Monday, November 13, 2017

Does gravity play a role in planetary surface temperature?

Does gravity play a role (other than confining the atmosphere, driving convection, etc.) in determining the temporal and spatial mean temperature at the surface of Earth?

In other words, does the gravi-thermodynamics of the adiabatic lapse rate make a significant contribution to determining the average planetary surface temperature on earth?

My short answer is "no". Here is a summary of my answer:

The planetary surface temperature is a result of radiation balance at the surface (including also other heat losses at the surface, such as convection and evaporation), irrespective of thermo-gravitational effects in the atmosphere above the surface. All the relevant energy transfers are "at the surface" because the temperature in issue is the surface temperature.

Lapse rate gravi-thermodynamic considerations are vital for calculating the altitude profile of temperature of the atmosphere, however, the exact temperature profile of the atmosphere has little effect on the resulting surface temparature that is constained solely by the energy exchanges AT THE SURFACE (caps for emphasis).

The exchange below was posted as response comments related to THIS VIDEO. The editor of the video had originally inserted a bubble comment critical of my point being made at approximately 26m33s. Then Gerald Sahd commented that the buuble was incorrect and this discussion followed.

 Gerald Sahd
Highlighted comment
Pinned by 1000frolly
8 months ago
The bubble comment at 26:33 is incorrect... do an internet search.
Ya, this is a misunderstanding. I would remove the editor's inserted "bubble". The calculation is for "no atmosphere" BUT imposing the same albedo and emissivity as the actual earth with atmosphere. In other words we instantaneously remove the gaseous atmosphere while leaving the ice/water-particulate clouds in place, and without affecting soil and plant humidity, etc. It is a hypothetical calculation. It is a physicist's "thought experiment" meant solely for educational purposes... I did not think it would become an issue. :) My actual paper makes all this very clear:::
Denis, I am reading through your paper, and it is very clear. In your abstract; "Also, the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all atmospheric processes (not just greenhouse forcing), without changing anything else (except to add the removed atmosphere) is +18oC, not the incorrect textbook value of +33oC." And on page 8; "With no atmosphere we should use the albedo of the Earth’s present solid surface, in its present state. The latter shortwave albedo <as> has been measured by satellite and is 23/(23+161) = 0.125 ([1]: Fig.1). This gives (eq.3) the significantly higher no-atmosphere mean surface temperature of To = 269.4 K (or –3.7oC), for a total atmosphere warming effect without changing anything else on the present Earth of +18oC, not +33oC. The correct predicted surface temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere but otherwise unchanged is –4oC. ....the relevant question for the present discussion is “What is the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all its processes, without changing anything else?” The answer is +18oC, not +33oC.". Both the abstract and Page 8 agrees with my calculation of 269.8K for the Earth without an atmosphere. It seems that we 100% agree on the 18c for the warming effect of the atmosphere - no?

