Friday, May 15, 2015
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect Comments Overflow
Further comments to the November 2010 Venus: No Greenhouse Effect post should be submitted here, or to any other post that refers to it.
The last such comment I received, from one Bob Armstrong, argued that the result of my Venus/Earth comparison--that it is a constant that is wholly and precisely explained only by the difference in the two planets' distances from the Sun--was only a "coincidence", and an internal heat for Venus was required to heat its surface to the observed value. My answer is that adding the hypothesis of internal Venus heat merely adds to the list of conditions, differentiating the two planets, that are "supposed" to affect the temperature, but in fact do not--in other words, it merely exacerbates the "coincidence" that only the solar distances are needed to specify the Venus/Earth temperature ratio; it just makes calling it a "coincidence" all the more highly improbable, all the more ridiculous. The loudest voices on both sides of the "climate" debate/political war have steadfastly, and incompetently, simply dismissed that fact, and have thereby all indicted themselves as worthless "experts".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Harry,
ReplyDeleteFurther to my E Mail to you, I have found the correct place to post a comment to your Nov 2010 blog. The question was, can you explain (in Layman's terms if possible) why the SB maths of taking the square root of the division of distances between the two planets is necessary to calculate the correct temperature ratio. Why it is not 1.91 too in other words? Or why it isn't 93/63.25?
Good Morning, Fan,
ReplyDeleteThere are two steps in considering the expected effect of solar distance upon the temperature: 1) The effect of distance upon the intensity of solar radiation incident on the planet, and 2) the effect of radiation intensity on the temperature.
The answer to the first question is that the radiation intensity varies inversely with the square of the distance from the Sun to the planet -- that is, the intensity varies as 1/r^2 ("one over r-square"), where (r) is the solar distance; the larger the distance, the smaller the intensity, or the smaller the distance (e.g., for Venus, relative to Earth), the larger the intensity. In the case of Venus and Earth, this means the solar intensity at Venus, which is closer to the Sun, is the square of (93/67.25), or 1.91, times the intensity at Earth.
The answer to the second step above, is that the temperature attained by an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root (1/4 power) of the incident solar intensity, which I just gave above. So Venus, receiving 1.91 times the intensity Earth receives, would attain the fourth-root of 1.91, or 1.176 times the temperature of Earth.
That the Venus/Earth temperature ratio (at points of equal pressure, above and below the Venus cloud layer) is in fact right at 1.176 (within the uncertainty in the Venus data) tells us that ONLY the difference in their solar distances is needed to explain that fact. The fact that Venus has 2400 times the carbon dioxide as does Earth doesn't matter (so there is no CO2 "greenhouse effect"); the fact that Venus reflects a much larger fraction of the Sun's visible light (that is, it has a higher albedo) doesn't matter; the fact that Earth's surface is largely deep ocean while Venus is solid crustal material doesn't matter. Nothing is required to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio (outside of--that is, away from--Venus's cloud region) but the difference in solar distance.
"Anonymous" comments:
ReplyDeleteLubos Motl addresses that here...
note1
...and his conclusion is similar, i.e., Venus temps are a warmist red herring.
I came here from "No Tricks Zone" where I saw your post...
note2
Nice analysis.
Hi Harry, thank you so much for hanging in there.
ReplyDeleteAllen Eltor directed me to your site.
Here are his creds: (Allen) "Yes my fields of expertise are applied chemistry and radiation communications electronic engineering which is usage of electron energy and infrared radiation in communications. I worked in several fields involving applied chemistry in atmospheres related to biological laboratory and field work with fish populations."
Allen soundly scientifically (I'm not a scientist) and comically refutes AGW and it's adherents.
One question, how old do you believe the earth to be?
Good Morning, Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thanks.
The age of the planet Earth is not indicated in the great design I found imposed upon it, a shattered and degenerate knowledge of which was responsible for all of the ancient mysteries of man, such as the worldwide myths about the "gods". As I have always specifically emphasized in my writings, the Great Design of the "gods" involved a wholesale re-formation of the surface of the Earth, not a creation. The design itself precisely pinpoints the time of its foundation (which was the time of the reorientation of the Earth's orbit--and of the entire solar system, which follows the Earth's orbit) as c. 15,100 BC (the simplest, clearest proof of this mankind-defining event is given in the 2009 post "Challenge to Science III: The gods, the design and man"); however, later sacred texts took this imposition of a new order as "the beginning", and confused it with "the creation".
