Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[klapauzius]

Oh, and K, the thermosphere isn't in thermal equilibrium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far, nobody has postulated it is... But I think Donald was asking if it could be described by an equilibrium equation (the ideal gas law that is).

Not sure where this is leading or why this was relevant...If I parse the original post correctly, the question was whether

the equilibrium temperature of a planet is a function of the mass of the atmosphere and the strength of the gravitational field

?

IMHO, the answer is clearly no, since the thermal input from a nearby star (i.e. the sun in our case) is also an argument to the temperature function, among some others that are not listed here.

 

[Stoaty]

This is almost precisely what I listed as the premise for the global warming hysteria (see my post above). What you see here is a list of *only* the positive feedback effects of water vapor in our atmosphere rather than a list of *all* feedbacks caused by additional water vapor in our atmosphere. This is known as indoctrination (presenting on one side of an argument).

Since you are more knowledgeable than leading climate scientists, why don't you publish your research and win a nobel prize? Or, you could share your knowledge where the hard core climate scientists hang out (realclimate.org). I'm sure they would love to be educated.

 

[downeykp]

Stoaty, I couldn't agree with you more. This thread has been going on for too long. The 2%ers, the deniers, just make a lot of noise to try and drowned out the other 98%. Screw them they are not going to believe that man has any responsibility for the health of the planet.
I am just a lowly science teacher, but if we know where the co2 is coming from, (which we do) and we know the planet is warming (which it is). Then rational people the 98% are right to be concerned and try anything to stop what might be unstoppable. I am not worried for myself, but I do worry about the generations to come. I think the deniers only care about themselves.

This is almost precisely what I listed as the premise for the global warming hysteria (see my post above). What you see here is a list of *only* the positive feedback effects of water vapor in our atmosphere rather than a list of *all* feedbacks caused by additional water vapor in our atmosphere. This is known as indoctrination (presenting on one side of an argument).

Since you are more knowledgeable than leading climate scientists, why don't you publish your research and win a nobel prize? Or, you could share your knowledge where the hard core climate scientists hang out (realclimate.org). I'm sure they would love to be educated.

 

[WetEV]

The 'greenhouse effect' is clearly a misnomer because trapping in IR radiation is not how a greenhouse works. A greenhouse works by trapping warmed air.

A greenhouse inside a greenhouse doesn't work by trapping IR. A greenhouse on Earth, yes, works mostly (but not completely) by trapping warmed air. But that is a greenhouse inside a greenhouse. Not a greenhouse by itself.

A greenhouse by itself, in space, is different.

The Earth is a greenhouse in space. Rather than multiple panes of glass, it has a deep atmosphere with gases that block IR.

However, a greenhouse in space with panes of glass separated by vacuum is easier to analyze. Just simple algebra. No tricky assumptions. No tricky math.
Assume that the panes of glass are completely opaque in IR. Assume that space is at 0K rather than 3K (want extra credit? use 3K for space)

How does heat flow in such a greenhouse in space?

If there are N panes of glass, the inside of the greenhouse (and the first pane) is at 300K, what temperature is each pane of glass at?
How much heat flows per square meter into space?

Start with one pane of glass. We assume above that it would be at 300K. How much heat does it radiate?

Next, analyze two panes of glass. The first pane is at 300K and is radiating exactly as much heat as the first case. The second pane will absorb that heat, and radiate half of the total to space, and half back to the first pane of glass. Remember, vacuum, so no conductive or convective heat flow. Again, how much heat flows per square meter into space?

Need a hint?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[donald]

Stoaty, I couldn't agree with you more. This thread has been going on for too long. The 2%ers, the deniers, just make a lot of noise to try and drowned out the other 98%.

If I might point out that all I wanted to know is whether the expansion of the atmosphere into space is accommodated in climate change models, seeing as others seem to have read material about such models at length.

What actually has happened is it's been an opportunity for two sides of an argument to throw in lots of other points without ever addressing the question and saying whether the atmosphere swells, shrinks, changes temp when it does so, or whatever it does.

So my conclusion is that the expansion of the atmosphere is not taken into consideration in climate models. That gets added to the list of other apparently disregarded matters in these models; the role of clouds, water vapour, and biological sinks.