CLICK "Read more>>" link below, to continue

Hi @1000frolly: I prefer not to review if we mean exactly the same thing. My point is that the incorrect textbook view wrongly assimilates "no atmosphere" with "no greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere". This is incorrect because the atmosphere also plays an important convective role in affecting the surface temperature. Your point that "no atmosphere" should also mean "no clouds" is a side issue, purely a question of choice in making an illustrative calculation. Your point is not part of the textbook ramblings. That said, I admire your ability to perform the calculations and think about their meaning. Few non-experts (and few "experts") practice this.
Denis, I have now read your paper. The only real problem I can find is on page 8 where you followed a statement I agree with by another; "I show below that, as a result, the correct Earth surface temperature in the absence of greenhouse forcing but with an otherwise unchanged atmosphere is a freezing –46oC..... This means that “global warming” from atmospheric resonant scattering of infrared radiation on Earth is +60oC, from –46oC to +14oC, not +33oC." . Yes, the presence of the atmosphere effect is 60c on those calculations, but that does not mean that the greenhouse effect is that same 60c. I know you are a physicist, and so you tend to concentrate on the physics of the atmosphere, but radiative effects only predominate below a pressure of 0.1bar; above that convection predominates. I have mentioned adiabatic auto-compression before, and a large part of this 60c must be attributable to this effect. It comes straight from James Maxwell's 1872 book on thermodynamics (the Poisson relation). When a fluid flows downward in a gravitational field, some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, producing an increase in pressure, internal energy and TEMPERATURE according to; H = PV + U in J/kg And from the ideal gas law; Pe =Ps exp(gH/RT) Air is compressed as it descends; some of the gas's potential energy is converted to heat. Dry air warms up at the rate of 0.976c per 100m of fall, and 0.952c per 100m of fall for slightly damp air. A temperature gradient is set up in the troposphere by this effect, and the surface warming we can attribute to it is ~30c - 60c.
@1000frolly: In your latest comment, you have described the well-known physics of the so-called "adiabatic lapse rate", which excludes the direct effect of convection, and excludes radiation exchange in the air column. Readers can find a description of the phenomenon here: These considerations are important when one is calculating an altitude profile of the atmospheric temperature. But accuracy in the said profile does not significantly affect the resulting earth SURFACE temperature. The calculation for mean surface temperature, at mean surface altitude, with mean planetary values of convection cooling, evaporation cooling, etc, does not use or require explicit consideration of the adiabatic lapse rate. The altitude corrections for mean surface temperature are only made to ensure that a correct mean surface altitude is represented in the temperature readings. For example, if all the thermometers were at the tops of mountains, then one would not get the right answer. (And the answer at a given surface altitude is insensitive to the adiabatic lapse rate overhead.) In other words, the surface temperature is what it is because of radiation balance, irrespective of adiabatic lapse rate effects on the overhead air-temperature profile. The physics of adiabatic lapse rate is taken into account in the physics of the convective surface cooling rate, etc., and that is where that physics matters for earth-surface temperature. Anyhoooow... There is a lot of deep stated and unstated physics in my paper. With further study, I think you will find that it is correct and that the model simplifications are exactly the right ones for its stated purpose... Hope that helps? PS: In what area are your PhD studies?
1000frolly , I seriously wonder if he believes what he's saying.
DenisRancourt , What you said is quite amazing considering that the base of the troposphere on the planet Uranus is 320K, considerably hotter than on Earth, despite being nearly 30 times further from the sun and only receiving 3.71 W/m2. By the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a 320K blackbody radiates 584.6 W/m2. This is 157.5 times the energy received from the Sun, due to ... the atmospheric temperature gradient produced within a planetary gravity field as correctly described by frolly. Does not gravity's work generate heat?
The compression of a gas by gravity is adiabatic, that is it does not add heat. Despite being hotter at the bottom, there is no convection because the density is greater at the bottom and stratification depends on density. So long as the heat per KG is constant throughout the column, the column will not convect. Wiens law radiation depends on temperature and the amount is dictated by stefan-boltzmann but also is proportional to mass. Gasses dont have much mass so dont radiate much. On Earth the atmosphere at ground level is 1/800 th the density of water and less than 1/1000 th that of soil so the amount of radiation will be proportionately smaller. At the top of the atmosphere the density is infinitely less so pick the top of the troposphere where it is one tenth of ground level and cooler in proportion (Kelvin scale). The amount of radiation coming from temperature alone from gas is miniscule. There are other factors also. Depending on the gas involved the Kombayashi - Ingersoll limit may kick in and the gas becomes non radiative, radiating only above the limits layer, which becomes effectively a surface. A gas under compression may liquify and the layer of this phase conversion becomes effectively a radiating surface.

