Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
No, Minty. Please read my post again. The only conduction is from surfaces heated by solar radiation to the air, which then moves away from the surface by convection; at night, this is reversed, and the surfaces noticeably radiate the energy (they had already been radiating as much before sunset, but the incoming radiation was sufficiently more for it to be unnoticed). Some radiation is absorbed by air molecules; some may be more inclined to such than others. Always remember that, usually, what is a good absorber of radiation is also a good emitter of it (think: black surfaces). My hypothesis is that the principal source of heat in the atmosphere is by conduction from heated surfaces, and subsequent convection; this is also why the air temperatures do not plummet at night, and it also explains why it is possible to have a hard ground frost, while thermometers a few feet above the ground can be several degrees above zero (e.g. 5°C, as I have observed through my own kitchen window), when the little air movement that is required for frost (or dew) has not been sufficient to mix the general air with lower-temperature air that is close to the ground, having lost its heat (and moisture content) to the ground as it radiates its heat (to space).
Of course, this hypothesis does not blame human behaviour for rising temperatures, nor does it cite a source that it can be claimed humans have any control over (which is odd, as UHI has long be recognised, and urban expansion has been proportionally significantly greater than CO2 generation), so can easily be ignored.
Yes, GC, but please read my post again – it was only the surface that froze; the air above it was warm enough for me to not feel uncomfortable in the minimal attire more usually worn in that area.
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent, sorry, I was not commenting on the overheating pork pies of climate scientists or your observations, but the use of the word "Sultan", as relayed to you in your younger days. I think the word is arabic, originally, and passed into Latin, French, English etc, but by the time of the Victorian British Empire had already spread with Islam to the Indian sub continent and beyond, in a form that was recognisable to Brits, and a mutually agreeable term of respect for a local ruler.
The term "Sultan" does not always mean a ruler in a hot climate. I will let you continue with the pedantics of iota, but I never studied Greek, ancient, or modern. I do know that modern Greek does rely on Anglo-Saxon for expletives, as Greek is a bit spartan in that department.
golf charlie
GC, the sultana may not currantly rule in a hot climate, but models indicate raisins why that could change.
michael hart
michael hart, meanwhile, climate scientists have become a bunch of worthless dried gripes, good for hot air, but no real substance.
golf charlie
it gets boring but Clive Best has worked it out Luckilyts">luckily
Key points:
CO2 is NOT the cause of the “greenhouse effect” on Venus ! Despite the fact that it forms 95% of the atmosphere, CO2 really is an insignificant greenhouse gas on Venus !
It must be the other 5% of the atmosphere, which contains SO2 (150ppm), H2O (20 ppm) and the thick H2So4 clouds covering the planet. The high overall density means that even the partial pressure of H2O is not dissimilar to that on Earth. It is this greenhouse mixture covering a much broader IR spectra which traps the bulk of the IR emitted from the surface. CO2 is insignificant in comparison
Has Harry Huffman looked at the chatacteristics of the Venusiaqn atnosphere. BTW, Clive Best has also done it for Mars.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4386
diogenes
RR. A more careful reading proves that I was mistaken. In my defence, however, your post wanders from describing daytime and night time conditions and there is an "it" in your final sentence that I still don't understand. To claim back some credibility I still dispute two things 1) why should the presence of a moon matter? and 2) you don't need low humidity to form ice naturally, rather the opposite. Widespread sheets of ice on coastal salt flat surfaces (sabkhas) in Abu Dhabi were described by Kinsman back in the 1970s. These form from dew that subsequently freezes as the now wet surfaces radiate their heat away. Abu Dhabi during the summer experiences winds that have very high humidities making days even more intolerable. I strongly suspect the frost you experienced was originally dew.
Kinsman D J J 1976. Evaporites: relative humidity, control of primary mineral facies, Jour. sedimentary Petrology 40, 273-279. Sorry found nowhere you can link to this. While searching (input: Kinsman, dew, sabkha) I came across several sites that reference Kinsman's earlier papers on the subject of harvesting water from dew precipitated onto sabkhas.
