JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

New Science 15: Modeling outgoing radiation (OLR)

OLR — outgoing longwave radiation — is so key, so central to the climate debate that if we had top notch data on the radiation  coming off the planet, we would have solved the effect of extra CO2 a long time ago. That we don’t have a specific satellite  monitoring these changes in detail is like the dog that didn’t bark. Apparently a specialist OLR satellite was to be launched in  2015. More info on the RAVAN Satellite here (was supposed to launch in Sept 2015). (UPDATE: Planned for 2016) h/t siliggy.

OLR model, emissions layers, climate model.

There are four main pipes to space, and in David’s work each pipe is considered separately. The conventional model assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 constricts the CO2 pipe, which warms the surface, causing more evaporation, which then constricts the Water Vapor pipe (this is the “water vapor amplification”, even more constriction of radiation to space by water vapor that forces the surface to emit more by being yet warmer). But the missing hot spot tells us that this theory is wrong. In this OLR model, the water vapor pipe could either expand or constrict. An expansion means a drop in the height of the emissions layer, a descent to a warmer place in the troposphere. The top layer  of any atmospheric “blanket” is where all the action is, and where the photons of infra red can finally escape to space. The gas below the top of the blanket or emission layer doesn’t matter that much for OLR because the photons can’t escape to space from there — there are just too many molecules to capture those rays of infra red before they can get far.

The amount of outgoing radiation emitted by an emission layer always depends entirely on how warm it is, and as the “blanket” of humidity (or water vapor) thickens, the top part of that layer presumably ascends, reaches higher, and becomes cooler, which means it emits less (the pipe constricts). Alternately if the blanket gets thinner near its top (even if getting thicker far below), the height of the emissions layer falls lower into warmer air, so it emits more.

The model estimates how much the radiation to space changes as various properties of the the emission layers and the atmosphere change — the heights of the emission layers, the lapse rate, the surface temperature, the cloud fraction, and the CO2 concentration.

Lapse rate is the rate the temperature falls or lapses per kilometer, as we go up vertically through the atmosphere. We calculate the temperature at a given height by working upwards from the surface, as the surface temperature less the lapse rate (in deg C per km) times the height (in km).

The cloud fraction splits the atmospheric window between the cloud tops and surface emissions.

Incidentally, now that we have the OLR model we can estimate the Planck sensitivity, under those hypothetical Planck conditions.

–Jo

———————————————————-

15. The OLR Model

Dr David Evans, 23 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.

This post presents a model of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), which we are soon going to join with the sum-of-warmings model to form the alternative basic climate model, as outlined in the post on modelling strategy.

The last post presented the basic parameters of the various layers that effectively emit OLR. In this post we model the sensitivity of OLR to changes in some of those parameters — for example, how much does OLR decrease if the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) ascends by 100 meters? See Fig. 1 of that post to see how some of the parameters are defined.

The final results of this series are not very sensitive to the OLR model, which can be refined later if the alternative basic climate model is found to be useful.

If you want skip the details, jump to “The Model Equation” and “Diagram” sections near the end.

Here is a spreadsheet of the OLR model: download (Excel, 250 KB).

The CO2 Emission Layer

The OLR model needs to know the increase in the OLR emitted by the CO2 emissions layer (CO2EL), ΔRC, when there are increases in the CO2 concentration, the surface temperature, or the lapse rate.

We are going to be holding two of these three factors constant while allowing the other to increase — yes, that is a partial derivative where it is hard to justify holding things constant, but (a) it is difficult to see how to proceed otherwise, and (b) it doesn’t have as much impact on the final outcome as say the Planck sensitivity does in the conventional model. (The alternative model ameliorates the impossible-partial-derivative problem by replacing the Planck sensitivity with the Stefan Boltzmann sensitivity, but the problem is still present in less strategic places such as this.)

For wavelengths around 15 μm the CO2EL is in the stratosphere, whose temperatures are assumed to remain constant when just the surface temperature or lapse rate change (in line with the Planck conditions — see the Nomenclature file above). Thus the “average temperature” of the CO2 emissions layer is of no direct relevance.

- CO2 Concentration

When the CO2 concentration doubles and everything else remains constant, RC decreases by

(see post 2). The decrease in RC is logarithmic in change of CO2 concentration, so when the CO2 concentration changes from C0 to C0C and all else remains constant,

where L is the base-2 logarithm of the CO2 concentration C and, as in post 2,

The last figure in this page of Barrett-Bellamy illustrates the effect on the OLR spectrum of doubling CO2, which is to slightly widen the indentation centered on 15 μm, with the changes nearly all occurring in the wings.

- Surface Temperature

Earth’s emission spectrum around 15 μm due to CO2

Figure 1: Schematic of the indentation in the Earth’s emission spectrum around 15 μm due to CO2. The area under the indentation is approximately proportional to RC, the OLR emitted by the CO2 emission layer. Note the flat bottom of the “well” around 15 μm, at which wavelengths the emission layer is in the stratosphere, and the sloping “wings” on the sides of the well, at which wavelengths the emission layer is in the troposphere (because it takes more CO2 to absorb a photon on average).

The Nimbus emission spectrum in Fig. 2 of the last post is the basis for graphically converting changes in surface temperature TS or lapse rate Γ to changes in RC, following the stylized representation of the indentation in Fig. 1.

If the surface warms by ΔTS and Γ does not change then all the tropospheric air warms by ΔTS, so at each wavelength at which the CO2EL is in the troposphere the CO2EL warms by ΔTS, while in the stratosphere the CO2EL remains unchanged. If ΔTS is 10°C then the area under the indentation increases by ~9.4%, which by Table 1 of the last post corresponds to ~4.6 W m−2. Thus

- Lapse Rate

If the lapse rate Γ increases while TS remains unchanged, the atmosphere becomes linearly colder as height increases (Γ is positive, ~6.5 °C km−1).

Conventionally it is assumed that the average lapse rate decreases uniformly throughout the troposphere due to surface warming: increased evaporation is assumed to increase the specific humidity throughout the troposphere. But as reported by Paltridge, Arking, and Pook in 2009 [1] from a study of the better radiosonde data from 1973, the extra water vapor is apparently confined to the lower troposphere, and the consequent greater stability at these low altitudes leads to less overturning and less transport of water vapor to the upper troposphere. Humidity data from the radiosondes indicates that since 1973 specific humidity has generally been increasing up to ~550 hPa (about 5 km) , but decreasing at heights above that. So in this OLR model we will consider either a “uniform” lapse rate change, or a “partial” lapse rate where the lapse rate only changes below 5 km.

If Γ increases uniformly by 10% then the area under the indentation decreases by ~3.4%, or, by Table 1 of the last post, ~1.6 W m−2, so

But if Γ increases partially by 10% then the area under the indentation decreases by only ~2.5%, or ~1.2 W m−2, so

- Total

The total increase in the OLR from the CO2EL is modeled as

where gC is either gC,uniform or gC,partial.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Emission Layers

For an emission layer whose various emitting parts in the atmosphere are mostly at temperatures relatively close to the mean temperature of the emission layer, the emission spectrum approximately follows a blackbody radiance line described by Planck’s law, such as the dashed lines in Fig. 2 of the previous post (Nimbus spectrum). Such a line, integrated over all wavelengths and directions, gives the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Such an emission layer consists of one or more segments of such a line, where the segments are defined by approximately-constant wavelength limits. The OLR emitted by the layer is thus, approximately, a constant fraction φ of the emissions given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the layer’s temperature (φ is between 0 and 1).

The surface, cloud tops, water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), and methane emission layer behave thus. Once the temperature change of such a layer is determined from the changes in the relevant inputs (the surface temperature, the lapse rate, and the height of the emission layer), the approximate relative increase in OLR in response to that warming may be determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Consider emission layer i, where i is either S (surface), U (cloud), W (water vapor), or M (methane). Its average temperature is

where TS is the surface temperature and hi is the average height of the layer (the surface height, hS, is taken as zero). Layer i warms by

Layer i emits OLR Ri of φiσεTi4, the appropriate fraction φi of an all-wavelength Stefan-Boltzmann emitter. Hence the increase in OLR from that layer is

where we substituted in Eq. (9) in the last line. Let us define the parameters τi, gi (either gi,uniform or gi,partial, depending on whether ΔΓ applies uniformly or partially) and θi by

Comparing Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) gives the formulae for the values that are calculated in this table (see the spreadsheet for the numeric calculations):

Emission Layer Subscript
Units W m−2 °C−1 W m−2 (°C km−1) −1 W m−2 (°C km−1) −1 W m−2 km−1
Expression
Symbol i
Surface S 0.63  0 0 0
Cloud tops U 0.71 −2.4 −2.4 −4.6
Water vapor W 1.34 −10.7 −6.7 −8.7
Methane M 0.08 −0.2 −0.2 −0.5

Table 1: How OLR increases with TS, lapse rate, and height, for the Stefan-Boltzmann emission layers.

The Ozone Emission Layer

The OLR from the ozone emission layer is assumed constant, because it is above the tropopause and insulated from surface warming, and because ozone levels are assumed constant — or at least unrelated (for now) to changes in TSI, EDA, and CO2. So we take ΔRZ as zero.

Cloud Fraction and OLR

Under clear skies the OLR in the atmospheric window is ~119 W m−2 from the surface and near surface, while under overcast skies it is ~77 W m−2 from cloud tops. OLR at other wavelengths is not directly affected by clouds. Therefore the increase in OLR due to an increase in the cloud cover fraction β (currently ~62%) is DβΔβ  where Dβ is the difference in emissions between clear and overcast skies:

The Model Equation

The total increase in OLR is the sum of its components:

Collecting together all the results in the equations above gives us the OLR model as a single equation: the increase in OLR is


Diagram

The OLR model

Figure 2: The OLR model in Eq. (14), as a diagram. Beware: the seven inputs have complicated interdependencies. (Click to enlarge)

 

Estimate of the Planck Sensitivity

In the OLR model of Eq. (14), τ is the Planck feedback, the reciprocal of the Planck sensitivity — it is the ratio of the increase in OLR to the increase in surface temperature, when everything else is held constant (the hypothetical Planck conditions — see post 2, post 4, and the Nomenclature file linked to above.). Its value is given in AR5 as 3.2±0.1 W m−2 °C−1, agreeing with the value here.