Denis, Yes, it is the lapse rate, but I deliberately avoided that term, because people tend to fall into the trap of thinking of this effect as not affecting the surface temperatures - as you do. The lapse rate is thought of as being zero at the surface and causing a lowering of temperatures as one ascends. In reality, this way of thinking is backwards. I prefer to think of this as an adiabatic auto-compression of atmospheric gases, which results in a temperature profile of RISING temperatures, starting at the tropopause and rising as one descends towards the higher-gas pressures of the surface. The proof of this is in mining; you can go down below the 'surface' and the auto-compression, and its temperature profile simply continue on regardless. The 'surface' is meaningless and does not exist as far as this effect is concerned. In short, I do not believe that; "the surface temperature is what it is because of radiation balance.." . We disagree on that my friend! Am working on greenhouse gas estimation & mitigation.
Bob, you are right about Uranus, and Venus is also a big clue about what really warms planetary surfaces. Venus cannot be hot because of the greenhouse effect; near-surface CO2 on Venus in not even a gas to start with.
@1000frolly: I think you are incorrect, and misleading yourself. The surface temperature is a direct result of radiation and thermal-exchange balance at the surface, which in-turn is insensitive to the exact temperature altitude-profile of the above atmosphere. The mining circumstances are irrelevant because the mine chambers are below the surface. Internal mine temperature factors are distinguished from the circumstances that determine surface temperature. So, we can only agree to disagree. Stated another way, it is not an accident that the calculation that ignores the abiabatic lapse rate component of causing the air-altitude temperature profile gives the correct absolute mean surface temperature (in K), within a few degrees K. That is, accurate absolute surface T within 1%. Not an accident.
+DenisRancourt What calculation that ignores the abiabatic lapse rate component of causing the air-altitude temperature profile gives the correct absolute mean surface temperature? Your SB equation gives you the temperature in the middle of the troposphere. --- Would you care to explain what formulas predict the temperature of the sun? 

Denis, "I think you are incorrect, and misleading yourself. The surface temperature is a direct result of radiation and thermal-exchange balance at the surface, which in-turn is insensitive to the exact temperature altitude-profile of the above atmosphere." . The radiation and thermal exchange balance at the surface is not insensitive to the temperature of the air at ground level. That is my point. And the temperature of the air at ground level is partly determined by the warming caused by adiabatic auto-compression. Mine temperatures do not affect surface temperatures, but are not irrelevant, because they demonstrate the validity of the concept because the warming effect extends to pressures >1bar. Would be happy to change my view, if it could be shown that I am misleading myself. Have you seen the work of Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. Unified Theory of Climate?

1000frolly A warmist would reply that the temperature (by solar and earth radiation) controls the internal energy and heat capacities of gases, and therefore determines the lapse rate. And this is superficially true. The only problem is that it doesn't answer what generates solar energy in the first place. Warmists need to prove the greenhouse effect on the sun. lol

1000frolly, You state: "The radiation and thermal exchange balance at the surface is not insensitive to the temperature of the air at ground level." In fact, yes it is, in addition to being insensitive to the air-altitude-T-profile. (The latter being involved in the amount of back IR to the surface...) The solid/liquid earth-surface material has a heat capacity per unit volume more than three orders of magnitude greater than that of the air with which it is in contact. The heat exchanges at the surface interface are determined/controlled by the solid/liquid earth, not by the gaseous air. The air contact layer almost entirely only "responds" conductively and convectively. The thermal inertia is in the solid/liquid. The air responds and this response includes convective cooling of the surface, which is included in the correct calculation. Sorry, but you have it backwards in terms of what determines the surface temperature. I'm gong to leave it at that unless you can show me something beyond your proposed idea.
+DenisRancourt Please explain the greenhouse effect on the sun.