The Great Design actually provides a substantially longer history of successive changes to the Earth's orientation in space, probably going back more than 35,000 years before 15,100 BC. I will probably have to write a post on that longer indicated history, which is dealt with in detail in the second half of my book, "The End of the Mystery" (also available under the title "Run To The End of the Mystery, Volume 2 of 2"). And the actual changes made to the Earth's surface continued long after 15,000 BC (including, for example, the "destruction of Atlantis" c. 9600 BC, and the "sacred foundation" of the land of Egypt c. 8600 BC--see my posts, "Atlantis At Last" and The Greater Riddle of the Sphinx").
Thanks again, you're a true Gentleman.
DeleteI am tempted to respond humorously, with feigned outrage at your characterization of me, but I will rise above it and just say "thank you". But enough about me.
DeleteHa ha!
DeleteWhat??? You're not a true Gentleman?!?
Ah, but your gentlemanly demeanor gives you away.
Harry, my name is Mike, and I'm 'Anonymous' who posted Jan. 11 & 12 above.
I'm new to physics, math and climate science, but am learning more each day.
If you get a chance, could you tell me what you think about the following, as per 'Venus atmosphere'.
According to the graphic called 'Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum', on thewebpagehttp://www.ces.fau.edu/......, the IR intensity at 2.7, is about the same as 4.3, and close to 15.
2.7, 4.3 and 15 are the main absorption bands, as shown in graphic, 100%.
8 micrometers is only 10% absorption, at 4X intensity.
So percentage wise, from 1.4 to 15, a significant amount of IR (1.4 - 4) from the sun is going to be absorbed by CO2. Maybe 20-30%.
Thus, the CO2 rich atmosphere will be very hot before even getting to Venus' surface.
Good Morning, Mike,
DeleteMy posts on the climate science debate are limited to what I consider the bottom line, or as I say, the definitive evidence that reveals the blatant incompetence in the "consensus" climate science. With regard to your argument above, I would only point out what I already know from the Venus/Earth comparison: 1) The atmosphere indeed MUST be fundamentally warmed only by the direct absorption of incident IR radiation from the Sun, not from the planetary surface (as I have steadfastly averred--and you are right to focus upon it, as "consensus" scientists are all fundamentally miseducated to believe it is the surface that warms the atmosphere), and 2) No matter how the atmosphere is warmed, or how much by CO2, what fundamentally governs the temperature is the hydrostatic condition of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), which imposes a constant vertical temperature lapse rate upon the troposphere, which in turn means any heat absorbed in the atmosphere is almost immediately distributed in accordance with that lapse rate. In other words, it doesn't matter how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere, absorbing IR (as the Venus/Earth comparison proves). Once that lapse rate structure is understood to exist (and it has been so recognized, in the Standard Atmosphere, for well over a century) then any extra heat, from the surface or any other quarter, merely slides "down" the temperature gradient to outer space, without further warming the atmosphere.
The hydrostatic lapse rate predominates over everything the climate scientists THINK affects the global mean surface temperature--especially the amount, or concentration, of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Great, thanks Harry.
DeleteYes, everything you said lines up with my understanding thus far.
I will also study the Standard Atmosphere more as well.
Does the lapse rate tie into the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Regards, Mike.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe lapse rate (an example of a temperature gradient) is due to the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere; the 2nd Law is responsible for the fact that heat flows from warmer to cooler "down" that temperature gradient (or, as the old saying goes, "heat rises" in the air).
Readers:
ReplyDeleteI have received two comments, from one "zzebowa":
"Really really interesting. Its a big science experiment using venus and the earth, with one acting as the control for the other thus eliminating extraneous variables.
This of course implies visible light isn't heating the atmosphere, or surface, since albedo isn't a factor determining temperature.
Question, what's happening to the visible light Harry?"
--You are too quick to conclude visible light doesn't heat the surface, obviously because you think heat from the surface heats the atmosphere (as everyone, apparently, has been taught to believe). As I have written many times over the last 5 and 1/2 years (see for example "For Climate, All the World's a Stage"), the Venus/Earth comparison shows that heat from the non-uniformly heated surface does not add to the atmospheric temperatures, except transiently and locally (including seasonal and diurnal variations, in contrasting regions of the globe). Globally, only direct absoprtion of solar infrared and the vertical temperature lapse rate rules in the troposphere. Simply, in my view, heat from the surface only drives the wind and weather.
and
"So, can we therefore say that the reason the surface of a planet is warmer than its supposed black body temperature is because:
The sun heats the atmosphere at its surface to a temperature relative to the intensity of sunlight (ie distance from the sun) and gravity compresses the atmosphere creating greater pressure with depth until you hit the surface.
"On earth this isn't so deep, so its 14C, on venus it is, so its 450C.