ACK
Missing commas:
I came across several sites, that reference Kinsman's earlier papers, on the subject of harvesting water from dew precipitated onto sabkhas.
ACK
I see your point, Minty; my only defence was that I was in a hurry, and didn’t review it as thoroughly as I should have done (I mean – “heavy-than-air”? Sticks out like a sore thumb now – it should, of course, have been: “heavier-than-air”). I should have clarified the day and night sections of the last paragraph, and the “it” to which you refer was air, as it (air) flows over surfaces. I must try harder for clarity, if I can confuse you and Gwen; I have frequently accused Entropic man of misreading posts (and not always my own); perhaps he has some defence.
Your two points: 1) no idea – but it does remove one potential skew of the experiment, and repeats the conditions at the time of my observation; and 2) the low humidity is to minimise any “greenhouse effect” of H2O in the air between the ground and space, so that we are measuring the effect of only CO2, as far as possible in open conditions; it also repeats the conditions at the time of my observations.
Oh, and it was not a frost I experienced, it was ice; there was a leaking tap, which had created a small, shallow pool on the impervious surface a short distance from the tap and pipe. The frost I mentioned in my subsequent post was in the UK, to point out that the ground can be at or below zero Celsius, while the air above can be noticeably and measurably above zero, even in the UK.
(p.s. you cannot correct your dearth of commas in one post by putting too many in the subsequent post.)
(p.p.s. I have read Bravo Two Zero – quite an astonishing tale, and one that should be noted by those who wish to push the British too far.)
Radical Rodent
RR. What a pedant you are becoming: will this be acceptable? -
"I came across several sites, WHICH reference Kinsman's earlier papers, on the subject of harvesting water from dew precipitated onto sabkhas".
Perhaps you should have informed us about the origin of the water that froze, then I needn't have had to blather on about a common origin of dew and frozen dew (frost). Nevertheless these occurrences do illustrate your concept as well.
I have never experienced the temperature gradient you did and my experience in many deserts is of a very rapid temperature drop after the sun set. Sleeping with a groundsheet wrapped around us for warmth, I have commonly awoken to find my groundsheet sodden with dew. Kinsman points out that dew is very common in deserts and commonly is the only source of water for xerophytic plants. Frozen dew is much less common.
ACK
RR, perhaps you could clarify your point about atmospheric heating
I believe that basically 100% of the atmosphere heating on Earth is due to radiative heating by the sun. Am I missing something?
hunter
My point was not as clear as it should have been. I am trying to convey the idea that basically 100% of the energy coming into the Earth atmosphere system is from the sun. Reradiation of absorbed and reflected energy is a significant and vital factor, and clearly a point of contention, but it nearly all starts with Sol.
hunter
Ravishing Rattie.
Your remarks about reproducing everything in an experiment so as to achieve the same result, regardless of whether the requirements are necessary or understood reminds me of the Chinese folk tale of how roast pork was discovered and then reproduced.
ACK
Hunter: no, you’re not missing anything in the argument as, yes, the Sun is the principle source of all energy in the solar system (i.e. as good as 100%). Why should my posts cause you such confusion as to consider that I might be inferring that there could be anything else involved?
Minty: the reason I advocate replicating the conditions, as near as practical, are contained in your comment: “…regardless of whether the requirements are necessary or understood…” We do not know if the requirements are necessary as we really do not understand. Once we have successfully replicated the experiment, we can then test each requirement to validate its necessity. Perhaps the only requirements we do need are: night-time; clear skies, a shallow pool of water on an impermeable surface, and no wind. Who knows? The only one who will know will be whoever does the experiment.