 

[WetEV]

If I might point out that all I wanted to know is whether the expansion of the atmosphere into space is accommodated in climate change models, seeing as others seem to have read material about such models at length.

The atmosphere is contracting, not expanding, as the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is to warm the lower part of the atmosphere and cool the stratosphere and above. Remember that most of the volume of the atmosphere is above the stratosphere, and most of the mass is below it.

Work out the glass greenhouse in space problem above. Add a pane or two. What happens to the temperature of the outside pane?

You want to know? Then learn.

 

[donald]

You want to know? Then learn.

You want to teach? Then answer. Riddles, riddles, you could have just said that in the first place. There are far too many hares running in this race for me to want to go back to the start to watch. I'm just interested in getting to the conclusions people have formulated, and their justifications for them.

OK, so now we've got to that point, that upper layers cool and contract while lower layers heat, and that overall the atmosphere is contracting, what would be the impact on climate models without those mechanisms? Significant/not significant?

The thing I struggle with is that I have read these models don't accommodate clouds because they are argued to both contribute and negate. However, just because a process does both doesn't mean they are in balance.

If the whole of the atmosphere was covered in cloud for 5 days, the global surface daytime temperature would drop several degrees where it is already warm, and perhaps warm where nighttime is already cold*. If the upper layers are cooling then surely there should be more water condensate there as water vapour shifts up into the contracting gas. Whether that increases or decreases the warming effects I have no idea, and it seems to me nor can the climate modellers because they don't appear to be putting that into the models.

Is that true that they don't include this mechanism of upper layer contraction, and if so why not? If they do, is the prediction of its contribution positive or negative?

*(If, for example, it were to transpire that day time temperature readings have dropped 1C and night time readings have gone up by 2C, is that warming or cooling?)

 

[WetEV]

OK, so now we've got to that point, that upper layers cool and contract while lower layers heat, and that overall the atmosphere is contracting, what would be the impact on climate models without those mechanisms? Significant/not significant?

Modify a model and tell us. There are climate models you can download the source, so what is stopping you? If you don't want to learn about the models and also want criticize the models, what can you add but noise?

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thing I struggle with is that I have read these models don't accommodate clouds because they are argued to both contribute and negate. However, just because a process does both doesn't mean they are in balance.

Yes, I'll bet that someone that doesn't understand the models wrote that. So why don't you download the source to a climate model and find out for yourself?

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Actually, perhaps you should start with a very simple model of a greenhouse in space first. Start with three panes, then four, then work it out general case for N panes.

If you don't understand the very very very basics, how can you make a useful comment on anything advanced?

 

[donald]

If you don't understand the very very very basics, how can you make a useful comment on anything advanced?

I'm not asking to understand the basics. I'm asking to have the conclusions explained.

I have no complier and I have not done any programming for years. If I was to undertake such a venture, I'd start from scratch with my own model, in much the manner you have described.

But I don't need to understand the basics to ask a straightforward question to understand what is or is not absent. This is silly and is a fallacy that you have to do everything the way things have been done in the past to be able to pose questions to ask. That's like saying I'm not allowed to propose an explanation for what came before God until I have understood all the religions of the world and why they even believe in a God in the first place. I can reasonably ask a person if their religion has an explanation for what came before their God and I do not need to participate in their religious practices before asking that, do I?

It seems pretty clear to me that cloud coverage affects climate, and the temperatures and pressures of the upper atmosphere will contribute to this mechanism. It is such a strong effect that the contributions and negations which cloud cover cause need to be demonstrated as being balanced before that assumption can be made. I do not need to take years becoming an expert in a model which fails to accommodate this mechanism before I ask that question. There may be a very good explanation as to why it can be excluded, or some models might already take this into account. I don't know. I'm asking questions, I am NOT attempting to make a useful comment as you seem to suggest I have to be doing.

 

[WetEV]

If you don't understand the very very very basics, how can you make a useful comment on anything advanced?

I'm not asking to understand the basics. I'm asking to have the conclusions explained.

How can you ask a reasonable question about the conclusions, if you don't understand the basics?

