Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.

Gravity is a downward force. Atmosphere molecules move randomly all directions.

When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?

It doesn't. It's not doing work.
Work
refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

Radiation is created in all directions and remains unchanged until it interacts with a particle of matter. Air molecules are constantly being accelerated by gravity. Without a constant source of new energy to replace the energy radiated away by temperature dependant Blackbody Radiation, the atmosphere would collapse to the surface. As it is, the atmosphere swells and shrinks daily depending on whether it is in sunlight or not.

The total energy of the atmosphere is the framework that defines the range of surface temps. GHGs simply change the amount of energy sequestered in the atmosphere.

SSDD seemingly does not understand that it is the movement of the weights in his Grandfather Clock that run the mechanism. You have to store potential energy weekly for it to continue to operate.

You are falling into the same trap SSDD is mired in.

Yikes, that would be awful!

Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.

When you talk about the atmosphere, I would say it is not so much that gravity is doing work, it's the solar energy cycle that is actually causing work. It is similar (but certainly not identical) to a Sterling engine.

Another way of looking at it is that the atmosphere and gravity creates a sort of spring. The spring is flexed by daily radiation cycles which cycles the atmospheric "engine". I would say that gravity is part of the "spring" system and the external force that causes work comes from solar radiation cycle.

 

[jc456]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking. They are asking me to pay to breathe.

 

[SSDD]

Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.

Earth is neither a closed system...nor is it at equilibrium...And there are still the gas planets in the outer solar system which have temperatures comparable to our own troposphere with no greenhouse gasses to speak of an certainly not enough incoming solar to power a greenhouse effect even if they did have CO2 or some other so called greenhouse gas....if pressure isn't creating that heat...what is?

 

[jc456]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

I thought all matter radiated all directions?

 

[IanC]

Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.

Earth is neither a closed system...nor is it at equilibrium...And there are still the gas planets in the outer solar system which have temperatures comparable to our own troposphere with no greenhouse gasses to speak of an certainly not enough incoming solar to power a greenhouse effect even if they did have CO2 or some other so called greenhouse gas....if pressure isn't creating that heat...what is?

You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.

 

[IanC]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

I thought all matter radiated all directions?

excellent question. I hope W responds.

While I have explained it many times in the past, no one seems to catch on. Perhaps W can do a better job of describing it.

 

[IanC]

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking. They are asking me to pay to breathe.

Actually, you were saying that the influence of CO2 overrides all the other factors that contribute to surface temperature, therefore an imperfect correlation between CO2 and temperature means there is no correlation or influence at all. Buying a coffee everyday affects your budget. Is it an overriding factor? The depreciation of your car, or the appreciation of your real estate are larger factors. Can you tell the price of coffee from your net worth? No. Does the price of coffee have an effect on your budget or drinking habits? Yes.

 

[Wuwei]

Earth is neither a closed system...nor is it at equilibrium.

You are certainly right.

If you followed the thread you would know that I wasn't talking about the atmosphere. I was referring to the references to an experiment that you cited.

Both references refer to the work of R W Graeff. The experiment is a static system at equilibrium. And both references have the following statement.

Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature.​

That is contrary to what you have been continually saying, that heat cannot spontaneously flow from an object at lower temperature to a higher temperature. There is no work being done by gravity. It is also contrary to the second law. Also if Graeff's experiments are valid, he has discovered perpetual motion of the second kind. In short, Graeff's conclusions are outlandish, and his experiment has to be flawed.

And there are still the gas planets in the outer solar system which have temperatures comparable to our own troposphere with no greenhouse gasses to speak of an certainly not enough incoming solar to power a greenhouse effect even if they did have CO2 or some other so called greenhouse gas....if pressure isn't creating that heat...what is?

IanC and I would like you to explain that further with details.

 

[Wuwei]

I thought all matter radiated all directions?

IanC hopes I will respond. If you are being sarcastic then don't bother reading the rest of this.