Radical Rodent
To amplify my comment above, hunter, my hypothesis is that the main heating of the atmosphere is by conduction as air (the atmosphere) passes over surfaces that have been heated by solar radiation (other forms of radiation may be available, but, during daylight, none will be as significant as solar); this heat is then distributed further by convection. That the atmosphere does NOT absorb much solar radiation would be obvious to anyone who has walked barefoot across tarmac on a sunny, summer’s day. On a cold, frosty morning, how often have you observed the frost remaining in the shadow of a rock/building/dense shrub or tree until the Sun is actually shining on it? Why isn’t the energy being radiated by the surrounding areas as they heat up being reflected back to thaw that frost patch?
Radical Rodent
Ravishing Rattie. So you would have advocated continuing to burn houses down? Good grief. You observed ice, why do you need to reproduce all the conditions? - to establish you didn't dream it all?
Am rather surprised about the Sultan story. Courtyards were designed for coolness during the day, rather than harvesting ice at night, and the last thing they would use is dark tiles that would get hot and re-radiate their heat to s Ihaded areas during the day. Everything would have been white and green tiles, together with water fountains, fans and the equivalents of punkawallas.
ACK
Ravishing Rattie. Would you like to expand your hypothesis to explain what happens over 70% of the Earth's surface - the oceans? Don't forget that IR travels only about 1mm into the water and causes evaporation using up much of it as latent heat.
ACK
Why isn’t the energy being radiated by the surrounding areas as they heat up being reflected back to thaw that frost patch?
Because outgoing radiation is the cooling flow to space and which can do no work. Let me try and explain RR how the theory you are trying to understand is just wrong.
The real Greenhouse Effect explained and its importance (or not) to the layman.
Facts;
Radiation escapes to space at the rate it arrives from the sun. That rate does not change at any equilibrium state with any concentration of CO2.
The average temperature (T) of the escaped radiation is predicted by the Stephan-Boltzman Law. By that law, T is a constant for the planet at any equilibrium state.
The atmosphere is in place around the planet due to gravitational attraction. Gravity causes a pressure gradient through the atmosphere.
With a pure nitrogen atmosphere the height of escaping radiation to space would be from the surface. Nitrogen is a non-radiative gas.
Add 1 molecule of CO2 and the average height of radiation to space would be just above the surface. Add more and the average height of radiation increases. CO2 is radiative.
A Greenhouse Effect (GE) exists if the planetary average bottom atmospheric temperature is greater than T. Measured by thermometer, this shows a GE temperature of T+t. Measuring at increasing height finds that t diminishes. There is a temperature gradient coincident with the pressure gradient.
For a gas, its temperature as measured by a thermometer is proportional to the speed and density of its molecules. The molecule speed and density defines its pressure. This is true for radiative and non-radiative gasses.
The average height of radiation to space is at a lower pressure than at the bottom of the atmosphere. The bottom of the atmosphere is therefore at a higher temperature than that at the average height of radiation to space.
Deductions;
The Greenhouse Effect is a gravitational effect with an atmosphere that contains a radiative gas such as CO2. There would be no GE with an atmosphere of a non-radiative gas such as nitrogen.
In equilibrium the GE is t and outgoing energy = incoming energy. All radiation energy in the system not arriving from the sun is cooling radiation. Whatever the random movements of its constituent photons the cooling flow is to space and imparts no additional energy.
The random movements of photons in a nitrogen+CO2 atmosphere would serve to distribute energy into the constituent molecules in an even fashion with excitation of nitrogen molecules by collision whereas nitrogen excitation would previously have occurred by energy conduction at the surface only, in the absence of CO2. In equilibrium, energy exchange by back and forth collision is net zero.
Effects;
Additional gasses present would be either radiative or non-radiative. On Earth, water exists also in gas and solid form and adds complexity to radiative transfer through the atmosphere when condensed as cloud. An example would be the effect at night where heat loss to space is greater with clear skies than with cloud cover and experienced at the surface as differences in the rate of reducing temperature. The reason for that is the temperature difference in each of the two conditions is different where the smaller difference (with cloud) will drive a lower energy flow and cooling rate. Although cloud can change equilibrium temperatures locally, in planetary equilibrium its effect would also be net zero.