But I don't need to understand the basics to ask a straightforward question to understand what is or is not absent. This is silly and is a fallacy that you have to do everything the way things have been done in the past to be able to pose questions to ask.

The question shows only that you don't understand the basic facts. So what sort of answer do you expect?

 

[Nubo]

Stoaty, I couldn't agree with you more. This thread has been going on for too long. The 2%ers, the deniers, just make a lot of noise to try and drowned out the other 98%.

If I might point out that all I wanted to know is whether the expansion of the atmosphere into space is accommodated in climate change models, seeing as others seem to have read material about such models at length.

What actually has happened is it's been an opportunity for two sides of an argument to throw in lots of other points without ever addressing the question and saying whether the atmosphere swells, shrinks, changes temp when it does so, or whatever it does.

So my conclusion is that the expansion of the atmosphere is not taken into consideration in climate models. That gets added to the list of other apparently disregarded matters in these models; the role of clouds, water vapour, and biological sinks.

Yo, what?

Nobody on an automobile forum answered a question to your satisfaction so your conclusion is that scientists have disregarded a multitude of important facts?

Seriously?

 

[donald]

Yo, what?

Nobody on an automobile forum answered a question to your satisfaction so your conclusion is that scientists have disregarded a multitude of important facts?

Seriously?

There are a number of folks here who appear to be claiming that I am unread on the subject and I should get to know the basics. They would only be self-qualified to say that if they, themselves, are read on the subject to know that I am unread. Nothing is suggested to me that makes me think the responders are not diligent readers and are, in fact, knowledgeable and well read.

The reason I asked is precisely because of the comments made in the other current thread on sea levels indicating such competence.

Either folks are competent at commenting on what the research says, or they are not. I am not. Therefore I was asking those who appear to be so.

Yo, OK?

 

[donald]

The question shows only that you don't understand the basic facts. So what sort of answer do you expect?

This is the Feynman point; How would you explain it to an 11 year old? Looks like you'd say 'you don't understand the basics, so what sort of answer do you expect?'

So, in Feynmanesque fashion, the answer to your question is; The sort of answer you'd give an intelligent 11 year old that knows nothing about atmospheric physics.

I was only asking how the models accommodate changes in atmospheric volume. If you think I need to understand more before asking that question then it looks to me that you are being overly defensive.

Besides, I thought you had [eventually] already answered that question at a general level. Is there more to it than the lower levels heat and expand and the upper levels cool and shrink, with an overall shrinkage? Isn't that 'the basics'? Is it wrong in some way?

It sounds like you'd say that someone should understand the basics of electro-chemistry before asking if the Leaf has an insufficient range for their commute.

I only need to know about the macro-facts, not the minutiae. You must be an engineer, wetev, because engineers seem to tend to believe everyone needs to understand all the teeny details they know about their specialism and sub-system before it's possible to manage that sub-system within a larger project.

I bet the thought that 'these managers just don't understand this project. What madman put them in charge?' passes through your thoughts several times a week. Sometimes a less detailed view is needed, and you need to have the capability of communicating what you know into a different level someone else is at who may not know the 'basics' you do.

 

[WetEV]

The question shows only that you don't understand the basic facts. So what sort of answer do you expect?

This is the Feynman point; How would you explain it to an 11 year old? Looks like you'd say 'you don't understand the basics, so what sort of answer do you expect?'

You are not an 11 year old, and you are not "asking for information". You do seem to be intelligent, however, and I'm trying to get you to think rather than spew out the .... you have read online.

Not successfully, so far.

So exactly what would models need to do to "accommodate changes in atmospheric volume"?

Are you talking about the one-time energy storage change? Air mass is changing altitude, both positive and negative. Or would you settle for a Feynman like back of envelope calculation that shows that it is not significant? And why don't you just do that for yourself, after all you seem to be intelligent. I'm fairly sure you are capable. Need hints?

Or some other idea? What exact effect are you asking about?

Sometimes you don't give an 11 year old the answer to a question, you challenge him to find the answer for himself or herself.

I challenge you to do so.