"OK, so lapse rate is a function of this, and seeing as the earth and venus have the same lapse rate you can compare their temperatures based on distance from the sun, so tell me, have you done the same for mars say? Does its surface temperature also depend on lapse rate x insolation?
"If it did it would be an absolute verification of all this."
--Yes, you can put it the way you did, but I prefer to say, simply, that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, and the hydrostatic condition of the troposphere (that the pressure at any level is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level) causes any heat in the atmosphere to be distributed in the "lapse rate" structure, of a linearly decreasing temperature with increasing altitude above the surface. "Gravity compresses the atmosphere" sounds like--and is too often misunderstood as meaning--some kind of bellows at work, adding energy to the atmosphere, when in fact all the energy comes from the Sun, none from gravity. Gravity only DISTRIBUTES what energy is present, to maintain the lapse rate structure.
The surface temperature on Earth, as has been known and defined in the Standard Atmosphere for over a century, is 15°C, not 14, and that on Venus is usually quoted as 463°C. Earth has a lapse rate (vertical temperature gradient) of -6.5°C/km, while that of Venus is about -8.1°C/km, so they are not equal, they merely are both of the same form, i.e., a constant throughout the troposphere.
Mars does not have enough of an atmosphere to make the same comparison with Earth's troposphere as I did with Venus. Its surface (maximum) pressure is only 6.5 mb. This has come up repeatedly over the last 5 years, and you can find it discussed in the "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" comments. One can calculate a Mars surface temperature in the right ballpark, but in actuality the surface temperature on Mars varies too widely for the calculation to be definitive (as the Venus/Earth comparison is), in my present view.
Readers:
ReplyDeleteHere is a comment from one Matt Sykes (I don't know whether he meant it to be published, but I will add it here without further comment by me, as it does not really add to the fundamental situation revealed by the Venus/Earth comparison, in my view.
"Very interesting. I posted a question on your blog. Did you ever get this published by the way?
"While we are on the subject of massive holes in current AGW theory I have another for you. The concept that 'ocean heat uptake' can 'delay' 'CO2 warming' of the troposphere, to quote the IPCC's definition of Transient Climate Response and Equilibrium climate sensitivity.
"CO2 caused 15 um energy can only penetrate < 0.001 cm of the water skin. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png">absorption spectrum of liquid water
"This skin is the very surface of the 'cool layer', which is cool because of evaporation. Thus the 15 um heat cannot conduct down, ie up-gradient, and can only be re-emitted or lost as latent/sensible.
"Thus it is impossible for water to hold on to any substantial quantity of longwave radiation from CO2, and thus can not delay the troposphere from responding to any warming it might cause (foregoing of course your aforementioned discussion of the GHE being invalid)."
I have been arguing the point raised by Matt Sykes with Willis on WUWT for years.
ReplyDeleteObviously one would need to look at WUWT to get the full picture, but Willis argues that the action of waves, swell, wind and ocean overturning mix the energy that is absorbed within the first few microns. This heats the deep ocean and stops it from freezing.
However, these are slow mechanical processes and at first sight cannot mix the energy absorbed in the first few microns and sequester it to depth (where the energy is diluted and dissipated by volume) at a rate fast enough, ie., before copious evaporation is driven from the top few microns of the oceans.
Further, ocean over turning appears to be a diurnal phenonema and therefore not one operating 24/7. Yet further, the average wind speed over the oceans is only slightly above Beaufort force 4, such that there are vast tracts of the ocean experiencing conditions of BF2 and less where there will be little wind and wave action to perform the mixing.
Yet further there are Caldera lakes where there is no equivalence of ocean overturning and little wind and waves due to the topography. If DWLWIR is truly absorbed in the top few microns these would have burnt off from the top down long ago (so too the oceans).
If energy is being mixed into the deep oceans as claimed by some through the slow mechanical processes listed, then one needs to ask why are the oceans so very cold after some 4.5 billion years of solar + DWLWIR?
Your solar irradiance + atmospheric pressure theory is interesting. Do you consider the rotational speed of the planet to be of any significance or the fact that Earth is not a rocky planet but a water world (which acts as a huge storage reservoir and has a water cycle with energy changes occurring incidental to the phase change of water)?
I know that these factors do not obviously appear to be material in your equation, but nonetheless, enquire whether you consider that they may have some role to play in the real world in which we live?
R J Verney
Good Morning, R J Verney,
ReplyDeleteMy answer is all too likely to be frustrating to you, as the involved argumentation you describe has been going on for some time.