Over 80% of the Planck feedback’s value is due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.  The Planck sensitivity λ0 (whose reciprocal is the Planck feedback) is 17% greater than λSB, the Stefan-Boltzmann sensitivity:

Most of the rest of the difference between the Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann sensitivities is due to the non-Stefan-Boltzmann behavior of the CO2 and ozone emission layers — because they are mainly in the stratosphere, whose temperatures are constant under the Planck conditions, the amount of OLR they emit is less sensitive to surface warming than if they were totally in the troposphere. There is also a small effect due to the non-uniform distribution of surface temperature by time and latitude.

In the spreadsheet of the OLR model, by noting how the OLR changes when the surface temperature is incremented under the Planck conditions, the Planck sensitivity  λ0  is computed as 0.31 °C W−1 m2, or ~15.8% greater than λSB:

  • 14.4% out of the 15.8% difference is due to the non-Stefan-Boltzmann behavior of the CO2 and ozone emission layers.
  • The other 1.6% out of the 15.8% difference is due to the non-uniform temperature distribution and the concavity of the T4 function (0.36% due to temperature variation with latitude, 0.04% time of day, 0.03% seasons, and 0.97% due to the different temperatures of the main six emission layers).

That this estimates the Planck sensitivity as about the same as AR5 gives some support to the OLR model.

References

[1^] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., & Pook, M. (2009). Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 98:351-359.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (55 votes cast)
New Science 15: Modeling outgoing radiation (OLR), 8.4 out of 10 based on 55 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/o7ykb82

85 comments to New Science 15: Modeling outgoing radiation (OLR)

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Thanks again for a nice post. I am waiting for the next one.

    31

  • #
    Richard111

    Still baffled. Are CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absolved from gaining VIBRATIONAL energy by kinetic collisions with other atmospheric molecules?

    00

    • #

      Richard, on the contrary, CO2 molecules mainly gain the energy to fire off a photon from kinetic collisions with other atmospheric molecules.

      The post is about how OLR from CO2 molecules changes as there are more CO2 molecules (which further impede CO2 molecules from firing off photons to space), or the lapse rate changes (which warms or cools some CO2 molecules in the wings, giving them more or less energy from kinetic collisions to fire more OLR to space), or the surface warms (which gives the CO2 molecules in the wings more energy too).

      61

      • #
        bobl

        Except that’s totally illogical.

        Having more CO2 ( at the same temperature ) should increase the probability of a CO2/(N2 or O2) collision sufficient to impart energy to the CO2 Molecule, thus the radiation should increase and the EL COOL. I presumed this was why the stratosphere would cool.

        Secondly the Stratosphere has a negative lapse rate, doesn’t a rising EL have a higher temperature and therefore higher emission there?

        21

        • #

          Bob, it’s the temperature of the top of the CO2 matters to radiation to space. Yes, within the CO2 cloud, warmer means more photons are fired by the CO2 molecules. But for radiation to space, the temperature at the top of the cloud (the emissions layer) that determines the amount of OLR from CO2 molecules — warmer emission layer implies more OLR.

          Yes the CO2 emission layer is mostly in the stratosphere, where it gets (slightly) warmer with increasing height. However, increasing CO2 has more effect in the wings, where the emissions layer of the CO2 is in the troposphere. See the Barrett-Bellamy page here, last diagram. Increasing CO2, as a whole, decreases the OLR from CO2.

          31

      • #
        bobl

        Also David,

        Does this diagram assert that the lapse rate increases if the surface temperature increases? If one considers that the lapse rate is the result of the exchange of energy between KE and PE, with the rate ofe KE transfer from hot to cold (and then emission) reducing this value to 6.5 then a higher differential between the surface and tropopause must increase heat exchange. The idea that as temperature rises the atmosphere becomes more stable is nonsense. What causes tropical storms? The lapse rate must instead fall. Essentially the lapse rate is reduced from 9.8 deg per km to 6.5 by water vapour, increase evaporation and WV then the lapse rate must DECREASE.

        00

        • #

          “Secondly the Stratosphere has a negative lapse rate, doesn’t a rising EL have a higher temperature and therefore higher emission there?”

          The stratosphere with it increasing molecular temperature contributes almost nothing to radiative exitance W/m^2. No molecules no surface to radiate!

          “Does this diagram assert that the lapse rate increases if the surface temperature increases?”

          The whole column temperature increases, the lapse rate stays the same

          “If one considers that the lapse rate is the result of the exchange of energy between KE and PE,”

          the Atmosphere exhibits no gravitational potential energ6y! any sensible or latent heat carried bo atmospheric motion has no mass and ie unaffected by gravity.

          “with the rate ofe KE transfer from hot to cold (and then emission) reducing this value to 6.5 then a higher differential between the surface and tropopause must increase heat exchange.”

          No! Normal thermal conductivity of the atmosphere is inhibited by gravitational force. One way to think of the lapse is to pick an altitude, say 5km and location as the lapse increases the top decreases in temperature while the surface increases in temperature. Use not the surface or the tropopause as a reference.b wrong concept!

          “The idea that as temperature rises the atmosphere becomes more stable is nonsense. What causes tropical storms? The lapse rate must instead fall. Essentially the lapse rate is reduced from 9.8 deg per km to 6.5 by water vapour, increase evaporation and WV then the lapse rate must DECREASE.”

          The lapse rate is 9.8°C/km, except where WV is actively condensing then it is 5°C/km. The 6.5 is by committee and used only for calibration, so all baro-altimeters, read the same thing at the same location.

          29

        • #

          Bob: No, the model says that if the lapse rate increases (so it gets colder at a given height) then the OLR decreases, and it says that if the surface temperature increases then OLR increases. However it says nothing about the linkage between the surface temperature and the lapse rate (btw, surface warming causes more evaporation, and the lapse rate is lower in a moister atmosphere — the DALR is about 10 K/km, the MALR is about 4.5 K/km).

          40

        • #

          bobl said:

          “The idea that as temperature rises the atmosphere becomes more stable is nonsense. What causes tropical storms? The lapse rate must instead fall. Essentially the lapse rate is reduced from 9.8 deg per km to 6.5 by water vapour, increase evaporation and WV then the lapse rate must DECREASE.”

          Correct up to a point. The atmosphere must in theory become less stable if surface temperature rises.

          However, there are many variables involved and it appears that the absorption properties of GHGs reduce the lapse rate slope at lower levels which reduces convection and thereby allows the surface to become warmer than it otherwise would have done.

          The position changes at higher levels where the radiative capabilities of GHGs then increase the lapse rate slope once more.

          The height of the inflection point is variable but revolves around the point of hydrostatic balance for the mass of the atmosphere.

          The position is further complicated by water vapour being lighter than air, CO2 being heavier than air, evaporation at the surface and latent heat release at varying heights within the troposphere but the underlying default position is that at low levels GHGs reduce the lapse rate slope and at higher levels they increase it.

          Then, whatever happens in rising columns of air is reversed in falling columns for a net zero surface temperature effect overall as per my recent post on this site.

          58

  • #

    The launch of RAVAN nanosatellite as a secondary payload is planned late 2016.

    https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/ravan#launch

    Thanks. Added to post. Cheers – Jo

    31

  • #
    BobK

    I am having problems with the spreadsheet for OLR model. It downloads OK, it is 94 kB long, but when I open it, it is ‘empty’, it shows no worksheet at all. Am I doing something wrong?

    00

    • #

      Bob K, the spreadsheet is indeed 94 K (96,059 bytes). Just downloaded it and opened it ok. No idea what your problem is. Using Excel for Windows?

      PS Time stamps are Australian eastern standard time, I am told.

      20

      • #
        BobK

        OK, solved. Maybe just a peculiarity of my setup (Excel 2010 with UBitMenu under Win7/64), but in case someone has similar problem:
        When the file is opened, Excel launches but shows no active workbook, nor minimised one (an icon in bottom left corner) either. The only clue that “something is in there”, is name box that contains “D15″, and a list of some 50 names in a dropbox.
        To see the workbook, from tab View either a) select an option under Arrange All from group Window, or b) select Full Screen in Workbook Views. Once the file is closed in Full Screen mode, it reverts back to normal.

        10

  • #
    BobK

    Funny thing – I submitted the previous comment (and this one) on October 26, 2015 at around 12:40 AM, yet it is timestamped at October 25 at 11:54… Something’s wrong, or has it been always like that?

    [No. This is the really dumb thing. I've set the time at GMT +10hr (Brisbane, or East coast without daylight savings) but it's just wrong, and getting faster. -- Jo]

    20

    • #
      BobK

      Jo, a dying CMOS battery can play havoc with computer clock. If the time is taken from your PC, that might be one reason why?

      30

  • #
    ScotsmainUtah

    OLR — outgoing longwave radiation — is so key, so central to the climate debate that if we had top notch data on the radiation coming off the planet, we would have solved the effect of extra CO2 a long time ago

    Some seriously brilliant work being done here :D

    I had not realized until reading Jo’s Blog and listening to the comments from Dr. Richard Lindzen, and reading Dr. Evans’ work here, just how much data there is truly lacking.
    When I hear that many of the quantities being used are estimates and couple that with just one of the many articles Jo publishes e.g. “we are underestimating the number of trees present on the planet”, “no hotspot”, etc. I am literally forced into skepticism.

    My boss has recently asked me to produce a 6 sigma report on spectral density (actually it is a PSD in the radio wavelength range ) from multiple sources and I have lots of data to work with , it is a task that is long overdue, but will yield some useful stats.
    Unlike the climate alarmists for whom “the science is settled” or the IPCC reports which contain high levels of confidence, my report will assign degrees of certainty based on just the data.