Yes all matter radiates in all directions that it is physically allowed to. However N2 and O2 do not radiate anything in LWIR. Therefore those two don't participate in the atmospheric green house effect.

 

[jc456]

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking. They are asking me to pay to breathe.

Actually, you were saying that the influence of CO2 overrides all the other factors that contribute to surface temperature, therefore an imperfect correlation between CO2 and temperature means there is no correlation or influence at all. Buying a coffee everyday affects your budget. Is it an overriding factor? The depreciation of your car, or the appreciation of your real estate are larger factors. Can you tell the price of coffee from your net worth? No. Does the price of coffee have an effect on your budget or drinking habits? Yes.

not at all, I am merely asking that if CO2 is bad and will create catastrophic temperature increases as CO2 increases, then why hasn't it happened already as the CO2 is increasing? My weather patterns and climate in Chicago are unchanged my 60 years of life. I'm regurgitating the nonsense that CO2 is bad and use the past as an example that that hasn't happened. if CO2 increased from 380 PPM to 400 PPM you wouldn't see a change in temperatures. Proven.

 

[IanC]

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking. They are asking me to pay to breathe.

Actually, you were saying that the influence of CO2 overrides all the other factors that contribute to surface temperature, therefore an imperfect correlation between CO2 and temperature means there is no correlation or influence at all. Buying a coffee everyday affects your budget. Is it an overriding factor? The depreciation of your car, or the appreciation of your real estate are larger factors. Can you tell the price of coffee from your net worth? No. Does the price of coffee have an effect on your budget or drinking habits? Yes.

not at all, I am merely asking that if CO2 is bad and will create catastrophic temperature increases as CO2 increases, then why hasn't it happened already as the CO2 is increasing? My weather patterns and climate in Chicago are unchanged my 60 years of life. I'm regurgitating the nonsense that CO2 is bad and use the past as an example that that hasn't happened. if CO2 increased from 380 PPM to 400 PPM you wouldn't see a change in temperatures. Proven.

Let's make up a simple example. Presume there are 100 known and unknown factors that influence surface temperature. CO2 is one of them, and at the current increases it should add 0.1C per decade. If the 99 other factors add up to 0.0C per decade then the surface temp will increase by 0.1c in that decade. If the 99 add up to -0.1C then the temp stays the same, if the 99 add up to -0.2 then the temp falls 0.1C. In all cases the CO2 added 0.1C. The correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot be proven without knowledge of the contribution of all the other factors, which are both known and unknown.

The '80s and '90s coincidentally seemed to coincide and correlate to the CO2 theory, and it became a 'fixed' common assumption. The '00s did not fit, but instead of correcting the theory they 'adjusted' the data.

You are wrong by considering temperature as proof that CO2 doesn't influence temperature. The CAGW alarmists are criminally wrong by declaring their pet theory to be certain, and to make absurd predictions of doom, all the while making ad hoc excuses as to why their predictions continue to fail.

 

[IanC]

I thought all matter radiated all directions?

IanC hopes I will respond. If you are being sarcastic then don't bother reading the rest of this.

Yes all matter radiates in all directions that it is physically allowed to. However N2 and O2 do not radiate anything in LWIR. Therefore those two don't participate in the atmospheric green house effect.

I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?

IR guns use wavelengths in the atmospheric window. Where does that radiation come from?

 

[jc456]

I thought all matter radiated all directions?

IanC hopes I will respond. If you are being sarcastic then don't bother reading the rest of this.

Yes all matter radiates in all directions that it is physically allowed to. However N2 and O2 do not radiate anything in LWIR. Therefore those two don't participate in the atmospheric green house effect.

Then what is lost to space?

 

[jc456]

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking. They are asking me to pay to breathe.