The short answer is, my Venus/Earth comparison deals with the global mean temperature, at any pressure level in the atmosphere, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures. That comparison shows that only the hydrostatic conditiion of the atmosphere, and the maintaining of the consequent "lapse rate" structure solely by direct absorption in the atmosphere of incident solar radiation, affects the global mean. It also specifically denies any global warming "greenhouse effect" at all.
As far as the public debate is concerned, then, my Venus/Earth comparison destroys the whole "science" behind "global warming" or global "climate change".
I posted on "Planetary Rotation and Temperature..." just a few days ago, in response to a Roy Spencer post on the subject. It's just another supposed effect that does not exist, at least for Earth (rotating once a day) and Venus (once every 243 days).
I have yet to see anything worthwhile coming out of discussions over downward long-wavelength radiation. As I first pointed out 6 years ago, in the post, "Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria", the supposedly-measured longwave radiation coming off the planetary surface is greater than the mean incident solar energy (390W/m^2 vs. 342 W/m^2), which is a violation of the conservation of energy, and the "downward longwave radiation" is also nearly the same as the mean solar. It is simply a totally unphysical loop of huge supposed energy. It has been brought on by an unjustified faith in the "radiation transfer theory" and in the "measurements" of atmospheric radiation that underpin that faith (see my 2015 post, Backradiation Reveals the Self-Delusion of Climate Scientists", for example).
I think everyone needs to be aware that all of the involved arguments in the climate debates are over non-global effects (like your mention of "diurnal" overturning of the ocean), while the truth is that the global mean, as truly represented by the confirmed Standard Atmosphere, is utterly stable against everything but changes in the incident solar, or more specifically, changes in the portion of incident solar that is directly absorbed in the atmosphere.
Readers:
ReplyDeleteOne Jonathan Mazzini submitted the following comment at the original "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post (thus missing, or ignoring, the clear message I placed there, to submit further comments here):
"which venus temperature with 3 or 4 atm? which would be temperature on the equator, night and at the poles? consider an ocean of 80% of the surface is desired."
This comment is practically incomprehensible as written, especially the last sentence, because the information Jonathan requests is irrelevant to what my simple Venus/Earth comparison does -- which is that it precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, practically unchanged for a century or more, against the detailed Venus temperature and pressure profile on Ocober 5, 1991 (readers should follow the link I gave in the original post, to that data, and check for themselves its officially recognized status--I won't go into those details here). This means, first of all, that there is no global warming "greenhouse effect" due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (since Venus has over 2400 times, or more than 11 doublings of, the carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere, without any effect on the atmospheric temperatures, at any pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures); second, it means the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere model is just as good a representative of the global mean troposphere in 1991 as it was when it was first established at least 70 years earlier (when the United States officially adopted it, about 1920). This unambiguously indicates that, despite the "global temperature" records that appear to show global warming on Earth over the last century, there has in fact not been any such, at least since the establishment of the Standard Atmosphere a century and more ago. And anyone who has followed the climate debates on the internet blogs knows that those temperature records are highly questionable on other, independent grounds, not least because the "authorities" responsible for making them keep changing them, primarily to "cool" earlier decades and "warm" the latest ones. (The last major change was made just last year, done specifically to "erase" the infamous "global warming pause" that has bedeviled climate science for nearly two decades -- having changed the data, they now claim there was never any such "pause" in global warming.) My Venus/Earth comparison shows just how bad the global temperature records are, in claiming to have measured any real global warming at all over the last century. As I have written over and over again, for the last 6 years, my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressuree comparison unavoidably and clearly shows that there is no valid "global" climate science, and no competent climate scientists (even the many "lukewarmers" who are "skeptics" of the academic consensus climate science).
Omar Khayyam famously wrote, with both complete compassion but also clear humor, for lovers and for the likes of the oh-so-well-intended Left today, who are pushing false science:
"Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
Re-mould it to the Heart's desire!"
(from the Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam)
Just for fun, I did a quick check to see if the atmosphere of Jupiter is following the same principle.
ReplyDeleteThe average distance of Jupiter from the sun is around 486.5625 million miles.
So we predict that the temperature at the 1,000 mbar level should be: Sqrt(93 / 486.5625) * 288 K = 125.9 K
(Do point out if I made a mistake here.)
Looking at the below chart, noting that 10^5 Pa = 1,000 mbar, we find that the temperature at that level is in fact over 175 K:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter#/media/File:Structure_of_Jovian_atmosphere.png
Any idea of where this discrepancy might come from?
Good Morning, levIT8,
DeleteI did some initial study of the other planets with large atmospheres years ago--after getting the definitive Venus/Earth comparison--and none of them were as good as the Venus results. I played with varying the fraction of incident solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere, and with varying the effective albedo or fraction reflected, but as you have found without definitive results.