    The FCC are weird like that :o

    122

    • #

      Thanks ScotsmainUtah. One of Jo’s constant refrains is that the standards in climate science are low and that people from other fields should come in, with their much higher standards, and sort it out. All this stuff about the IPCC and the “world’s best scientists”? Complete guff.

      162

  • #

    I am having problems to understand the diagram. Does it mean that doubling CO2 (and following out of this decrease in OLR) causes the change in surface warming, height of water vapour and methane emission layer and cloud tops, the cloud fraction, and the lapse rate with the mentioned factors/amounts?

    The lapse rate is a decrease in temperature per km of height above surface, isn’t it? Does it mean the temperature of the atmosphere will be reduced by that amount?

    00

    • #

      Johannes: The diagram and OLR model only say how OLR is affected by the various factors — change in surface warming, height of water vapor and methane emission layer and cloud tops, the cloud fraction, and the lapse rate. Change one or more of those and the model/diagram tells you how much OLR changes.

      The model/diagram says nothing about the linkages or relationships between those various factors.

      40

  • #

    Still another question to Dr Evans which came up in the “convection” post.

    Is convection consindered or included in the new model or has it no influence?

    Talking about the pipes, the CO2 pipe means the travel of energy towards the space through radiation being absorbed by CO2 molecules and after a very short pause re-imitted in any direction, absorbed by other CO2 molecules and so forth, partly even hitting the surface again and heating it up. Being emitted, absorbed by CO2 having collision and energy transfer with other gas molecules, these with CO2 again, and finally after many repetitions reaching TOA, where it is emitted to space.

    This “travel”, as I understand it, needs some time and has an insulating effect (the surface and atmosphere stay warmer), because of the delay in heat loss.

    If now the average time for this radiation/absorption/emission travel is somehow long, then convection can do the “travel” quicker by just moving all the “warm” molecules to the TOA, were they hit CO2 or other GHGs and emitting their energy to the space.

    If this is the case, then the model sould account for it, or it is already included by other means.

    00

    • #

      Johannes: Convection is ignored here, except in so much as it affects the lapse rate (we have allowed for lapse rate changes, both in the average lapse rate and whether or not it has any effect above 5 km). We are focused on energy entering (ASR) and leaving (OLR) the planet, which it does by radiation. The role of convection for that exercise is to establish the lapse rate, without which the greenhouse effect would not exist presumably.

      The CO2 “pipe” as I defined it here is only for OLR emitted by CO2 molecules. Therefore it contains no radiation that is absorbed by CO2.

      The absorption and re-emission that goes on below the CO2 emission layer happens on a time scale of seconds, and that delay (which does not cause an insulation effect) is inconsequential to the greenhouse effect — which works by the lapse rate causing emissions of OLR at certain wavelengths to occur from high, cold places instead of the warmer surface. See post 6.

      30

      • #

        Dr Evans,
        Thank you for your kind response. Between German sceptics there is an ongoing discussion about that topic, but I never got an answer how long the process of absorption and re-emission is going on. “A time scale of seconds” is a clear answer for me. Has it been measured or is it calculated?

        I read post 6 again and found some more valuable information. Still Iam struggling with the lapse rate. In which post do I find more information?

        10

        • #

          Johannes: “A time scale of seconds” is something I’m pretty sure I’ve heard from radiation specialists; probably it is based on MODTRAN simulations or similar (it’s not something which interests me particularly, sorry).

          Lapse rate is just the rate at which gets colder as one goes higher in the troposphere, and generally averages around 6.5 degC per km. It depends on how moist the air is: it is between the moist limit (the moist adiabatic lapse rate, MALR, about 4 to 5 deg C/km), and the dry limit (the dry rate, DALR, 10 degC / km).

          20

        • #
          Franktoo (Frank)

          Johannes: You can read a reliable discussion of the lifetime of excited CO2 here:

          https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

          Or the gory details of the relationship between the Einstein A21 emission coefficient controlling emission rate and the absorption cross-section here:

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202029.pdf

          However, the simplest thing to do is remember that the troposphere and most of the stratosphere are in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE): Collisional excitation and relaxation of GHGs are much faster than absorption and emission of infrared photons. Re-emission of an absorbed infrared photon rarely occurs, because collisional relaxation is so much faster. (Anyone using the term re-emission probably doesn’t understand LTE.) Essentially all GHGs in an excited vibrational state were excited by collision, not absorption, and the fraction in an excited state depends on the Boltzmann distribution of energy. This makes emission of infrared by GHGs in the lower atmosphere simple: The emission rate depends only on B(lambda,T), the density of GHG, and its absorption cross-section, but NOT the number of photons being absorbed. The local temperature does depend on the number of photons absorbed – as well as the number of photons emitted and changes in latent heat. Temperature change IS the net result of all of these processes, but one only needs to know the local temperature to calculate emission.

          This generalization isn’t correct where LTE doesn’t exist: the thermosphere, fluorescent light bulbs, lasers, and LEDs. LTE exists in the lower atmosphere with infrared photons, but not with UV (or visible) photons. The atmosphere is too cold for collisions to produce a significant number of excited electronic states. The number of excited ozone molecules certainly depends in the intensity of UV radiation from the sun, but most of these excited molecules are still relaxed by collisions (“thermalized”) faster than they re-emit.

          50

          • #

            “However, the simplest thing to do is remember that the troposhere and most of the stratosphere are in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE): Collisional excitation and relaxation of GHGs are much faster than absorption and emission of infrared photons. Re-emission of an absorbed infrared photon rarely occurs, because collisional relaxation is so much faster.”

            As you say, the rate of molecular thermal monochromatic EMR in any direction of lower radiance is determined by a function of the molecules radiating temperature at that wavelength (lambda)/k, effective cross-sectional area, and any opposing radiance. It is not a function of quantum absorption or emission, as that is not what determines atmospheric thermal radiance, or flux to space.
            At atmospheric temperatures the delta T for absorption or emission of a single 15 micron wavelet by a CO2 molecule is on the order of (1/10^20) °C. Thus cannot be discerned from thermal noise!
            Any writing of quantum effects or photons, for atmospheric exitance, in any waveband, is pure diversionary BS!
            All the best! -will-

            14

            • #
              Franktoo (Frank)

              Join the 21st or at least the 20th century Will!. We have photomultipliers that can detect a single photon and picosecond laser pulses to probe the relaxation time of excited states – not to mention spectrometers and even electricity. The founders of thermodynamics – whose virtues you extol – didn’t have these advantages. Most importantly, we understand that thermodynamics emerges of the quantum behavior of large numbers of discrete molecules and photons.

              As for 10^-20 degC, no one can calculate the temperature change associated with absorption of a single photon without knowing the heat capacity of the material being warmed AND the value of that fundamental constant of quantum mechanics, Planck’s constant. And there is no sense discussing the temperature of the absorbing molecule – temperature is only defined for large collections of rapidly colliding molecules. This is merely “diversionary BS”.

              The skeptic community is full of misleading information because people who are technically competent in the macroscopic world are hopelessly lost dealing with molecules and photons. You use the results of quantum mechanics when it suits your purposes: Planck’s Law, S-B eqn, emission from CO2 as discrete lines around 15 um instead of a continuum, the kinetic theory of gases, E=hv, etc. Then you deny QM’s relevance when discussing why re-emission of photons is negligible in the troposphere. You may not want to understand this subject, but don’t confuse others.

              Grant Petty’s “A First Course in Radiation Physics” spends 20 pages and 44 equations developing the EM wave theory of radiation and 1.5 pages discussing the quantum theory of radiation, so you know which side of wave/particle duality the author prefers. He then discusses when atmospheric radiation must be treated as waves and when it must be treated as particles (p32). Absorption and emission of radiation by individual molecules can’t be explained without photons – precisely the subject being discussed above! (Petty says scattering and reflection require the wave approach – though I prefer to say these phenomena are much easier to understand using waves).

              50

              • #

                Franktoo (Frank) October 28, 2015 at 10:05 am

                “Join the 21st or at least the 20th century Will!. We have photomultipliers that can detect a single photon and picosecond laser pulses to probe the relaxation time of excited states – not to mention spectrometers and even electricity.”

                Right quantum arrogant academic!
                Perhaps member of the despised CACAC!
                Where have you had experience with such instruments? When was the last time you tried to detect a 0.067 ev wavelet (15 micron) with a detector above 60 Kelvin? You can profess but can do nothing else. Have you even escaped your momma’s basement?

                “The founders of thermodynamics – whose virtues you extol – didn’t have these advantages.”

                I extol the virtues of no one. I admire the clarity, preciseness, and actual science of the 1900 folk. All which are lacking, along with any personal integrity, of any post modern academics. Is that clear enough?

                “Most importantly, we understand that thermodynamics emerges of the quantum behavior of large numbers of discrete molecules and photons.”

                Gee you have things emerge from fantasy. A while back a demonstration of even conjecture was required before any acceptance! Does your emergent help or hinder understanding?

                “As for 10^-20 C, no one can calculate the temperature change associated with absorption of a single photon without knowing the heat capacity of the material being warmed AND the value of that fundamental constant of quantum mechanics, Planck’s constant.”

                Both Cp and Cv, and molecular mass
                of CO2 are well documented. The hv of 15 micron (0.067ev) is also easy! the wavelet would be a minimum of 5 cycles in spacetime. How do you think I got to a 1/10^20°C order of magnitude.

                “And there is no sense discussing the temperature of the absorbing molecule – temperature is only defined for large collections of rapidly colliding molecules.”

                So you claim! For each gas molecule, each has energy kT, or power kT/t, which is the chemical definition of temperature. Much much more precise than thermometric, radiometric, or thermodynamic temperature.

                (“This is merely “diversionary BS”.)