Denis, Many thanks, I will ponder your reply. Meanwhile could you have a look at Nikolov & Zeller's work and let me know where they have gone wrong;
Seems like the only heat generator in the verse is dipole magnetism within bodies and between bodies. The sun and planets battle for control of their atmospheres as they attract and repel each other to stay in orbit. The thicker the atmosphere the hotter the battle. The smaller the particles the hotter the battle. The faster the rotation the hotter the battle. The denser the matter the hotter the battle. To say the atmosphere cools the surface to produce the lapse rate is shallow thinking. Might as well say the mantle cools the core. 
+Bob Phin +1000frolly Here's where Nikolov & Zeller went wrong: "... The Planet is unlikely to become any warmer over the next 100 years, because the cloud cover appears to have reached a minimum for the present level of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure, while the solar magnetic activity began declining, which will likely lead to more clouds, higher planetary albedo, and cooler surface temperatures. The observed lack of global warming since 1998 and the presence of significant cooling trends in some regions such as the continental USA for the past 12 years may be the first signs of a climate reversal." That was published in 2011 and the "pause" has been busted by 3 consecutive years of global average temperatures higher than the 1998 El Nino/Solar Maximum event. The massive collapse of Arctic sea ice is another nail in their albedo theory, since the millions of square km of reflective white is is now dark blue conductive ocean, which is supported by ongoing ocean temperature records. That's probably why their next slanted, amateur disinformation paper was published a more recent study under fake names. True frauds, charlatans: Rancourt schooled you on your misunderstanding of the science which you fail to acknowledge, and then ignored your follow-up questions. Did you get the answer you were looking for?

+alcom​ So what you're saying is that they're on par with George Orwell, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, and Voltaire? That's a really nice compliment from you. What does this have to do with the fact that there's no greenhouse effect? Can your radiative greenhouse theory even describe the temperatures of other planets? No, it can't. You have nothing to start with. You're disqualified before you even begin. Rancourt didn't school anyone. He gave us his opinion and ran away. You can't tell the difference between science and empty words. 3 consecutive years? Let me guess, you're using phony GISS and HadCRUT data. What a joke. In reality, 2016 was the only year hotter than 1998, by 0.02C with a margin of error of 0.1C. Notice how N&Z said "unlikely" and "may be"? They got more years right than wrong. Would you like a long list of failed alarmist predictions? This list is way more impressive than N&Z. Now explain the greenhouse effect on the sun ... 

Ignoring ocean temperatures and focusing on just the data that supports your preference is intellectually dishonest. Ocean temperatures must be taken into account and sea ice records corroborate this record in real time. Stop evading the question by bringing other planets in to confuse the issue. Your hacks from the forest service should just do their government jobs and stop trying to undermine science. "Top tip for climate contrarians: When you submit nonsense papers to journals, spell your name backwards so no-one knows who you are." - Gavin Schmidt What the hell do you mean "greenhouse effect on the sun?" The sun the a fusion reactor, what atmosphere is there to make a greenhouse effect? Rancourt probably didn't answer this because the question itself makes no sense.

+alcom​​ What ocean temperatures? I was using whole earth satellite data. You gotta look at the whole, you hypocrite GISS and HadCRUT retard. "Stop evading the question by bringing other planets in" Translation: "stop using science to demonstrate that radiative greenhouse theory doesn't work anywhere. We have no basis in physics and I resent the fact that you have lateral and critical thinking skills, as I can only listen to my puppet masters and their snarky smears". "The sun is a fusion reactor" That's a popular myth, but not reality. But if it's true, what causes the nuclear fusion? Graviational pressures or EM ping pong? Since climate cranks claim that the atmosphere can self-amplify a body's outgoing radiation by bouncing IR back and forth (in violation of thermodynamics), then such a mechanism must be universal. If gases really warm the atmosphere by slowing down cooling, then prove it with the sun's atmosphere. If you need to resort to adiabatic theory, then you concede the uselessness of radiative greenhouse IR ping-pong theory. My point is to establish the relevant energy generation processes, while climate cranks are looking to contrive a pseudoscientific rationale on top of the real processes, whereas in reality they are already subsumed. Would you like this explained further? Rancourt and others simply take the sun as a given, without feeling the need to explain it. Quoting Gavin Schmuck lends you no credibility as he doesn't even know how the adiabatic process works.