By the way, I have graphs for each of those planets (and the Moon Titan) like the graph of Venus vs. Earth presented in "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect", and my data for Jupiter indicates the temperature at 1,000 mb is ~165K, not 175K, still far enough from 126K.
If I knew why that simple Jupiter comparison doesn't fit, of course, I would long ago have informed everyone of it. I have contented myself with saying the results of a simple comparison of the other planets with the Standard Atmosphere is not definitive as it is with Venus.
I expect that both the albedo and the fraction absorbed are functions of the depth into the atmospheres of those other, cloud-covered, planets, not constants. For physicists, that means "multiple-scattering" effects (each incident photon encountering more than one molecule in the atmosphere, thus increasing the chances of its being absorbed as it travels deeper into the atmosphere) are significant in those atmospheres.
Thanks for clarifying!
DeleteI think I may have found an alternate explanation, however still just a hypothesis at this stage.
According to several sources, Jupiter has an energy balance larger than 1. So, it is radiating more energy than it is receiving.
Another way to put this is that Jupiter is (still) cooling off since its formation and hasn't reached temperature equilibrium with the sun yet.
Venus and Earth seem both to have an energy balance of 1.
Would it perhaps make more sense to use the total radiative "output" of each planet, rather than "input", in your formula?
It would be interesting to see if this produces a better fit.
levIT8,
DeleteI have left it for other scientists, if they are interested, to investigate any physical complexities that may need to be understood to explain the profiles of the other planets with massive atmospheres, like Jupiter. I am simply here to inform everyone who will take heed that the consensus climate science is fundamentally false, and only a general incompetence among the world's climate scientists (and across all of the physical sciences) has allowed it to rise to prominence and suborn all of our most trusted institutions.
With that said, note that the post above cites another of my readers, who posits the same thing for Venus that you do for Jupiter, that internal heat may be needed. Obviously it is NOT needed in the case of Venus, and the physical explanation for that is utterly basic and should apply for the other planets too, which weakens the case for it (internal heat) being needed for Jupiter's temperature profile too. The temperature gradient imposed quite fundamentally by the weight of the atmosphere would at least tend to vitiate any effect of added internal heat--such would just fall naturally "down" the gradient, or upward in the atmosphere, to outer space, without further heating the atmosphere. In other words, the key fact exposed by the Venus/Earth comparison is that the temperature gradient predominates over all other conditions and processes in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, and a similar temperature gradient observed in the other planetary atmospheres argues that it predominates in all of them as well. One or two other readers have written that Venus also puts out more heat than it receives from the Sun, and I can only reiterate that it doesn't matter, only the different distance of Venus from the Sun explains the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, quite precisely above and below the Venus cloud layer. Until that fact is faced, and its consequences for the need to completely rethink climate science, I know the scientific community is not capable of doing its job on even the most basic level (due to its acceptance, and dogmatic defense, of false theories). My position has been that, based upon my own unprecedented research, all of the earth and life sciences are false speculative structures, and need to be fundamentally rethought. And climate science, in particular, will not progress, or be corrected, until my Venus/Earth comparison and physical interpretation is properly confronted and accepted by the scientific community.
Thanks for explaining your position, it makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteI'm personally convinced already that the mainstream GHG theory is completely wrong.
Your Earth/Venus comparison is a very good argument in the debate!
Jupiter and Saturn are both not in equilibrium with the solar flux yet. Both are still under collapse and subsequent release of gravitational potential energy as per virial theorem. As a result the whole profile is shifted warm and both emit far more to space than they receive.
ReplyDeleteGood Afternoon, Geoff,
DeleteMy finding of the past deliberate re-formation of the Earth and solar system, according to a great design, the central elements of which are responsible for all of the exoteric "ancient mysteries", gives me a different fundamental view to that of modern speculative interpretations of planetary measurements or observations. While your first sentence may be a valid observation, your second is almost certainly a theoretical interpretation, not a fact (couched as it is in terms that indicate the underlying assumption of uniformitarian development--undirected evolution--of the planetary atmospheres, which I know to be false). I do not have time to seek out and separate detailed facts from hopeful interpretations in every field, so I will only content myself with saying that your comment should not be taken by others as definitive, i.e., as the sure truth. Your third sentence, in fact, is belied by looking at the temperature-pressure profiles of Jupiter and Saturn, and noting that they do not show a constant vertical temperature lapse rate like Earth and Venus do. This means those profiles are not primarily shifted warm, but vary according to the pressure, or depth in the atmosphere (see my first response to levIT8, above). The latitudinal striping in Jupiter's atmosphere, as well as the Great Red Spot, and the rings of Saturn, all of these observed since man was first able to observe them, argue that those planets are stable structures throughout, and thus almost certainly not subject to the vagaries of continuing gravitational collapse. And as I have repeatedly stressed, any heat from the surface, including internat heat, clearly tends only to "fall down" the temperature gradient to outer space, without heating the atmosphere further than is provided by direct absorption of incident solar radiation; this is clearly the case with Earth and Venus, whose profiles are essentially the same when only their different solar distances are taken into account.