                “The skeptic community is full of misleading information because people who are technically competent in the macroscopic world are hopelessly lost dealing with molecules and photons.”

                After 35 years of measuring thermal EMR and electro-optics design, I am comfortable with both. I also know when applying either is simply stupid.
                Can you even discuss the surface effects of a MCT tenth ev 10 micron cascade photoconductor cooled to 77Kelvin? Do you know that MCT material has the consistency of a banana at room temperature? Do you know that some very talented ladies can still ball bond a 0.7 mill gold wire to such?

                “You use the results of quantum mechanics when it suits your purposes: Planck’s Law, S-B eqn, emission from CO2 as discrete lines around 15 um instead of a continuum, the kinetic theory of gases, E=hv, etc.”

                Yep! But Planck only has an equation for maximum spectral radiance, that some think is flux, just because such has ‘almost’ the same units. There is no Planck’s or S-B Law!

                “Then you deny QM’s relevance when discussing why re-emission of photons is negligible in the troposphere.”

                Yep, stupid when flux is continuous at all times and of the order of 10W/m^2. Can you send me a bag of photons? I like the ones that appear as “Apricot Jelly-Bellies under all lighting conditions!

                “You may not want to understand this subject, but don’t confuse others.”

                Mom’s basement academics are sooo easy!

                “Grant Petty’s “A First Course in Radiation Physics” spends 20 pages and 44 equations developing the EM wave theory of radiation”

                But nothing of Maxwell’s field equations using quaternions “the 4space matrix” or John Poynting’s conversion to vector calculus!
                How sad!!!

                “and 1.5 pages discussing the quantum theory of radiation, so you know which side of wave/particle duality the author prefers.”

                Just what has your QED added to Maxwell’s equations? I actually enjoy the stuff, because finally one POV claiming correctness is not enough. All Valid POVs must be correct for learning. A ‘photon’ as a gauge boson is fine. Particle bullets in every direction at the velocity of light is way, way beyond asinine!

                “He then discusses when atmospheric radiation must be treated as waves and when it must be treated as particles (p32).”

                Did you read that part?

                “Absorption and emission of radiation by individual molecules can’t be explained without photons – precisely the subject being discussed above!”

                Only by you! Who cares about individual molecules? Some ask questions, because nonsense is all the scammers have! I guess you did not read p32!

                “(Petty says scattering and reflection require the wave approach – though I prefer to say these phenomena are much easier to understand using waves).”

                There is never a need for quantum mechanics when discussing the generation and propagation of thermal EMR flux in this atmosphere! Can you show even one case where such may possibly assist in atmospheric understanding?
                All the best! -will-

                26

            • #
              Franktoo (Frank)

              Will wrote: “The hv of 15 micron (0.067ev) is also easy! the wavelet would be a minimum of 5 cycles in spacetime. How do you think I got to a 1/10^20°C order of magnitude?”

              I don’t know how you got your absurd result. You didn’t show your work. Here’s my work; please tell me where I went wrong.

              0.067 ev/photon is 10^-20 J/photon. Multiply by Avogadro’s Number: 6000 J/mole. Heat capacity of CO2 at constant volume: 28 J/mole-K. Dividing gives a warming of 206 degK, not 10^-20 K. In the atmosphere, constant pressure might be more appropriate. A Cp of 36 J/mole/K gives a warming of 167 K.

              Does this answer make sense? The kinetic theory of gases says the kinetic energy of a mole of gas is (3/2)RT. Adding a vibrational mode of freedom adds another RT of energy to the heat capacity. So this answer makes some sense.

              30

              • #

                Franktoo (Frank)October 29, 2015 at 5:41 am

                (Will wrote: “The hv of 15 micron (0.067ev) is also easy! the wavelet would be a minimum of 5 cycles in spacetime. How do you think I got to a 1/10^20°C order of magnitude?”)

                “I don’t know how you got your absurd result. You didn’t show your work. Here’s my work; please tell me where I went wrong.”

                I will check my numbers I may very well been going in circles after the 1/10^20 J/cycle for 15 micron EMR. I will check. I was trying for delta T with 2500 other molecules not even absorbing one cycle of energy.

                While I do that and do (the next from you). Back at David’s 6 inaseries #6.4 you do the Schwarzschild part of the two stream approximation, and apply that as an attenuation to some surface EMR flux.
                Do you see why that is so misapplied by the models? I am willing to go all through that, but only for someone willing to at least consider. There you mention intensity! If you mean W/sr (vector power transfer) there is a problem. If you mean Planck’s specific intensity (now called spectral radiance),the normalized vector spectral form of field strength, flux is not attenuated (but field strength is) and the example is mostly correct,but still not linear with (s). The HiTran coefficients do not apply to static flux. Any disdainful dismissal is that so few are even willing to consider any but their religion, sorry.
                BTW: Why is gamma for CO2 only 1.286? I thought 1.333 is the lowest. Is gravity itself another DOF? Let me know! I will go ponder and pet on kitten!
                All the best! -will-

                01

            • #
              Franktoo (Frank)

              Will wrote: “After 35 years of measuring thermal EMR and electro-optics design, I am comfortable with both. I also know when applying either is simply stupid.”

              For many applications at long wavelengths, the wave theory of EM agrees with all observations. The quantum revolution was prompted by unexpected observations at short wavelengths. After 40 years as a chemist, I know a decent amount about molecules, why QM was developed, how it impacted my daily work, and scientific BS. IMO, conventional physics including QM correctly predicts about 1 degC of warming from a doubling of CO2, plus any unknown amount of amplification from feedbacks – which can’t be easily studied.

              I’m now at this site to see if David has something revolutionary and correct to contribute. I’m skeptical, but trying to keep an open mind. However, the ignorance I find here about accepted physics is appalling. IMO, post-modern science, Schneider’s “scary stories” and the IPCC are corrupting my profession (science), but that problem started long after the QM revolution. Skeptics are being misinformed by the same tactics.

              You can tell me that the Schwarzschild equation for radiative transfer must be wrong because it predicts two-way flux of energy. The Schwarzschild equation is derived from Planck’s Law for spectral radiance using the same approach as Stefan-Boltzmann to convert spectral radiance into exitance in W/m2 (commonly called flux). So, as best I can tell, you are discarding some central pillars of QM. Einstein disliked QM; you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

              However, please don’t hide behind technical BS such as: “Again some Schuster Schwarzschild two stream approximation, that can never be applied to non-luminous non-scattering atmospheres.”
              As I replied before, our atmosphere IS luminous at infrared wavelengths and even scientists like Petty (who prefer waves and say nothing about AGW) rely extensively on this equation in their textbooks. You don’t have to accept the consequences of the equation – just be candid as to why you disagree and who agrees with you. That way readers who accept established physics won’t be fooled into thinking I and others have mis-represented that physics. Those who believe in one-way flux will know to disregard everything derived using the Schwarzschild equation, including the 3.7 W/m2 forcing for 2XCO2. Just be consistent and candid.

              30

              • #

                Franktoo (Frank) October 29, 2015 at 10:54 am

                (Will wrote: “After 35 years of measuring thermal EMR and electro-optics design, I am comfortable with both. I also know when applying either is simply stupid.”)

                “For many applications at long wavelengths, the wave theory of EM agrees with all observations. The quantum revolution was prompted by unexpected observations at short wavelengths. After 40 years as a chemist, I know a decent amount about molecules, why QM was developed, how it impacted my daily work, and scientific BS.”

                OK
                Chemists have to work for a living as do EEs and that is where the learning begins, and why it stays. Like bicycle riding the mistakes and bruises are then learning. Books only have nice remembrances of others. Much can also be learned/accepted from others but only with all the gory details including how they ever survived that one.
                I dislike QM as I find that it is presented as a replacement for what was learned. What I see from QED is different, presented as an enhancement to your previous learning a but much different POV to your own that may also be true and,often can be demonstrated some times only as “that’s really weird”. You should try Fourier optics some time!!

                “IMO, conventional physics including QM correctly predicts about 1 degC of warming from a doubling of CO2, plus any unknown amount of amplification from feedbacks – which can’t be easily studied.”

                OK As a [prelim]: The models,especially the LBLRTMs and your Schwarzschild equations show an expected flux attenuation were that flux actually absorbed by that media. To make that seem correct somehow; the one half SB fantasy law was presented with absolutely no evidence what so ever. In other words some fanciful flux had to be generated so something could be absorbed.
                The alternate to this is the actual S-B equation (although still an idealization as a maximum possible):
                Ee ≤ σ(Ta^4-Tb^4); note the vector sum of the two opposing vector symbols for radiance the (T^4)s inside the parenthesis, which must be evaluated before anything else can be applied. The result, has been demonstrated over and over again with that maximum a clear asymptote; to always hold true. As (in parenthesis)the sum approaches zero the flux also approaches zero. There is no perpetuum mobile of the second kind. There instead is a cessation of thermal EMR flux.
                The differential with respect to temperature of the S-B.
                ΔEe ≤ 4σT^3⋅ΔT, holds all the way to 1 mW/m^2. That ΔT BTW, if an AC signal, it propagates and is properly attenuated by the atmosphere even when travailing in the opposite of flux. More on that later. The implications are extreme. The atmosphere reduces EMR flux from the surface by the local amount of its own spectral radiance; at the same time emitting in the direction of even lower spectral radiance. I know this sounds like the same thing; but what is it that determines the temperature at each altitude? It is not now and never has been surface EMR flux; ever since H2O and CO2 have become present in the atmosphere.

                “Those who believe in one-way flux will know to disregard everything derived using the Schwarzschild equation, including the 3.7 W/m2 forcing for 2XCO2. Just be consistent and candid.”