 

[Nubo]

There are a number of folks here who appear to be claiming that I am unread on the subject and I should get to know the basics. They would only be self-qualified to say that if they, themselves, are read on the subject to know that I am unread. Nothing is suggested to me that makes me think the responders are not diligent readers and are, in fact, knowledgeable and well read.

The reason I asked is precisely because of the comments made in the other current thread on sea levels indicating such competence.

Either folks are competent at commenting on what the research says, or they are not. I am not. Therefore I was asking those who appear to be so.

Yo, OK?

No, you don't address my point.

Please explain how these 2 sentences are compatible:

"I am not competent at commenting on what the research says."

vs.

"So my conclusion is that the expansion of the atmosphere is not taken into consideration in climate models. That gets added to the list of other apparently disregarded matters in these models; the role of clouds, water vapour, and biological sinks".

So, you don't understand the research and yet you have transcended it. That's quite a trick.

 

[donald]

You're mixing issues there. Happy to explain it to you: One phrase says 'I don't understand the issues' the other says 'I conclude the documents I've seen don't consider the issues I'm interested in'.

Sorry, I can't see any contradiction. If I ask someone 'I don't understand quantum electro-dynamics, give me all the books you have on QED' and they go away and come back with a book on electric motors then there is nothing contradictory about me then drawing a conclusion that this person doesn't have any books on QED. I don't need to understand QED to realise an education in electric motors won't help me understand QED.

In the same way, an education into a climate model that doesn't include a numerical description of the expansion/contraction of the atmosphere won't help me understand the expansion/contraction of the atmosphere!!

 

[Weatherman]

If you want to see what a warm troposphere looks like compared to a cold troposphere, just look at a temperature sounding plot at a location in the tropics and a temperature sounding plot for a location near the poles.

Temperature is shown as the red line on the plots.

tropical: http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/mmzo.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
polar: http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/pabe.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On both plots the troposphere ends where the temperature no longer falls with height.

You can see that the warm troposphere is thicker, and warmer at all levels than the polar troposphere, but because it extends to a much greater height, it's colder at the top. The stratosphere is acting as a lid, in both cases.

These data go into weather models, so they do take all the details into account, although there's no need to use models to see the difference. We already have observational data to show the difference between a warm and cool troposphere.

 

[donald]

Temperature is shown as the red line on the plots.

tropical: http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/mmzo.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
polar: http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/pabe.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you please describe what the axes are and what I'm actually looking at there?

 

[Weatherman]

The vertical axis is atmospheric pressure in millibars (pressure decreases with height). Starts about 1000 mb near the surface and drops to less than 200 mb at the top.

The other vertical axis is temperature, which on the plot is skewed from the upper right to lower left. Temperature starts about 40C in the lower right to below -60C in the upper left.

So, on the tropical plot, temperature starts about 28C at 1000mb and falls to nearly -80C at around 100mb. At 250 mb, the temperature is about -40C. Troposphere is 900mb thick.

On the polar plot, temperature starts about 7C at 1000mb and falls to about -55C at about the 250mb level. Troposphere is about 750mb thick.


Some of the other lines have to do with dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates and water vapor content. Observed dewpoint is the solid green line.



So, to answer some of the questions and comments:
1) Yes, the troposphere can be warmer or colder over its entire depth over broad expanses of the earth's surface.
2) Yes, the troposphere does expand when it is warmed. The stratosphere acts as a lid to inhibit convection.
3) Yes, a warmer troposphere is warmer at the bottom and colder at the top than a cold troposphere. Although the reason it's colder at the top is because it's deeper (extends farther from the earth's surface into lower pressures).

 

[donald]

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm struggling with these graphs - if I understand you, you're suggesting that where the temperature hits a point where it doesn't change with vertical height that this is a 'lid'.

Surely, if there was no vertical movement then the atmosphere would get colder with altitude? I would have thought a steady drop in temperature with height indicates a lack of vertical mixing, while a steady temperature would indicate vertical transport in that region, no? What am I missing?

Indication of a steady temperature with increase in height might be considered to demonstrate vertical mixing, rather than being 'capped', because that way the layers will mix and attain the same temperature? Why would upper layers be the same temperature as a point below the 'lid'?