Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?

It's not really SSDD "talking", he's just resurrecting the old denialist hoax by Steve Goddard, as amended and expanded by another crappy WUWT post, pompously titled the "Unified Theory of Climate", all based on the gross misunderstanding / abuse of the adiabatic lapse rate and the ideal gas law. They all suggest that pressure is the sole determinant of an atmosphere's temperature, and voilà, "climate change" just disappeared.

Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.

You even find phrases like this (from the second Goddard link above):

If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.​

Because the ideal gas law says so.

One need look no further than climate science to see a gross misuse of science...

 

[Wuwei]

I looked it up, and International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
The ideal gas law cannot begin to do anything near that level of complexity. So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?

You didn't look it far enough up...it is pretty well known througout the rest of science that the standard atmosphere is derived from the ideal gas law...climate science ignores it because it is damned inconvenient.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/atmosphere_lecture_slides.pdf
http://snowball.millersville.edu/~adecaria/ESCI241/esci241_lesson01_composition.pdf
Equations - Air Density and Density Altitude

I looked at the references you cited. The International Standard Atmosphere model is definitely not derived from the ideal gas law (IGL). The IGL is useful as a lemma in the complex equations that derive the air density as a function of altitude, but you simply can't derive the ISA from the IGL alone.

It is similar to saying you can derive the orbit of Jupiter from the relation xy=1 implies x=1/y. That relation may be useful or necessary, but it does not solve the problem.

 

[Wuwei]

Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

 

[jc456]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise.

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.

No need to apologize. SSDD`s thread has been hijacked by a bunch of sycophants complementing each other. With "SSDD`s graph" I`m sure you meant to say the U of Washington`s graph which is of course absurd....and that`s why he probably decided to post it here as an OP.
You replied "First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal."...but that is not what they did. They used the atmosphere as 1 of the 3 factors to get the radiation reaching the ground to that 239.7 W/m^2 number. The other 2 were the disc to spherical m^2 surface conversion and a 0.7 factor which stands for as they say:"Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice,"
ATM S 211 - Notes
So at this point they did do it with an atmosphere that has clouds and not as you would have done it first without an atmosphere.
Now they are way below the temperature that you would have assigned to how warm a surface would be if there were no atmosphere.
Your (and my ) next step would be to get a fix on the radiative balance after we have added an atmosphere.
But they did not take these steps in the same order.In fact they repeated step 1 and used it again later on in their "explanation"
Click on the link to that page and scroll down to:
"This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
See now how they contradicted the statement they made at the beginning, when they used an atmosphere to "explain" their 239.7 W/m^2 and 255 deg K...and then go on to say later that`s how cold it would be without an atmosphere.

Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice,"

If the Earth had no atmosphere, but the same albedo, how much radiation would be absorbed by the surface?

Wow, you really aren't smart! Now you're going to use your tactics of blaming someone for the university errors times two. You da man!!!

 

[jc456]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

Does the atmosphere touch the surface? If so how can there be any difference between the atmosphere and a heat sync. And what is the purpose of a heat sync?

 

[SSDD]

Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

There is a difference between the static conditions in a bottle of compressed gas and the chaotic movement of the atmosphere

As to venus...how does the greenhouse effect work there....very little solar energy actually reaches the ground to be radiated back up...then there is the fact that there is no temperature difference between the daylight side of the planet and the night time side of the planet even though the night lasts 121 of our days....explain that fact using the greenhouse effect.....

 

[Olde Europe]

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary. If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance. Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature. Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere. And that way lies disaster for the denialings. So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in. In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order. That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss. Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time... So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does. Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one). There already the math is daunting. Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.

 

[polarbear]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

Wow...! Your reply got buried under a pile of verbal fist-fighting in this thread.
I am sorry I`m taking so long to respond while you wind up having to fight multiple battles during that time. It`s not even possible for SSDD to discuss your concept with us in the order you suggested because he gets dog-piled with arguments that do not even come to play yet at step#1 & a sphere with no atmosphere. The 2 points you mentioned here are a good example of how some of the most basic physics have become stumbling blocks instead of building blocks.
"Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum."
Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:

The temperature curve approaching the daily maximum would look quite similar to a capacitor being charged with a limited output power supply. The power supply being the incident solar radiation being distributed over 1/2 the sphere while the capacitance simulates the mass of the spherical shell that is being warmed during the (12 hour) "charging" cycle.
Assuming a situation where we begin with the very first charging cycle it would be unreasonable to think that we already arrived the temperature plateau we will reach after that cycle has been repeated many times over. I say that because during each cycle the mass being warmed will increase by the amount of heat that penetrates to a slightly greater depth of that shell.
We can observe this with the temperature/depth gradient on land and in a body of water.
That will affect what happens next when the warmed portion of the shell rotates into the discharge portion of each cycle. As the number of cycles progresses the charge (or heat) which is retained to the end of the discharge cycle and the beginning of the next charge cycle will not be the same as it was at the start when we "booted" this system...but will have increased by a small amount.
However eventually we will reach a plateau for both, the charge and the discharge cycle.
I`m looking forwards to see what your thoughts are regarding this up to this point are.

 

[Wuwei]

There is a difference between the static conditions in a bottle of compressed gas and the chaotic movement of the atmosphere

That is very true. But neither example is adiabatic.