                I hope the above meets these requirements. Perhaps we can indeed have a interesting and fruitful dialog. I have nothing to sell. I do not want to say to much about Dr. Evans presentation. He is trying very hard to be polite to everyone. I prefer Konrad’s characterization of me, much safer for me I think!
                All the best! -will-

                12

              • #
                Franktoo (Frank)

                star comment
                Will: If you accept that molecules emit a spectral radiance in all directions according to Planck’s Law, you appear to be stuck with the ability to decompose that flux into two components perpendicular to a plane of molecules: S-B and Schwarzschild. You believe that these radiative fluxes CANCEL at some point; I believe the only thing that “cancels” is power: net power = power in – power out. I can’t design and experiment that unambiguously distinguishes between these possibilities. I know of no alternative theory that can replace the conventional theory starting with Planck’s Law. So, I don’t think we can hold an intelligent conservation about radiation in the atmosphere without accepting the conventional theory of two fluxes with the possibility that cancellation somehow occurs either in waves or power. And we can agree to disagree about how this happens.

                None of this depends on which side of wave/particle duality we prefer. Waves interfere – producing greater intensity in some locations and less in others. Interference requires coherence. IMO, the above cancellation has nothing to do with classical interference. (Particles scatter off each other, though I’m told this is negligible for photons.)

                IMO, the desire for wave cancellation arises from misunderstanding the 2LoT. According to statistical mechanics, the 2LoT EMERGES as a consequence of the quantum behavior of large numbers of photons and rapidly colliding molecules – even though individual molecules and photons behave as if they are NOT CONSTRAINED by this law. You can’t have a Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds if a collision can’t transfer kinetic energy from a slower-moving molecule to a faster-moving one. (And you can’t have Planck without Boltzmann.) Statistical mechanics solves this dilemma by saying individual molecules aren’t hot or cold – only large groups of colliding molecules have a temperature. And QM predicts that heat (defined as the NET energy flux by collision or radiation) will always flow from hot to cold when the groups are large enough to have a “temperature”. The kinetic energy of a single molecule is always changing, the temperature of a group of rapidly colliding molecules doesn’t change without gaining or losing energy. Temperature and heat have no meaning at molecular scale (and the meaning of entropy is quite different.) Based on my understanding of statistical mechanics, I see no need for one-way flux.

                IMO, waves died when the Michelson-Morley experiment found no ether and the “ultraviolet catastrophe” was recognized. That didn’t mean that Maxwell equations were no longer valid in the macroscopic world. They remain valid today in the macroscopic world. We now atoms are made of electrons and a positively charged nucleus. Those electrons can’t be circling the nucleus and obeying Maxwell’s equations, thus QM had to be invented. And some phenomena seem in the macroscopic world (blackbody radiation) can’t be explained without it.

                40

              • #

                Franktoo (Frank) October 30, 2015 at 5:34 am

                “Will: If you accept that molecules emit a spectral radiance in all directions according to Planck’s Law, you appear to be stuck with the ability to decompose that flux into two components perpendicular to a plane of molecules:”

                Good God frank, I accept no such thing, this is your fantasy, which I despise!
                Planck does not have a Law. Planck has a very hard to understand equation for the maximum spectral electromagnetic field strength of a mass as a function of frequency at at a fixed temperature. It is the expression of thermal noise as a field.
                Although not the same at all; gravity is a field, for a chemist gravity is a multiplicative attraction of numbers to other numbers. Moles here moles over yonder they attract each other for some unknown reason. There are both words and algebraic formula devised to give some understandable structure to such attraction That attraction is the ‘field’ it is never the acceleration (movement) of the numbers (moles) towards each other. The two are the most distinct difference that earthlings have ever discovered.
                In EE speak it is the difference between the across variable (Voltage) and the through variable (current). they are always related to each other yet always distinct. Mathematically Voltage is orthogonal to current yet has a distinct dot product called power.
                in the chemical numbers game the across variable is the gravitational field the through variable is the acceleration toward and if allowed acceleration of both depending on the numbers!

                Radiance is not something emitted (power is the through variable) it is a field. a potential for power transfer not any transfer of power itself. An electromagnetic field that exists from a infinitesimal coherence of both the time cyclic electric field (the charge field) and the magnetic charge motion field (electrical current)

                “S-B and Schwarzschild. You believe that these radiative fluxes CANCEL at some point; I believe the only thing that “cancels” is power: net power = power in – power out.”

                Not at all the flux never cancel the fields ‘oppose’ much limiting any possible flux being expressed.

                “I can’t design and experiment that unambiguously distinguishes between these possibilities. I know of no alternative theory that can replace the conventional theory starting with Planck’s Law.”

                I have several, but none without time, and medium with thermal inertia, and even then cannot truly falsify that incessant two stream claim. The only real approach is why would nature even try a pointless perpetuum mobile of the second kind. Pointless because all (everything) has been repeatedly demonstrated without the two stream approach and not even once has been demonstrated the need for such.

                “So, I don’t think we can hold an intelligent conservation about radiation in the atmosphere without accepting the conventional theory of two fluxes with the possibility that cancellation somehow occurs either in waves or power. And we can agree to disagree about how this happens.”
                All that needs be done is a demonstration of any electromagnetic flux by any means whatsoever in a direction of higher EM field strength at that frequency if you can do that all of Maxwell’s equations are flushed down the toilet!

                23

              • #

                Franktoo (Frank) October 30, 2015 at 5:34 am

                “star comment
                Will: If you accept that molecules emit a spectral radiance in all directions according to Planck’s Law,”

                1) Planck has no law!! That is Wm Connolley’s work on Wikipedia. If you look at Planck’s equation for specific intensity (now called spectraL radiance) you will notice a (per sr or sr^-1) that stands for steradians and completely changes any possible interpretation that that quantity is a scalar. It is only the vector normal to the surface area of the aperture of the black body cavity.
                2) Radiance W/(m²⋅sr⋅cm) is never flux. Flux must have the actual solid angle defined.
                3) For the S-B equation that solid angle is PI sr; the maximim for a flat surface area either normal to or into the hemisphere surround of that surface.
                4) There is physically no such thing as a black-body.
                5) Nither this Earth nor its atmosphere is ever a 2D flat surface.
                6) Maxwell’s equations forbid EMR flux in opposing directions at the same frequency. H. Lorentz (with the force of hos name has proven this one way EMR flux 1904.

                “Those electrons can’t be circling the nucleus and obeying Maxwell’s equations, thus QM had to be invented. And some phenomena seem in the macroscopic world (blackbody radiation) can’t be explained without it.”

                So you claim with no evidence. This seems to be where you and the other CCC seem to be stuck. Near Black-body EMR does not need to be explained it is measured. Opposing EMR flux at the same frequency is only some fantasy and like most of QM has been falsified.

                03

      • #

        David said:

        “The role of convection for that exercise is to establish the lapse rate ”

        Agreed.

        Going further, convection seeks to neutralise radiative imbalances by juggling emissions heights between the various pipes so as to maintain the average global lapse rate set by mass and gravity.

        The emissions heights are density sensitive and lapse rate distortions create density variations in the vertical column which are corrected for by convective adjustments.

        Changes in the lapse rate slopes directly affect the speed of convection from place to place.

        68

        • #

          Stephen Wilde October 26, 2015 at 9:38 pm

          (David said: “The role of convection for that exercise is to establish the lapse rate ”)

          “Agreed.”

          Please point out how convection (atmospheric mass motion, with heat)
          Does anything to ‘establish’ lapse rate!

          “Going further, convection seeks to neutralise radiative imbalances by juggling emissions heights between the various pipes so as to maintain the average global lapse rate set by mass and gravity.”

          Can you please identify any radiative imbalances?

          “The emissions heights are density sensitive and lapse rate distortions create density variations in the vertical column which are corrected for by convective adjustments.”

          Really? By what means?

          “Changes in the lapse rate slopes directly affect the speed of convection from place to place.”

          Do you have any definition or measurement of your ‘speed of convection’ at any place?

          38

  • #
    Fredrik

    Shouldn’t the emmisivity be present in eq 10? Or did you compensate for that by adjustment of the parameter phi. Maybe I mix things up, but I thought from one of your previous posts that it is important to consider the emmisivity for real emitters.

    20

    • #

      Good point Fredrik. I’ve added it now. (It is a constant, so the effect just canceled out here and it made no difference. Also it is very close to one, so makes little difference to the product anyway — which is why it often gets neglected.)

      60

  • #
    Fredrik

    Why is not concentration of water vapor included, similar to eq 2 for CO2? Is it because the effect of this is allready “saturated” due to the high concentration and the logaritm’s assymptotic behaviour?

    00

    • #

      Fredrik, the concentration of wv is only relevant in so much as it gives a clue to the height of its emission layer (the WVEL), and thus to its temperature, and the amount of OLR it emits. Even for that the concentration is not much help, because wv is not well-mixed. Even worse, the concentration of the wv under about 4.5 km has been increasing over the last four decades, while above that it has been decreasing. So instead we use the height of the WVEL in the OLR model.

      CO2 on the other hand is well-mixed (on climate time scales), so the concentration gives a pretty good indication of where its emissions layer is at the various wavelengths. So the CO2 concentration is an input to the model. The CO2 effect is far from saturated, because its emission height in the wings could rise further and get cooler.

      40

      • #
        Robk

        “Water vapor below 4.5km is increasing, above is decreasing.”
        This is something I didn’t know. Is there more information on that, or what is the thinking on the cause of that?
        Thank you for your detailed posts and having the patience to inform the “masses” as it were. Your series of posts has filled a void that I’ve been interested in but always put aside for fear of expending too much time and getting in beyond my depth.
        Thank you for a excellent forum.

        30

      • #
        Fredrik

        Thanks! Looking forward to next post!

        20

  • #

    Hard as I try to find a chink in the armour … kudos David, so far you have covered all bases

    40

  • #

    In her intro Jo said this:

    “In this OLR model, the water vapor pipe could either expand or constrict. An expansion means a drop in the height of the emissions layer, a descent to a warmer place in the troposphere. The top layer of any atmospheric “blanket” is where all the action is, and where the photons of infra red can finally escape to space. The gas below the top of the blanket or emission layer doesn’t matter that much for OLR because the photons can’t escape to space from there.”