Thanks for the reply Harry.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, yes my first sentence stems from observation. The face that we know from albedo measurements that Jupiter and Saturn receive less short wave than they emit in the infrared. This measurable constant loss of energy, irrespective of age of the object implies directly that the object was warmer in the past and will be cooler in the future, due to this sustained flux imbalance.
The second, sentence addresses the source of this energy as being limited and most likely to be of gravitational origin as any cooling gravitational condensate (slowly collapsing into a more compact object) will constantly release potential energy into the thermal states as it loses total energy to the Universe.
Thirdly. Both yourself and leviT8 pointed out that T1bar in Jupiter's atmosphere 'is' warmer than flux ratio calculations would predict. I merely provided an additional and accountable reason; Jupiter is not in equilibrium with the solar flux alone.
Lastly, neither Earth nor Venus display a constant vertical lapse rate. Earth's upper troposphere has a predominantly steep near dry lapse, as does the near surface layer. The boundary layer from the lower condensation point to the free convective point at cloud tops is near isothermal and regularly between 0.5 and 1.5km deep. The mean of near dry lapse and near isothermal cloud layers gives a mean of around 6.5K/km globally, but nowhere do we see this profile continuous from surface to the tropopause.
Likewise on Venus, between 50 and 60km some reduction in the lapse is seen due to sulphuric acid precipitation. The steepest part of the lapse (around 10K/km) then follows as the heat capacity of the atmosphere is lowest but steadily increases with temperature as we descend. The isobaric heat capacity of CO2 at the surface is around 30% higher than at 50km giving a near surface gradient of around 7.7K/km.
The profiles of Earth, Venus and as far as I can tell, all others, follow constant enthalpy, where at every adjacent imaginable vertical layer, energy is mixed between all compatible storage states (which include thermal and chemical potentials) such that the total is a constant when gravitational potential and PΔV are included. This profile is both maximum and equal entropy (reversible adiabatic), and can be extended to the core of a self gravitating body in hydrostatic equilibrium.
You have said,
"And as I have repeatedly stressed, any heat from the surface, including internat heat, clearly tends only to "fall down" the temperature gradient to outer space,"
Yes, this is exactly what we find, except only the excess above the isentropic profile "falls down".
The 7500-8000K heat transfer from the Earth's core "falling down" a gradient to 288K at the surface becomes 0.08W/m-2 because the core is in equilibrium as near as matters with the surface in a gravity field.
CERES data indicates that the Earth's radiative emissions from the surface and atmosphere track surface temperature in real time....
Excess is merely passed down the existing gradient to space.
Contrary to GHG THEORY there is no flux imbalance imposed from rising GHG's
Have a good day.
Good Morning, Geoff,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I would only say you have given my readers too much information, that does not change the very close fit between Earth's Standard Atmosphere model and the Venus profile I cited in the original 2010 post, when only their difference in solar distance is taken into account--and the immediate consequences of that close fit (precise, above and below the Venus cloud layer) for disproving the global-warming greenhouse effect and in fact correcting current climate science on a whole handful of fundamental points. I don't pretend to know why the 1 bar level Jupiter temperature is higher than a Venus/Earth-type comparison with the Standard Atmosphere would predict, and in the context of what my Venus/Earth comparison says about climate science, I don't care at all whether any of the planets have internal heat still trying to get out It doesn't affect the Venus/Earth comparison, and I doubt that it is the main explanation for the 1-bar Jupiter temperature. I see no reason to discuss it further here.
For me, my Venus/Earth comparison is definitive, and anyone who demands a more complex reality than the Standard Atmosphere model needs to explain why the Venus profile agrees so well with it, despite the huge differences between the two planet-plus-atmosphere systems.
I am not trying the be an expert here (so I will not even get into "isentropic" and the "excess" above it, as such details are irrelevant to the definitive Venus/Earth comparison). I am trying to inform my readers, in my climate science posts only, that current climate science is easily shown to be invalid, and there is no excuse for it--it is simply due to gross scientific incompetence.