 

[Wuwei]

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary. If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance. Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature. Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere. And that way lies disaster for the denialings. So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in. In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order. That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss. Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time... So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does. Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one). There already the math is daunting. Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.

Yes, those assumptions lead to a mess. Great point that the SSDD model would give the same atmospheric temperatures at the poles as it would the equator. Well actually it's not a great point for everyone. It's just a great point for SSDD to ponder, if he does that at all.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
......For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:......

The earth on average is 287K. At night temperatures decrease on the average to around 20C. So the diurnal temperature spread is from 277K to 297K. If you apply the Stefan Boltzman law, there isn't all that much difference (14%) in earth's heat loss, day to night. So, in that sense the earth "capacitor" will only discharge 14%.

 

[IanC]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

Wow...! Your reply got buried under a pile of verbal fist-fighting in this thread.
I am sorry I`m taking so long to respond while you wind up having to fight multiple battles during that time. It`s not even possible for SSDD to discuss your concept with us in the order you suggested because he gets dog-piled with arguments that do not even come to play yet at step#1 & a sphere with no atmosphere. The 2 points you mentioned here are a good example of how some of the most basic physics have become stumbling blocks instead of building blocks.
"Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum."
Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:

The temperature curve approaching the daily maximum would look quite similar to a capacitor being charged with a limited output power supply. The power supply being the incident solar radiation being distributed over 1/2 the sphere while the capacitance simulates the mass of the spherical shell that is being warmed during the (12 hour) "charging" cycle.
Assuming a situation where we begin with the very first charging cycle it would be unreasonable to think that we already arrived the temperature plateau we will reach after that cycle has been repeated many times over. I say that because during each cycle the mass being warmed will increase by the amount of heat that penetrates to a slightly greater depth of that shell.
We can observe this with the temperature/depth gradient on land and in a body of water.
That will affect what happens next when the warmed portion of the shell rotates into the discharge portion of each cycle. As the number of cycles progresses the charge (or heat) which is retained to the end of the discharge cycle and the beginning of the next charge cycle will not be the same as it was at the start when we "booted" this system...but will have increased by a small amount.
However eventually we will reach a plateau for both, the charge and the discharge cycle.
I`m looking forwards to see what your thoughts are regarding this up to this point are.

Sorry, but your example does not resonate with me.

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

The output from the surface is relative to T^4, that is why it warms up faster in the morning and cools down faster in the evening and at a slower and more even pace as the night wears down.

The atmosphere fluffs up during the daytime as it stores energy from the Sun and surface, only to shrink again during nighttime as it loses that extra bolus of energy, roughly half to the surface.

 

[IanC]

Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.

 

[IanC]

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary. If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance. Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature. Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere. And that way lies disaster for the denialings. So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in. In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order. That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss. Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time... So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does. Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one). There already the math is daunting. Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.

Yes, the complexity is daunting. Water in its various forms is the joker in the deck.

There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.

 

[Crick]

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

No, it's not.

The daylight portion is sinusoidal. The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".

 

[Crick]

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary. If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance. Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature. Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere. And that way lies disaster for the denialings. So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in. In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order. That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss. Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time... So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does. Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one). There already the math is daunting. Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.

Yes, the complexity is daunting. Water in its various forms is the joker in the deck.

There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.

Do you believe water in all its various forms is undergoing significant changes?

 

[Olde Europe]

Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.

We seem to know that very little visible sunlight reaches the surface. What really do we know about even shorter wavelengths? Methinks it isn't all that much. My reading suggests there is just speculation on "unknown UV absorbers" in some layer of the atmosphere or the other.

Large, non-spherical cloud particles have also been detected in the cloud decks. In 2012, abundance and vertical distribution of these unknown ultraviolet absorber in the Venusian atmosphere has been investigated from analysis of Venus Monitoring Camera images.[57] But their composition is still unknown.[51] In 2016, disulfur dioxide has been identified as a possible candidate for causing the so far unknown UV absorption of the Venusian atmosphere.[58]​

But yes, the "greenhouse effect" on Venus may differ markedly from the one on earth.

And then, you learn a thing every day, like ...

The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.[1] The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that covers the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days).​

____________________________

The daylight portion is sinusoidal. The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".

Heads up:

"For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats."​

 

[Olde Europe]

There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.

Not sure I am able to follow you here, Ian. Let me focus on two phrases I think are most in need of clarification:

Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection.​

Majority meaning what part of energy? The energy from the earth's surface, or the energy driving cloud formation?

Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already.​

No clue, really, what "extra retained energy from CO2" is supposed to mean, nor how it would be shunted into the water cycle. Care to clarify? If you meant to say, the overwhelming part of the extra energy trapped in the earth's system due to the rising CO2 concentration is stored away in the oceans, we're on the same page.

 

[IanC]

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

No, it's not.

The daylight portion is sinusoidal. The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".

For any point on Earth the solar input is sinusoidal for a period of time, followed by zero input for a period of time, and the cycle repeats with small changes in solar intensity and the time periods due to angular changes relative to the Sun as the Earth circles the Sun.

Do I have to specifically mention the procession too? What a nitpicking idiot you are.

 

[IanC]

Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.

Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary. If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance. Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature. Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere. And that way lies disaster for the denialings. So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in. In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order. That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss. Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time... So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does. Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one). There already the math is daunting. Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.

Yes, the complexity is daunting. Water in its various forms is the joker in the deck.

There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.

Do you believe water in all its various forms is undergoing significant changes?

No