean at all that "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be" (and misses the warmists point as well).

Talking about oceans is also irrelevant to the warmists point. Their point, again, is that the maximum average temperature the sun can induce on the Earth surface is allegedly -18°C, but the temperature there is +15°C. If it was correct, it would be still impossible to explain the difference by oceans, because such a warming coming from the oceans is physically impossible.

So, all in all, what you are trying to do is, as far as I can see that, explaining how something works that does not even exist or what you failed to prove to exist.
Reply
#17
(01-23-2014, 08:22 AM)Greg House Wrote: Derek, you started the thread with the question "Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?". My point is that your premise "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be" is false.

Ok, this is the numb of the misunderstanding. A simple question, which is what the warmists play on I hope should suffice.
Please note "Why, at earth's surface are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be without an atmosphere?" is what should be asked, but no one does.
This causes much confusion.

A simple question to illustrate the confusion created by the normal phrasing of the question / observation.
What would the average temperature be of earth's surface IF IT DID NOT HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE (and consequently no oceans either)?

Answer.
The moon shows the resulting surface temperature of earth would be on average, WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE -18C.

BUT, earth has an atmosphere, so it is a completely different system, and one that at it's bottom (of the atmosphere) is warmer than it would have been WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE.
THAT is THE issue that warmists have misrepresented, and I have tried to explain in my post that started this thread.

I will look back over my original post and see if I can make this clearer.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#18
(01-23-2014, 12:27 PM)Derek Wrote: The moon shows the resulting surface temperature of earth would be on average, WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE -18C.

How do you know that? Is it a result of a similar false application of the SB equation?

Another point is that the -18°C warmists calculated for Earth are based on 30% albedo (from the atmosphere and possibly snow and ice on the surface, I am not quite familiar with the details). So, the Earth atmosphere is included in the warmists calculation as reducing the solar input.

(01-23-2014, 12:27 PM)Derek Wrote: BUT, earth has an atmosphere, so it is a completely different system, and one that at it's bottom (of the atmosphere) is warmer than it would have been WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE.

I understood this point of yours, there was no confusion about it. I can say it again: this is physically absolutely impossible (unless the atmosphere contains or is a more powerful source of energy, than the Sun, which it is not.)

I am sorry for possibly causing some inconvenience, but all that should have been said. Invalid points should be abandoned and warmists should be nailed where it is possible to be done in a correct way.
Reply
#19
(01-23-2014, 12:27 PM)Derek Wrote: Invalid points should be abandoned and warmists should be nailed where it is possible to be done in a correct way.

This question goes right to the heart of AGW and the GHE. As far as I know, the warmists have never rationalized or proved that radiatively able gases can raise the surface temperature by 33ºC above the value of incoming solar energy when THAT ENERGY HAS ALREADY BEEN COUNTED AT THE SURFACE. It is simply accepted as law that this mechanism is why the earth is habitable at 15ºC. How can this energy be counted again? It seems to be a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermo. The atmosphere isn't capable of doing more work. Radiatively able gases can't recycle used energy, nor can they create new energy. Something is wrong with all those energy budgets that posit more energy/heat from radiatively able gases in the atmosphere than from the solar flux at the surface. The flaw has to be in the solar induced -18ºC starting point. What is it?
Reply
#20
Hi All,
I can see we are all agreeing.... (It's a talent I've got - :lol: )
I agree with Russell this issue does go right to the very heart of GH "theory" and therefore AGW.

I can also see Greg's point that S/B is being misused, in some applications.

HOWEVER, GH "theory" is based upon the moon being -18C only by solar input. This it is said would be earth's average surface temperature without an atmosphere. It is a strong starting point, and one I would accept for the sake of discussion. Let us forget what S/B says, and black body at this point. It is an observation that, on average, the moon is -18C only by solar input, and most probably so would the earth be, without an atmosphere.

We know that earth's surface with an atmosphere is about 25C on average, and the near surface air temperature is about 15C. Both considerably warmer than the moon's or earth's would be without an atmosphere. As the moon does not have an atmosphere let us discard the near surface air temperature, because the moon, or earth without an atmosphere, does not, and would not, have one. So, we are left a surface temperature of -18C without an atmosphere and a surface temperature of 25C with an atmosphere.
That is the observed difference, or effect of 43C to explain.

No S/B or black body needed, or needed to be referred to.

Somehow nature wants the two differing objects, one a planet without an atmosphere, the other a planet with an atmosphere to be the same temperature when observed from space. Why she wants this, I do not give a hoot, but it is probably something to do with the natural order of things... Anyways, she does...

The planet with an atmosphere must end up with a temperature gradient in it's atmosphere (laws of thermodynamics), which would dictate that the bottom must be warmer than the effective surface of emission, that must be at an altitude within the atmosphere.

No need to create or recycle energy, it is just that the bottom must be warmer because of the presence of an atmosphere, and therefore a planet with an atmosphere has a warmer surface than a planet without an atmosphere.
The most important part to realise is that the surface of a planet without an atmosphere, and the surface of a planet with an atmosphere can not directly be compared, because they are different parts of two different systems.

GH "theory" is an "explanation" of this observed surface temperature difference (43C in earth's case) between the two different systems. of a planet without an atmosphere (-18C) and a planet with an atmosphere (predicted to be 30C, but is actually 25C). This "theory" gets the wrong numbers in the first place because it predicts (wrongly) that the surface (with an atmosphere) temperature should be 30C. It is not, it is 25C. So, GH "theory" tries to explain what it describes as a 48C effect, that is actually a 43C effect. It gets even worse for GH "theory" because it is commonly explained using Global Mean Temperature, which is a near surface air temperature of 15C. The 33C effect is in fact a 43C effect, that is currently explained with a 48C "theory" that has already failed the observation in the first place.

The point is the current explanation must be false, because it does not explain the observed actual surface temperature of earth. In point of fact GH "theory" produces a different figure for the surface temperature of earth with an atmosphere (four arrows version 30C, global energy budget version 33C) than that which we observe (25C).

The "warming effect of atmospheric back radiation" has never been observed either, so the "theory" has no mechanism by which it could possibly "recycle" energy, and energy can not be created, so the atmosphere can not reradiate within itself twice what it supposedly receives by radiation alone from earth's surface.

In the 33C effect version / failed explanation of GH "theory" (which is the four arrows version), it incorrectly uses the near surface air temperature figure, rather than the actual surface temperature figure, which can not directly be compared to the surface of a planet without an atmosphere anyway.

I hope this goes some way to explaining what I am trying to convey without confusing uses of S/B or black body.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laug Sunsettommy 0 2,172 02-22-2015, 07:47 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)