Harry. I agree with you, sir, in so many areas, particularly that current climate science is due to gross scientific incompetence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think that your argument holds water as tightly as you would like.
I fully understand that if you choose to not allow this to be published, then we agree to disagree. I will leave you to your readers with the full best wishes that I ultimately uphold a similar view; that being that climate science and the radiative greenhouse effect is a concoction.
From what I understand, Earth's 288K is an area weighted mean.
Venus 1bar is a single or set of readings at 67degN.
The zonal mean on Earth is around 270K at 67degN not 288K.
http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/atmospheric_parameters.htm
Where T1bar for Venus is 360K as an area weighted mean, not 339K as measured at 67degN. That is not an exact flux dependent relationship sir, given the 21K difference.
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteYes, we disagree. I am aware that the data I found on the internet back in 2010, when I performed a search for "Venus temperature pressure profile", is not the same as the data others have found on other sites. The data I found came from this Stanford site (although I first found it at this site, and preferred the latter presentation). At the time, I simply accepted this data at face value, as representative of the entire Venus atmosphere.
Frankly, I have no reason to doubt that the data I used truly represents the Venus atmosphere, your different number for the Venus 1 bar temperature, and arguments about latitude differences, notwithstanding. The mere fact that my Venus/Earth comparison is such a precise fit, not just at the 1 bar level but essentially over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, and particularly below and above the Venus cloud layer, must--I repeat, must--be taken as overwhelmingly strong support, for both the Earth Standard Atmosphere model and for the Venus TP profile I found. The fact that the two profiles in fact differ, albeit by a mere 5K, only within the Venus cloud layer, tells me Jenkins did not simply force the Venus profile to fit the Standard Atmosphere; so the precise fit above and below that cloud layer is of utmost importance, in my view. I know this reasoning escapes all of the "experts", but you all really need to take it seriously and focus upon it.
The fact that the physics behind the Standard Atmosphere is so basic and so clear (especially in contrast to the convoluted and unphysical "greenhouse" theory), in my view so far outweighs the view that my Venus/Earth comparison is just a "coincidence"--which is what your observations really boil down to--as to be definitive, as I have of course maintained all along. Everything I have found out, before and after my Venus/Earth comparison, fully supports my presentation and interpretation of that comparison (including its implied indictment of the supposed "global mean temperature" records themselves, which all the independent evidence--of fraudulent adjustments and continuing reconstructions--now fully confirms). Every aspect of the "consensus" science is garbage, just as my Venus/Earth comparison so simply and forcefully indicated. I consider my description of it as "definitive" has been fully confirmed.
Between the data I used and that you have presented above, I seriously doubt the latter, and trust the former, as truly representative of Venus. The close fit with the century-old Standard Atmosphere, of an entirely different planet (our own), in my view demands it.
In your first paragraph there's a link to "at this site." The URL for that site - datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
Deletehas changed to shadetreephsyics.com/vel/1918vpt.htm
Readers,
DeleteI have received word, from one Robert Fritzius, that the original page from which I took the Venus data has changed, to here. Hopefully, the Stanford site cited in my comment just above still works.
Harry your Occam's razor evidence and testimony refuting the GHG theory would surely stand up in court. I am an environmental engineer that has served as a neutral fact finder for 25 years helping settle lawsuits out of court (show me the data/not the expert opinion). Here is the link to the latest of my press releases on the global warming subject: https://www.prnnewswire.com/news-releases/neutral-fact-finder-claims-to-fully-explain-global-warming-and-accuses-nasa-of-distorting-and-withholding-climate-data-300583345.html I find further proof of your conclusion in the fact that data is clearly showing that the radiation entering the venus atmosphere is far greater than what is leaving. The difference, of course, is energy converted to work or latent heat in the troposphere. Same applies to earth. The NASA climate model is built on the false premise that radiant energy leaving = radiant energy entering. That is certainly not the case on venus: "the greenhouse effect on Venus is primarily caused by CO2, although water vapor and SO2 are extremely important as well. This makes Venus very opaque throughout the spectrum (figure 1a), and since most of the radiation that makes its way out to space comes from only the very topmost parts of the atmosphere, it can look as cold as Mars from IR imagery." https://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
ReplyDeleteGood Afternoon, Brian,
DeleteIt took me quite some time to decide how to respond to your comment, as I don't usually accept comment citing others' theoretical arguments; I want to keep my factual finding clear of all such entanglements. I finally decided to allow your comment, in case others wanted to look up what you have written; I leave it to others to argue.
Thank you for your positive response to my Venus/Earth analysis, which I want to stand on its own.