Rancourt is a professor of physics and he stated that you guy were overstating the effect of adiabatic lapse rate on surface temperatures and "you have it backwards in terms of what determines the surface temperature." He told 1000frolly "I think you are incorrect, and misleading yourself." You cite him here as a dissenter of AGW theory, when his main point is to the difficulty in quantifying the effect of AGW on plants, animals and habitat. He believes that nature is resilient enough to survive AWG since life has survived numerous dramatic climate shifts. What Rancourt does not do is debunk the basic physics or find err in data collection methods. He does not find your cut and paste Hockey Schtick/WUWT arguments ground breaking, compelling or even coherent. You should be embarrassed that your cult of faith in Anthony Watts has been exposed for the shameful farce that it is.

+alcom​ Rancourt put the cart before the horse, and then claimed the horse is irrelevant because the cart ping pongs energy and drives itself. Like I said, he takes the Sun as a given. He's the one that has it backwards. You obviously lack scientific discernment. Watts believes in the GH effect, HS does not and I do not. The reason I link HS is to save myself the typing and to educate others in the basics. Anyway, you sophists are great at dancing around the central argument: your GH theory cannot describe any star or planet. You then act "as if" and run away. 

+alcom​​ Nice fake narratives. You still have no theory to describe stars and planets. You fail. When climate cranks (including Rancourt) divide by 4, they essentially claim the Earth is flat, and the sun is cold. Naturally, you now need to invent a fudge factor to get from your flat-earth/cold-sun approximation of -19C to the real measured 15C. Thus the GH effect is born. It's a mathematically contrived ghost. You are a stupid flat-earther lashing out at your betters, only you're too stupid and political to see it. You and your ilk live in la la land, and merely project all that you are and do onto others. It's quite a pathetic existence. I recommend you join reality. This will be lost on you because you can't tell the difference between ontological reality (science) and empty words written in scientific language.

Does the moon provide a satisfactory example of why you're so hopelessly lost that you can't see your mistake? The earth and the moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. The moon has no atmosphere, no clouds, no carbon. That means on the light side of the moon, the temperature is 123°C. The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to -153°C. So it may seem like a contradiction, but the atmosphere both cools and warms the earth. Tropospheric CO2 absorbs the incoming infrared radiation from the sun, preventing temperatures as high as on the light side of the moon. On the surface, air pressure is highest and the "cooling effect" of CO2 is drowned out by the emissive heat of objects hit by sunlight. The energy is diffused by both clouds and carbon, with convective forces carrying heat energy in air masses of high and low pressure systems. The higher you go in the atmosphere, the cooler is gets, but even at night it's still relatively warm on the surface. Similarly, the sun's aspect to the surface plays a major role in determining the total strength of heating. A higher, more overhead sun (as seen in mid day at the equator) is more directly focused on the ground and water. Hence, the air and water in the tropics are warmer in both the day and night. Towards the poles, the light comes in at a sharper angle (if it shines at all above the Arctic and below the Antarctic circles in their respective winters. The opposite is true for polar summers, where the sun circles the horizon for days, never completely setting. But the sun is still low and because the light hitting the surface is at this low aspect, it never warms up. Do you want to know anything else?

+alcom​​​​​​​ You confused the atmospheric effect with the radiative greenhouse effect. The former is real, the latter is fake. The atmosphere does both cool and warm the planet, and in net terms it only warms the planet. And the primary driver of this is gravity working on the atmosphere. Your explanations are red herrings (a few of them are even laughable). Rancourt does a better job of communicating your point of view. But your and his greenhouse effect is still born out of flat-earth physics. You forgot to mention that co2 has higher emissivity than o2 and n2, and that both o2 and n2 also absorb IR (2.5 times more than co2; just by the quantity, not mol basis). A planet that lacked any strong greenhouse gases would still have a temperature gradient described by gas laws and adiabatic processes. The same holds true of the sun itself. You failed. Come back when you have a formula for CORRECTLY deriving surface temperature from solar energy without resorting to gas laws and adiabatic process. In other words, don't leech off the correct theory to give your crackpot hypothesis some legitimacy. 
+DenisRancourt I would like to email you somewhat off-topic on a publication matter I would prefer not to make public at the moment. If your email at UOttawa is still active, I will try there, if not, I will publish one of mine here to which you may send acknowledgement, and I will reply to it from one of my other emails, so confidentiality is maintained. Straight science, no politics. Can we talk?