    The absorption of radiation by CO2 at lower levels reduces the lapse rate slope which leads to less powerful convection from the ground.

    Less powerful convection from the ground means that clouds rise less high before they condense out.

    Condensing out at lower, warmer heights results in clouds emitting increased OLR to space.

    The increase in OLR from lower,warmer cloud tops thus compensates for the reduction in OLR to space from CO2.

    The change in the lapse rate slope caused by CO2 has resulted in a convective adjustment that allows more OLR out from the water vapour pipe.

    So, what evidence is there that clouds have been condensing out at lower heights ?

    Well it turns out that higher levels of the atmosphere have indeed been becoming drier whilst CO2 has been increasing.

    Such a process is also consistent with radiosonde observations as per Miskolczi et al.

    The reason for the increase in CO2 is a separate issue and there is increasingly robust evidence that it is related to solar warming of the oceans rather than human emissions.

    67

    • #
      Franktoo (Frank)

      Steve Wilde wrote: “The absorption of radiation by CO2 at lower levels reduces the lapse rate slope which leads to less powerful convection from the ground.”

      This is misleading. Increasing CO2 increases both absorption and EMISSION. The atmosphere currently loses more heat by radiation than it absorbs. The difference is provided by convection – mostly latent heat. Whenever the atmosphere becomes so cold that an unstable lapse rate exists, buoyancy-driven convection carries heat upward air until the instability is eliminated. So the lapse rate is controlled by convection.

      Alternatively, you can focus on the fact that the atmosphere is mostly heated from below. Net thermal infrared (390 W/m2 – 333 W/m2 = 54 W/m2) is incapable of removing all the heat absorbed by the surface (165 W/m2). The earth’s surface temperature averages 288 degK because convection in regions with unstable lapse rates carries an average of about 100 W/m2 away from the surface at that average temperature.

      From either perspective, the average lapse rate is determined by convection and the MALR, not CO2. However, chaotic fluid flow in the atmosphere, uneven heating of a spherical planet turbulent mixing, and planetary rotation produce local environmental lapse rates that differ from MALR in the short run.

      51

      • #

        I don’t think that is misleading.

        See Fig 3 here:

        http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

        Note that there is overall net absorption all the way to the emissions level in the stratosphere.

        Furthermore there is net absorption in both ascending and descending columns beneath the emissions height but the net thermal effect on the vertical profile is reversed in each column.

        Only above the emissions height does emission to space come to be dominant.

        Nonetheless the net thermal effect at the surface is zero for the reason explained.

        25

        • #

          “I don’t think that is misleading.See Fig 3 here:”

          Your whole Fig 3 is misleading! What and where does your hydrostatic balance nonsence level have any meaning

          “Note that there is overall net absorption all the way to the emissions level in the stratosphere.”

          And Fig 3 implication is that atmospheric CO2 increases atmospheric temperature at all altitudes! Where does the power for that come from?

          “Furthermore there is net absorption in both ascending and descending columns beneath the emissions height but the net thermal effect on the vertical profile is reversed in each column.”

          Why do you claim some effect at all?

          “Only above the emissions height does emission to space come to be dominant.”

          What and why do you have some “emissions height”? where is such defined? how is it measured? What does your word ‘dominant’ mean in a technical sense? Wife beater?

          “Nonetheless the net thermal effect at the surface is zero for the reason explained.”

          What pray tell have you ever explained?

          27

        • #
          Franktoo (Frank)

          Steve wrote: “The absorption of radiation by CO2 at lower levels reduces the lapse rate slope which leads to less powerful convection from the ground.”

          Your statement is misleading because it ignores emission of radiation by CO2. The atmosphere loses more energy by emission than it gains by absorption. See Heating and cooling rates in Grant Petty’s book or at ScienceofDoom. If you start with an isothermal atmosphere, net radiation will make the lapse rate larger (-6.0 K/km vs 0 K/km) until buoyancy-drive convection develops due to an unstable lapse rate.

          In convective regions, the lapse rate is determined – on the average – by the MALR, not radiation.

          Steve wrote: “Note that there is overall net absorption all the way to the emissions level in the stratosphere.”

          No, there is net overall emission all the way to the tropopause! What you may mean to say is increasing GHGs result in a net reduction in upward flux all the way to the tropopause.

          Above the tropopause, the intensity of OLR increases slightly. Try MODTRAN

          51

          • #

            Franktoo (Frank) October 28, 2015 at 10:32 am ·

            “See Heating and cooling rates in Grant Petty’s book or at ScienceofDoom.”

            Science of Doom as a reference TROLL?

            “If you start with an isothermal atmosphere, net radiation will make the lapse rate larger (-6.0 K/km vs 0 K/km) until buoyancy-drive convection develops due to an unstable lapse rate.”

            What atmosphere above 20kPa can be actually isothermal? Without gravity induced lapse radiative equilibrium would produce a lapse of 14-15°C/km!
            Gravity reduces that to a maximum of 10°C/km! no instability ever!

            “In convective regions, the lapse rate is determined – on the average – by the MALR, not radiation.”

            Lapse is never determined by radiation in Earth’s atmosphere if a local part of the atmosphere is actively condensing WV the thermal lapse is 5°C/km! making the surface temperature up to 25°C higher!

            “No, there is net overall emission all the way to the tropopause!”

            Not from CO2. CO2 exitance begins at the tropopause for CO2 above 100ppmv!

            “What you may mean to say is increasing GHGs result in a net reduction in upward flux all the way to the tropopause.”

            What evidence do you have that supports such a claim?
            CO2 does nothing. More water increases latent heat powered exitance to space!

            “Above the tropopause, the intensity of OLR increases slightly. Try MODTRAN”

            Can you define your word intensity for EMR?

            17

      • #

        Franktoo (Frank)October 28, 2015 at 3:43 am

        “This is misleading. Increasing CO2 increases both absorption and EMISSION.”

        Can you show any evidence that this is true? 1968 measurement demonstrate that now and ever since CO2 reached 200ppmv that all surface EMR flux is suppressed in the whole 13-18 micron band by the identical air radiance within 8 meters of the surface. Do not ask! The written reports of measurement remain classified for “name your own reason! Very careful measurements were made as the WV window should remain open to 14 microns surface lateral. Increasing CO2 levels can do no absorbing as nothing is emitted from the surface, between 13 and 18 microns.
        Over much of the ocean the daytime air temperature is higher than the surface temperature, so all thermal flux is downward. Only latent heat, blown away from the 2 cm surface WV equilibrium boundary by lateral wind is elevated from the actual sea surface daytime.
        At the same time the 13-18 micron tropopause exitance is already saturated at the sparse CO2 emission lines at 15 kPa by 200ppmv atmospheric CO2. Most all fill in (between these lines is from the WV, water condensate, emission at a lower altitude 6km This gives the appearance that the 13-18 micron exitance comes from a lower altitude higher radiating temperature. This is never from increasing CO2 levels as the CO2 “wings” do not broaden at those temperatures and pressures. All is a deliberate scam to put the only competitor of methane (“natural” gas) as fuel for stationary power generation out of business, for financial gain!

        “The atmosphere currently loses more heat by radiation than it absorbs.”

        Only if you fail to count the continual evaporation of airborne water condensate from direct insolation and the EMR exitance to space from latent heat as such condenses back to airborne water condensate far from insolation. This airborne water cycle is far greater than the surface water cycle. Such process is again ignored by meteorology and the CCC for political and financial gain.

        “The difference is provided by convection – mostly latent heat. Whenever the atmosphere becomes so cold that an unstable lapse rate exists, buoyancy-driven convection carries heat upward air until the instability is eliminated.”

        Can you show any measurement of such so called lapse rate instability? All is fantasy!

        “Alternatively, you can focus on the fact that the atmosphere is mostly heated from below. Net thermal infrared (390 W/m2 – 333 W/m2 = 54 W/m2) is incapable of removing all the heat absorbed by the surface (165 W/m2).”

        Again some Schuster Schwarzschild two stream approximation, that can never be applied to non-luminous non-scattering atmospheres. The claimed calculated average surface absorbed flux of 165W/m^2 has never bean measured. Another scam!

        “The earth’s surface temperature averages 288 degK because convection in regions with unstable lapse rates carries an average of about 100 W/m2 away from the surface at that average temperature.”

        There is no such thing as degK. Under what conditions does some average surface temperature have any meaning whatsoever? Again only meteorological fantasy, where is your evidence?

        38

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    That we don’t have a specific satellite monitoring these changes in detail is like the dog that didn’t bark.

    I wonder what such a satellite will find. Who will it embarrass? And will the data be as subject to manipulation and misinterpretation as everything else has been?

    My guess is that no matter what it finds the controversy will continue because so many have an interest in continuing to stoke the fires for personal reasons.

    As I have been saying (and I hate to keep repeating it), the problem is not science but politics and money.

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    David,

    Just to confirm that I understand you: as an emission layer rises it cools (no question there) and thus it radiates less or perhaps it’s better to say it radiates more slowly. But the same amount of heat is still there regardless and must eventually radiate away. So we’re dealing with a change in the rate of heat loss as altitude changes and not with an inability of that heat to escape into space. Is that correct?

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I’m still going through the equations and probably will be for several days.

      00

    • #

      Yes Roy. More CO2 blocks some heat from leaving via the CO2 pipe, i.e. being emitted to space from CO2 molecules. But the same amount of heat must leave the planet as radiation, somehow. Therefore the increased CO2 causes a redistribution of heat (OLR) between the various pipes — more must leave from the other pipes, combined. See the picture of the dam at the top of post 11.

      20

  • #
    Franktoo (Frank)

    David: In the standard model, feedbacks “amplify” themselves. Suppose a forcing causes a surface warming that raises the CO2 emission level by 150 m (after accounting changes in lapse rate). That will reduce OLR and produce an addition rise in surface temperature and an addition rise in the CO2 emission layer. I wrote a more extensive comment at the bottom of Part 11.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling-strategy/#comment-1758948

    Does your model include such amplification? If not, why is it necessary in the standard model and not your model?