There is certainly no evidence that the radiation entering is any different to that leaving as the system is neither heating or cooling. That is a serious error of judgement.
DeleteGood Evening, Geoff,
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I don't want to get into others' theoretical arguments here -- especially over the non-existent "global warming greenhouse effect" -- if I can help it. Note I said as much in my last comment; I leave that to others. Now that you have weighed in, I will take no more comments on Brian's subject. I was unsure if that statement in his comment was even his, or if he agreed with it, which helped me to decide just to leave it alone myself. No more comments arguing for a real "greenhouse effect" please, readers. And Geoff, I suggest you go to Brian's site and tell him, rather than readers here. Thanks.
Hi Harry.
ReplyDeleteJust a note to say thanks for your wonderfully simple analysis esp the Venus comparison.
Been following this for years, trying to achieve clarity.
Just discovered Loschmidt and will ruminate on your comments with relish.
I have read your Venus post stating that greenhouse effect doesn’t cause its hot temperature. You say that clouds absorb the sun’s energy wouldn’t that prove a water vapour greenhouse effect? Also is distance from the sun the only factor that explains Venus high temperature wouldn’t its high pressure be a factor too and it’s slow winds as well. Also I have another question about the greenhouse effect do you know how they say that greenhouse effect heats lower atmosphere and cools upper atmosphere is there another explanation that can also explain this phenomenon? Also I hear that all gases are greenhouse gases as well which includes oxygen and nitrogen what do you think about that is that true? Also say if Venus had 96% of water vapour would that create a greenhouse gas or 96% oxygen would that create a greenhouse gas? Also what do you believe is causing warming on earth? Also what is your alternative to the greenhouse theory and can you explain to me how the earth atmosphere warms and cools using your alternative to the greenhouse theory? Also you should do legal action against greenhouse theory since you got evidence beyond reasonable doubt to disprove the greenhouse theory and you should have public debate as well.
ReplyDeleteI first heard about the "global warming" debate in late 2009 (I have been involved with discoveries far beyond climate science for the last 27 years, which is what this blog is really supposed to be about)
ReplyDeleteBy the late summer of 2010, I had a pretty good idea that the climate scientists were backwards, and that the atmospheric warming they pretended to know all about, worked in precisely the opposite way from what they all thought. In short, I believed that the warming occurred not as the result of warming of the Earth's surface, followed by warming of the atmosphere, but by direct absorption by the lower atmosphere of incident solar infrared radiation. It was and still is, a stunning seminal insight.
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse" gas. There are instead gases that absorb infrared (IR) radiation, but the radiation they absorb to warm the atmosphere is INCIDENT solar radiation, not from the surface. So the consensus climate science is entirely backwards, and thus false.
About this same time, I heard about the "lapse rate" structure of the troposphere, from other skeptical bloggers, and I thought they weren't pushing that strongly enough, for the lapse rate is just a constant temperature gradient throughout the troposphere, which acts to direct excess heat to outer space, so that expecting a heat buildup in an atmosphere with that safety valve is counter to its obvious working.
The so-called Standard Atmosphere is a simple model of the atmosphere, based upon a lapse rate structure supplied naturally by a massive atmosphere in a hydrostatic condition, providing that simple temperature gradient. I resolved to test that hypothesis by comparing the temperatures, at points of equal pressure in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, using the Standard Atmosphere model for the Earth. The amazing result was, both planets had the SAME T-P profile (temperature vs. pressure), when only the Venus temperature was corrected for its closer distance from the Sun.
Since Venus has 96.5% carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, while Earth has a minuscule 0.04%, this immediately destroys the so-called CO2 "global warming greenhouse effect"; it simply does not, cannot, exist. And the entirety of climate scientists who claim it does, are spouting garbage... Their theory also violates the prime physical law, the conservation of energy, quite openly (see my post, "Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria", from October 2010)...
I am going to cut off this comment at this point. You need to understand the facts I have just relayed to you (you need to understand my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post) before asking questions that have already been answered many times over.
Thank you for the information you have provided me I found it very easy to understand and very informative you have a lot of knowledge about this subject more than the climate scientists. I was shocked to hear that you confirmed that there was no such thing as greenhouse gases just gases that absorb infrared radiation so does that mean all gases interact with infrared radiation including oxygen? Thank you for the information you have provided thank you for an alternative explanation to the lower atmosphere heating up and upper cooling I found that very informative. Also another curious question I have is why haven’t climate scientists taken your evidence seriously since the greenhouse policy will destroy the economy and geoengineering causing a catastrophe.
ReplyDelete