Actually, you were saying that the influence of CO2 overrides all the other factors that contribute to surface temperature, therefore an imperfect correlation between CO2 and temperature means there is no correlation or influence at all. Buying a coffee everyday affects your budget. Is it an overriding factor? The depreciation of your car, or the appreciation of your real estate are larger factors. Can you tell the price of coffee from your net worth? No. Does the price of coffee have an effect on your budget or drinking habits? Yes.

not at all, I am merely asking that if CO2 is bad and will create catastrophic temperature increases as CO2 increases, then why hasn't it happened already as the CO2 is increasing? My weather patterns and climate in Chicago are unchanged my 60 years of life. I'm regurgitating the nonsense that CO2 is bad and use the past as an example that that hasn't happened. if CO2 increased from 380 PPM to 400 PPM you wouldn't see a change in temperatures. Proven.

Let's make up a simple example. Presume there are 100 known and unknown factors that influence surface temperature. CO2 is one of them, and at the current increases it should add 0.1C per decade. If the 99 other factors add up to 0.0C per decade then the surface temp will increase by 0.1c in that decade. If the 99 add up to -0.1C then the temp stays the same, if the 99 add up to -0.2 then the temp falls 0.1C. In all cases the CO2 added 0.1C. The correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot be proven without knowledge of the contribution of all the other factors, which are both known and unknown.

The '80s and '90s coincidentally seemed to coincide and correlate to the CO2 theory, and it became a 'fixed' common assumption. The '00s did not fit, but instead of correcting the theory they 'adjusted' the data.

You are wrong by considering temperature as proof that CO2 doesn't influence temperature. The CAGW alarmists are criminally wrong by declaring their pet theory to be certain, and to make absurd predictions of doom, all the while making ad hoc excuses as to why their predictions continue to fail.

Then what are carbon credits for?

 

[Wuwei]

I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?

Another way of asking the question is: If there were no GHG's would the earths BB radiation go unimpeded to space? I would think the earth would chill about as fast as if there were no atmosphere at all. I would be wrong if someone could think of another process that kept the heat in.

IR guns use wavelengths in the atmospheric window. Where does that radiation come from?

GHG's is the only thing I can think of right now.

 

[Wuwei]

Then what is lost to space?

GHG radiation at the TOA.

 

[jc456]

Then what is lost to space?

GHG radiation at the TOA.

So directional?

 

[Wuwei]

So directional?

?

 

[SSDD]

You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.

Unsubstantiated?....geez ian...do you just ignore everything in the universe that doesn't support your belief system"

The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. Are you going to claim that what small amount of greenhouse gases exist there are able to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2?

Gravity/pressure/atmospheric mass completely explain this, and the atmospheric temperature profiles of all the planets with thick atmospheres. And before you start claiming internal heat is responsible...there is no Kelvin-Helmholtz effect happening on Uranus.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.

Unsubstantiated?....geez ian...do you just ignore everything in the universe that doesn't support your belief system"

The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. Are you going to claim that what small amount of greenhouse gases exist there are able to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2?

Gravity/pressure/atmospheric mass completely explain this, and the atmospheric temperature profiles of all the planets with thick atmospheres. And before you start claiming internal heat is responsible...there is no Kelvin-Helmholtz effect happening on Uranus.

Now this is funny as hell..

Over on WUWT an article is posted on thermodynamic limitation of our climate system. Just one more nail in the coffin of AGW...

"Awareness has grown over the last few years in the climate community of this thermodynamic limitation. A lot of climate scientists have started qualifying scary predictions of wilder weather, by saying storms will become more violent, but they will occur less frequently. But as I noted at the start of this post, far too often the qualification is lost. Many people believe weather will simply grow more violent without constraints if the world warms, because they don’t understand the hard limits imposed by the Earth’s total climate energy budget."

The CO2 monster is dying a horrid death. Basically the input of energy to the system is relatively stable and thus the actions of that system can not change drastically.. So all of their hype is pure BS...

The Difference Between Energy, Work and Power – and Why it Matters to Climate Prediction