Bob Phin hahahahahahahahahahaha whoa a know it all... gravities effect on the atmosphere.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha wow what about the ionosphere, what about cosmic and solar radiation, what about the ionization within the atmosphere and the oceans currents hahahahhahlahaha. Oh wait you know it all, those things must be even more negligible than the weakest 'force' in the universe. I put quotation because gravity is not actually a force, mathematically it is only a measurement of space and time not a force itself. Hahahaha oooohhhhh wellllllllllll. check the electric universe project and the electrical effect on and of weather. you might learn something.


Bob Armstrong said...

Denis , After finishing as my bathtub reading I began your paper this morning .

I've come to appreciate what a "radical" , not in a bad sense , you are . I like your

"The skeptics’ incorrect things have been used to discredit the skeptics and the warmists’ correct things have been used to mask a lie."

But I got to page 3 and came to "... we take the entire planet’s surface to be uniformly irradiated " . But then you really don't . Because if you did , if you considered the planet a sphere within a celestial sphere of some particular radiance , ie : temperature , then the interior sphere MUST come to exactly that same temperature .

The only way it can come to some other temperature is thru an asymmetry in its irradiation , eg : the Sun covering just 5 millionths of the Celestial Sphere .

In my APL , I maintain the actual geometry because that is the only way one can get beyond the crudest estimates .

We both appear to agree on our orbital gray body temperature range :

f( 1412 1366 1321 )f 4. _f %f |>| 353.00 341.50 330.25
R0 P>Tsb |>| 280.89 278.57 276.25

in CoSy .

I believe I saw you comment , maybe in you video , that the naked Earth's albedo ( wrt the Sun ) was about 0.15 versus the much repeated 0.3 for the lumped surface and atmosphere . Combined with the assumption that it is ~ 0.0 , ie : black , in the longer wavelengths these values give

f( .7 .85 )f .25 _f ^f >t1> |>| 0.91 0.96
t0 t1 0 _at *f |>| 256.92 254.81 252.68
t0 t1 1 _at *f |>| 269.70 267.48 265.25

for the lumped and naked equilibria .

Maybe next bath I'll see how you come to an equilibrium considerably below that .

Denis Rancourt said...

Bob, To me there be a lotta gibberish in your statement. For example: "But then you really don't . Because if you did , if you considered the planet a sphere within a celestial sphere of some particular radiance , ie : temperature , then the interior sphere MUST come to exactly that same temperature ..."

waaa. I need to see some rigor before I can address such ramblings.

Anonymous said...

Denis , I didn't see you had seen and responded to my post .

My living a life with APL at my fingertips has been motivated by the ultimate rigor . Here's a slide in my intro to CoSy , actually , I'm reminded , originally from my Heartland presentation : Ken Iverson which makes point .

I'm still only on about page 8 of your paper , but a couple of comments :
I appreciate that you explicitly denote the a and e parameters as being averages , < > , over the relevant portions of the spectrum . My computation at simply calculates those averages as dot products of the object's ae spectrum with the source and sink spectrum .

If you " take the entire planet’s surface to be uniformly irradiated " that means it is surrounded by a celestial sphere of constant temperature . In that case , its absorptivity=emissivity spectrum doesn't matter . It will come to that temperature .

It is only in the case of an asymmetrically irradiated object that the differences in , eg : short versus long wave regions of the object's spectrum , can raise or lower the equilibrium , eg : the average absorptivity of the earth wrt the 5 millionths of the celestial sphere covered by the Sun's disk versus its emissivity versus the cold of the rest of the celestial sphere .

I hope that clarifies this point .

Bob Armstrong said...

I don't know why that last post posted as "Anonymous" but it's me , CoSy Bob