    20

    • #

      Frank: Surface warming that causes the CO2 EL to rise by 150m — that’s a big positive feedback that isn’t in those covered by those in AR5 (see post 2).

      Yes, if you raise the positive feedback high enough you can mathematically get runaway greenhouse. See the answer to your comment under post 11, Comment 31.1. While it is possibly to dream up ultra scary positive feedbacks, in practice they don’t seem to happen (ever been runaway greenhouse on Earth before? even though Co2 and temperature have both been higher?), and even AR5 doesn’t bother to include this one. Fortunately the loop gain according to AR5 is only about 0.5, so we are a long way from runaway greenhouse (and increasing CO2 does not change the loop gain much, as far as we know).

      Such amplification is in both the conventional basic climate model and my alternative, in so far as we get the feedback numbers from AR5.

      20

      • #
        Franktoo (Frank)

        David wrote: “Surface warming that causes the CO2 EL to rise by 150m — that’s a big positive feedback that isn’t in those covered by those in AR5 (see post 2).

        Does surface warming really cause the CO2 EL to rise 150m?

        It is my understanding that increasing CO2 causes the CO2 EL to rise. The higher emission level – as long as it remains colder – emits less radiation, causing the earth to warm until the radiative imbalance is eliminated. The initial radiation imbalance from a higher CO2 EL is a forcing, not a feedback.

        I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between phenomena associated with: a) forcing and transient radiative imbalance and b) the final state produced when radiative equilibrium has been restored. So, I (rightly or wrongly) ignore forcing and focus on the same planet at two different surface temperatures. (I don’t care how the temperature became different; unforced variability will do. I just need an atmosphere and surface equilibrated with the new surface temperature. If the surface hasn’t equilibrated by slow melting permanent ice, then I’m missing that small feedback.)

        When the earth is 2 degC warmer, how much more radiation does it emit (and reflect) to space? That tells me everything I need to know about the climate feedback parameter – the sum of Planck, WV, LR, cloud and surface albedo feedback. There is no possibility of confusing forcing and feedback. Everything in this approach must be a response to a change in surface temperature – a feedback measured in terms of W/m2/K. If my 2 degC planet emits and reflects 3.7 W/m2/K more radiation, its ECS is 2.0 degC

        Viewed from this approach, the CO2 EL certainly doesn’t rise with surface temperature, but it does emit more OLR. That would be Planck feedback. We’ve discussed this issue before.

        Do consensus scientists use this approach to think about feedbacks (or am I the oddball)? I don’t know. The weakness of this approach is that the 2.0 degC warmer planet doesn’t have an atmosphere with 2XCO2.* In my approach, forcing and feedbacks can not interact, particularly water vapor and CO2. This is a problem you have discussed. Fortunately, there is relatively little overlap between the WV and CO2 bands. When feedbacks are quantified using climate models, this problem doesn’t exist.

        *If ECS were 2.0, CO2 were doubled and equilibrium had been reached, OLR + reflected SWR would be unchanged. I can’t learn about the change in emitted plus reflected radiation – feedbacks – when forcing and feedbacks have cancelled each other.

        Respectfully, Frank

        00

        • #

          Frank: When you previously said “Suppose a forcing causes a surface warming that raises the CO2 emission level by 150 m” I figured you must have been talking about a massive CO2 release due to surface warming — speculation exists about such scenarios (tundra? ocean floor hydrates?), but AR5 ignores it in discussing feedbacks so I do too.

          “It is my understanding that increasing CO2 causes the CO2 EL to rise.” Mine too. AFAIK, surface temperature has only a marginal effect on the CO2 concentration and thus on the height of the CO2 level via Henry’s law and ocean warming (but since accounting for the atmospheric CO2 level is highly unsatisfactory, maybe there is more than we know to this).

          Agree about just looking at the initial and final states. For example, trying to work out precisely how extra CO2 warms the surface or, in the rerouting feedback, lowers the water vapor EL is unsatisfactory hand waving — but it is easy to reason that it happens and easy to calculate what the final state must be under certain assumptions.

          Yes, as surface temperature rises and all else remains constant (including the lapse rate and CO2 EL height), the CO2 EL emits more OLR — about 0.46 W/m2 per K of surface warming (Eq. (4)). Yes, that is connected strongly to the Planck feedback — see the downloadable spreadsheet, which calculates the Planck feedback and arrives at the same value as in AR5 (which lends support to the 0.46 W/m2 per K figure).

          “When the earth is 2 degC warmer” What do you mean precisely? See Fig. 1 of post 13:

          – If the planet’s surface temperature is 2.0 deg higher due to a rising CO2 concentration (only), then its OLR and radiating temperature will remain almost unchanged (only changes due to minor albedo feedbacks to surface warming).

          – If the radiating temperature is 2.0 deg higher then the OLR will be 2.0 / 0.267 or about 8 W/m2 higher, which can only be because ASR is higher by the same amount. Scorching. Surface temperature will be M times the increase in radiating temperature, or 4.0 degC higher.

          “Everything in this approach must be a response to a change in surface temperature”. It has a blind spot to feedbacks that are not in response to surface warming, and of course no drivers are due to surface warming.

          “If my 2 degC planet emits and reflects 3.7 W/m2/K more radiation” Confused units. If CO2 doubles then 3.7 W/m2 of OLR just redistributes itself from being emitted by CO2 molecules to being emitted by non-CO2 molecules instead — the planet’s OLR does not change (except due to minor albedo feedbacks to any surface warming).

          10

    • #

      Franktoo (Frank) October 27, 2015 at 3:45 am · Reply

      “David: In the standard model, feedbacks “amplify” themselves. Suppose a forcing causes a surface warming that raises the CO2 emission level by 150 m (after accounting changes in lapse rate). That will reduce OLR and produce an addition rise in surface temperature and an addition rise in the CO2 emission layer. I wrote a more extensive comment at the bottom of Part 11.”

      The emission layer for CO2 has remained in the tropopause since 200ppmv OLR from CO2 does not change above that atmospheric concentration. In the whole 13-18 micron band much exitance comes from H2O, both vapour and condensate. There is no satellite data that indicates otherwise. All the nonsense comes from the disgraced models. There is no increase in surface temperature attributable to increasing atmospheric CO2! The models claim an increase only as part of the scam!
      All the best! -will-

      45

  • #
    Franktoo (Frank)

    David: Did you apply lapse rate feedback only to the emission from CO2? It should be applied to emission from water vapor also. And other GHGs, though they don’t contribute much.

    Discussing increases and decreases in lapse rate can be confusing because of sign conventions. Lapse rate is traditionally defined as -dT/dz, making lapse rate a positive number. Rising humidity decreases the lapse rate, say from -6.5 K/km to -6.0 K/km. A decrease in lapse rate warms the upper atmosphere and increases OLR.

    Discussing feedbacks (and forcing) is also confusing because of sign conventions. The IPCC and most climate scientists use the awkward convention that anything that warms the planet is positive and anything that cools the planet is negative. The forcing from 2XCO2 is +3.7 W/m2. Planck feedback is -3.2 W/m2/K. Water vapor feedback is about +2.0 W/m2/K (reducing OLR, but warming the planet). Using this convention, lapse rate feedback is about -1.0 W/m2/K (increasing OLR, but cooling the planet).

    Could you please clarify if you are using these conventions lapse rate and feedback? This sentence, for example, appears confusing to someone who expects the lapse rate to decrease.

    “If Γ increases uniformly by 10% then the area under the indentation decreases by ~3.4%, or, by Table 1 of the last post, ~1.6 W m−2 …”

    10

    • #

      Frank: Yes I did apply lapse rate feedback to emissions other than from CO2. I applied it to emissions from cloud tops, the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), and methane layers also — see Eq.s (8), (9), (10), and (11), and Table 1.

      I noted above: “If the lapse rate Γ increases while TS remains unchanged, the atmosphere becomes linearly colder as height increases (Γ is positive, ~6.5 °C km−1).”.

      “If Γ increases uniformly by 10% then the area under the indentation decreases by ~3.4%, or, by Table 1 of the last post, ~1.6 W m−2 …” If lapse rate increases by 10% (say from 6.5 K/km to 7.15 K/km) then at a given height it cools, so less emissions are given off, hence the pink line in Fig. 1. Note that, by context, lapse rate is changing but surface temperature and CDo2 level are held constant. Seems clear You seem to be expecting “the lapse rate to decrease”, but it is traditional in applied science to allow a quantity as defined to increase (the +ve direction of change). Yes lapse rate in climate is sometimes screwy so it always pays to be very cautious, which is why I explicitly stated that lapse rate here is a positive number — I believe I have been consistent.

      20

      • #
        Franktoo (Frank)

        David: The MALR is less than the DALR. Increasing humidity will reduce the lapse rate (say from -6.5 to -6.0 K/km). That will make the upper atmosphere warm faster than the surface and emit more radiation than would be expected from simple Planck feedback assuming no change in lapse rate. That means that lapse rate feedback will be negative (say -1 W/m2/K, cooling the earth).

        Hopefully I’ve made sign convention I am using clear for both lapse rate and feedback.

        At some point, it would be interesting to compare your values with the IPCC consensus.

        10

        • #

          Frank: “The MALR is less than the DALR” — only if they are both positive numbers!

          “Increasing humidity will reduce the lapse rate (say from -6.5 to -6.0 K/km).” -6.0 is a bigger number than -6.5, so that’s technically an increase.

          Your sign convention is anything but clear to me. I used positive lapse rates throughout, and I believe my usage is consistent. Apparently we are clashing over signs.

          10

          • #
            Franktoo (Frank)

            David: I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be. Better definition: Negative slope is a positive lapse rate. I interpret that to mean that you are using this definition. In that case, higher humidity makes the lapse rate smaller.

