Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

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.

Sure, you're new here. I don't mind repeating it for the (n)the time.

Trenberth's cartoon is a graph showing radiative balances. I don't necessarily agree with the numbers but it is a start. In the middle it states that ~100w of the 165w of solar insulation at the surface is moved aloft by latent heat and convection. Another 40w directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window. That leaves 25w that churns through the atmosphere to the cloud tops.

CO2 interferes with that 25w. The radiative change returning to the surface can warm the surface or take the alternate route out by water cycle. But not both.

Obviously the surface must warm at least a little, otherwise more energy would ALREADY be going up the latent/convection route.

100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.

 

[Crick]

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

The prEcessesion? Yes, why not?

 

[Crick]

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

No

Then why do you believe it to be the "joker in the deck"?

 

[IanC]

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

The prEcessesion? Yes, why not?

Reduced to being a grammar cop? Hahahaha, how sad.

 

[IanC]

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

No

Then why do you believe it to be the "joker in the deck"?

You're not new here.

 

[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.

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."​

Thanks for that. I was going to comment that Venus's atmosphere acted more like an ocean but I didn't want to go into the weeds.

 

[Olde Europe]

100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.

I am still not sure I follow your whole aggregation, but obviously you omit the almost 400W/m² emitted by IR radiation. Why is that?

 

[IanC]

100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.

I am still not sure I follow your whole aggregation, but obviously you omit the almost 400W/m² emitted by IR radiation. Why is that?

I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.

That's NASA Earth's energy budget poster containing the figures I am using:

 

[jc456]

I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.

That's NASA Earth's energy budget poster containing the figures I am using:

so what happens to the 77.1 absorbed by the atmosphere from the incoming radiation? It seems it doesn't re-emit?

 

[Crick]

The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.

 

[SSDD]

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."​

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus...or anywhere else...there are gravitothermal atmospheric effects on any planet with an atmosphere...the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond its total mass.

 

[Crick]

Oi vey!

 

[SSDD]

Oi vey!

says the biggest schmendrick on the board...

 

[jc456]

The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.

well if it is absorbed on the way in it is shortwave and not longwave radiation. the figure in the claims back radiation, and yet there is no emitted source for that 77.1. feel free to show me where that is going. Your numbers don't balance out.

 

[Crick]

How about a brief explanation of your conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect? Your objection is based on your belief that cold can't radiate to warm, right?

 

[jc456]

How about a brief explanation of your conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect? Your objection is based on your belief that cold can't radiate to warm, right?

dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up. Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?

 

[Crick]

The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.

well if it is absorbed on the way in it is shortwave and not longwave radiation. the figure in the claims back radiation, and yet there is no emitted source for that 77.1. feel free to show me where that is going. Your numbers don't balance out.

Uh... are you expecting it to be re-emitted as shortwave?

 

[jc456]

The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.

well if it is absorbed on the way in it is shortwave and not longwave radiation. the figure in the claims back radiation, and yet there is no emitted source for that 77.1. feel free to show me where that is going. Your numbers don't balance out.

Uh... are you expecting it to be re-emitted as shortwave?

I was told fking everything emits.

 

[Olde Europe]

dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up. Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?

Are you purposely trying to be useless? There are four paths of energy transfer into the atmosphere. Three paths of transfer out of the atmosphere. Adding up the two sides and comparing them should be about 3rd grade math. Show us what you get.