Conclusion;
To theorise a mechanism for CO2 to produce a greenhouse effect other than by gravity is to deny that gravity acts on the atmosphere as it does. Clearly absurd as without gravity there would be no atmosphere.
Misunderstanding;
However, there are theories current that do ignore gravity as cause with both postulating that adding CO2 causes outgoing energy to be less than incoming and energy would therefore be retained in the system with the result being temperature rise. That in itself is no cause for concern but it should be recognised that these are novel theories which are then attached to other concepts such as positive feedbacks and forcings which lead to predictions of greater rates of temperature increases which have as yet failed to materialise. They should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt until they can come close to reality.
Consider just one argument against a postulated imbalance in energy flow: From equilibrium, additional CO2 is introduced to the atmosphere. Equilibrium is upset as outflow reduces. It continues to be upset as the novel theories demand that temperatures remain higher and the higher temperatures are caused by retained energy in the system. It is therefore impossible for equilibrium to be attained after one single increase of CO2. Without that ability to attain equilibrium, temperatures will increase forever. That would defy the laws of nature that set temperature as T. For Earth, T is 255 degrees Kelvin and its t is currently 33 degrees.
Understanding;
We know that t will vary with changing CO2 levels. Using aviation lapse rate, one degree increase in GE would result if the average height of radiation to space had increased by 154 metres. That figure is of course for all greenhouse gasses. Could a doubling of CO2 alone achieve that same one degree?
What we should require of Atmospheric Physicists is a calculation of what that change is for changing concentrations of CO2 – when will 33 degrees become 34 degrees, 35 degrees? It should not be tasked to Climate Scientists, 97% of which are reportedly accepting of the novel theories of GE.
You may also find the following of interest if wondering on the competence of climate scientists;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2561&v=THg6vGGRpvA
ssat
ssat. "Because outgoing radiation is the cooling flow to space and which can do no work" But outgoing radiation from the surface can be experienced by an outstretched hand at night. In warming, my hand work is being done.
ACK
Not so ACK. your hand temperature is cooling at a lower rate. The energy supply to it is from the bacon sandwich you ate the day before. You are a chemical heat source, not a benign observer.
ssat
ssat. And Martin A's IR detector, no work is being done to influence it?
I can assure you the lower part of my hand experiences warmth as opposed to the upper part which is decidedly cooler. What is the difference between IR photons radiated from the surface and IR photons from an electric fire?
ACK
Minty: it was not ALL the courtyards, just one. As for radiation on water – it does fall on the SURFACE (see what I did, there?), and warms the air above, through some transfer of energy of other.
Ssat: either that was an excellent parody of so many explanations, or I am even thicker than I thought; just as I get to thinking, “Aha!” you confuse me further!
The only thing that most of us agree with is that there is still a lot to be learned about climate science.
Radical Rodent
Ravishing Rattie. What surface? Water is varyingly transparent to incoming radiation with different penetration according to wavelength (blue light penetrating deepest, red the least and infra red hardly at all. iR can do little more than evaporate the uppermost millimetre which extracts energy as latent heat causing cooling. It seems to me that the upper parts of the ocean can only be heated by absorption of non infrared photons. This means that if there is a greenhouse effect caused by downwelling infrared radiation, this cannot cause any additional heating of the ocean.
This is far far distant from my area of expertise, yet I have never seen it raised, let alone discussed.
ACK
Those varying boundary layers of both seawater and atmosphere are very tricky. I can conceive of them differently every time I think of them.
=====================
kim
kim, I think sometimes they are wet, and sometimes dry.
golf charlie
Radical Rodent 8:38 Frost in Deserts etc.
Having had to work around frost in Greece in March/April I can appreciate that "Sultans" from the Ottoman Empire (including Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, Iraq etc) would have known about ice, even if they had never been to Arabia. Freezing conditions caught the SAS out during Gulf War 1, read Bravo Two Zero for details.
Cairo does have snow and frosts, but it is very, very rare!