            So what does a smaller lapse rate mean in terms of feedback. A lower lapse rate means that difference between the upper troposphere (your emission levels) and the surface shrinks. The IPCC defines as Planck and other feedbacks in terms of a change in surface temperature. If the surface warms 2 K and the upper troposphere 4 K, Planck feedback is calculated for a 2 K warming. Lapse rate feedback from increasing humidity takes into account the fact that the upper atmosphere warms more and emits more OLR than expected given the surface temperature change and a constant lapse rate.

            The tricky part is the sign – positive or negative feedback. The IPCC’s standard definition of flux is always in reference to the planet. An increase in OLR cools the planet, so it is a negative feedback. 2XCO2 warms the planet so it is a positive forcing. Increased absorption of OLR by water vapor warms the planet so it is positive feedback. Planck feedback is negative. (All of these are opposite my intuition.)

            So lapse rate decreases, producing negative feedback and the planet is cooler than it would be if the lapse rate didn’t change.

            00

            • #

              Frank: The “Planck feedback” is not a “feedback” in the generally accepted sense, because it does not modify what caused it. It is simply the extra OLR produced by warming the surface by 1 degree under the Planck conditions (which follow the partial derivative definition of the Planck feedback, in Eq. (3) of post 2). Calling it a “feedback” will simply confuse people, because it does not feed back.

              Feedbacks are called positive or negative depending on whether they reinforce or oppose their cause.

              Lapse rate changes always oppose the forcing causing a surface warming or cooling, so it is a negative feedback.

              Water vapor feedback is positive because it reinforces the warming or cooling effect of a forcing.

              00

              • #
                Franktoo (Frank)

                David wrote: The “Planck feedback” is not a “feedback” in the generally accepted sense, because it does not modify what caused it…. Calling it a “feedback” will simply confuse people, because it does not feed back.”

                I mentioned on another post that I preferred to think in terms of a “Planck response” modified by other feedbacks. They are all measured in W/m2/K. However, it depends on how you look at it.

                When you think of other feedbacks modifying the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity, the Planck response does not “feedback” – especially as the sum of an infinite series.

                When you think of a climate feedback parameter (in terms of W/m2/K), the Planck response is a feedback.

                Due to the low surface heat capacity of the northern hemisphere, it warms and cools much more than the SH every year. GMST rises and falls about 3.5 degC every year. (Working with temperature anomalies eliminates these seasonal changes.) The best correlation between monthly GMST vs monthly OLR + reflected SWR is found with no LAG. On a monthly time scale, we don’t have a Planck response that is later modified by fast feedbacks.

                All of these responses are caused by a change in surface temperature – they don’t have to be “forced”. If the Gods of Chaos shut down the upwelling of cold water from the deep ocean (a major cause of El Ninos), the earth’s surface will warm and the deep oceans will cool: aka “unforced” or “internal variability”. Planck response and all of the other feedbacks will develop – they are a fundamental property of the planet. To a first approximation, they aren’t a response to a particular forcing.

                A second approximate recognizes that the earth isn’t well-mixed and homogeneous. So when a forcing or unforced variability changes temperature more in some place than in others, the responses will be different. When we quantify feedbacks with respect to a change in GMST, we are using a first approximation.

                10

              • #

                (David wrote: The “Planck feedback” is not a “feedback” in the generally accepted sense, because it does not modify what caused it…. Calling it a “feedback” will simply confuse people, because it does not feed back.”)

                “I mentioned on another post that I preferred to think in terms of a “Planck response” modified by other feedbacks. They are all measured in W/m2/K. However, it depends on how you look at it.”
                Please, please, please look at that, DRONK on your back looking intensely at the bottom of the table. This is not to disparage anything only a different very gentle POV. and not anything like the huge crock gnawing on your genitals. Just hummm wow!!
                All the best! -will-

                03

              • #

                Frank: The amplification right around the feedback loop through the Planck sensitivity (see Fig 2 of post 3), known as the “loop gain”, is necessarily dimensionless — amplification of a signal is dimensionless, so loop gain is dimensionless. So the Planck sensitivity necessarily has the inverse units of feedback. The “Planck feedback” is just defined as the inverse of the Planck sensitivity, so of course it has the same units as feedback! Nothing very profound about that, and it’s not a feedback (even though it is traditionally called “Planck feedback”).

                00

      • #
        Franktoo (Frank)

        David: Thanks for the reply. I missed the subscript i, where i refers to one of four emission levels

        00

    • #

      Franktoo (Frank) October 27, 2015 at 4:26 am

      ‘Discussing increases and decreases in lapse rate can be confusing because of sign conventions. Lapse rate is traditionally defined as -dT/dz, making lapse rate a positive number. Rising humidity decreases the lapse rate, say from -6.5 K/km to -6.0 K/km. A decrease in lapse rate warms the upper atmosphere and increases OLR.’

      Atmospheric lapse (all three) are intentionally used to confuse the gullible! On the same day at the same local time. Mobile AL (with higher humidity) always has a numerical temperature lapse lower than does Phoenix AZ. And always Mobile has a lower surface temperature than Phoenix. Always lapse is very local, never global!
      Therefore: Lower temperature lapse indicates a lower surface temperature, not an increases 6km temperature. Surface temperature is such a poor reference; it is no wonder that meteorology and the CCC choose to use it for their scam.
      All the best! -will-

      67

      • #
        Franktoo (Frank)

        Will: If you are referring to this data …

        http://www.principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-effect-does-water-vapor-increase-or-decrease-the-lapse-rate.html

        I’ve reported the situation correctly. See Figure 5. When the slope of the temperature vs altitude plot is -6.5 K/km, the lapse rate is 6.5 K/km. A slope of -6.5 K/km is less than a slope of -6.0, but the opposite is true for corresponding lapse rate: 6.5 K/km is greater than 6.0 K/km. This is because lapse rate defined as the additive inverse of the slope.

        The DALR is 9.8 K/km and the MALR is about 4.9 K/km. The more humidity, the lower the lapse rate. If the surface is temperature is 288 K, the temperature will be 223 K at 10 km with a lapse rate of 6.5 K/km. If increasing GHGs raise the surface temperature to 290 K and increasing humidity reduces the lapse rate to 6.3 K/km, the temperature at 10 km will be 237 K, 4 K higher. Crudely speaking, OLR emitted from the emission levels around 10 km will increase as if the earth warmed 4 K, while we at the surface will experience only 2 K warming. This is lapse rate feedback and the IPCC believes it will reduce further warming and is therefore called a negative feedback.

        30

        • #

          Frank,

          Even Carl Allen Brenner’s article is difficult to interpret! As Dr. Evans does; use the absolute value as a temperature lapse. i.e. a slope of temperature/altitude. Higher than means more slope lower means less slope. Higher slope means thus is more change in temperature with a change in altitude. The fact that the scalar value has reversed meaning is an intentional confusion factor by Climate Clowns.
          Throw that away, and look at the physical! In this atmosphere the three lapse; pressure (log), density (log), and temperature (linear), all go together; higher temperature at higher pressure, at higher density.
          But lapse is not an absolute! it is only a rate of change. When lapse is “fixed”; If 10 km increases temperature by 10°C 5km increases by 10°C, and the the surface temperature increases by 10°C.
          The only way that the linear temperature lapse changes is not from atmospheric WV, it is from condensing WV as the temperature decreases. This converts latent heat into sensible heat increasing the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude of that condensation.
          If you pick a reference whose temperature stays nearly constant at some altitude say 32°N and 5km, 255K. Then when the lower troposphere lapse decreases from 10°C/km to 5°C/km (saturated surface and condensation all the way to 5km) 5km stays at 255K, 10 km stays at 205K, but the surface at Mobile decreases from 305K to 280K. There is no change in EMR exitance which comes from the atmosphere not the surface. The Phoenix, AZ folk are inside still with A/C, the Mobile, AL folk enjoy cool breeze on their sailboat, and the IPCC and Clueless Climate Clowns (CCC) scream we all will die from coal power plant emissions.
          From all the $$peer review and fake IPCC reports, believe nothing. Not one word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, chapter, is truthful! Even the punctuation is suspect!
          All the best! -will-

          04

  • #
    macha

    Steve Goddard at real science posted interesting blog about angstrom upward and downward IR. Not convinced it supports Dr Evans model…yet. Sorry cant link to it.

    10

  • #
    macha

    I have never understood why average surface temperature is used so widely in weather and climate studies given we have day and night. Since many organisations seem to prefer instruments that record continuously, why cant median be Used. Seems to be to be hugely misleading to report anomoly differences of 0.2C when any 24hr day can have a 10C difference in both max and Min temp. – For the same CO2 btw

    21

    • #

      macha October 29, 2015 at 8:56 am

      “I have never understood why average surface temperature is used so widely in weather and climate studies given we have day and night.”

      It is not so much an average over a cycle, the daly median which can have meaning for comparison between locations. It is the aggregate over time and space for a global fear that proves so effective while having no meaning whatsoever. Try to understand that the intent of the CCC is never for anyones understanding. It is only for the confusion, fear, and compliance of the serfs. Once you visualize the intent, the reason for things like anomalies becomes clear. Such enhances the effect of confusion, fear, and compliance, exactly as you express. See how effective that becomes!

      32

  • #
  • #
    Frank

    Will: Sorry you don’t like Planck’s Law. You might check out the online version of Feynman’s lectures on Physics Vol I Chap 42-2 and 42-3 for the EM approach to this law. Basically accelerating electrons in molecules radiate and a Blackbody radiation field is the one where equilibrium between absorption and emission of radiation exists. (When equilibrium does not exist, the Schwarzschild equation tells us how equilibrium is approached as radiation passes through a material.

    My personal perspective is that equilibrium exists inside of all large objects and therefore they emit BB radiation at their interface with other materials – after some losses due to scattering at the interface (aka emissivity).

    10