Atmospheric Layers and Thermodynamic Ping Pong

I was studying the ACS Climate Change tool kit sections on the single and multilayer theories (what I refer to as the thermal ping-pong ball) of upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation and after seeing a similar discussion on an MIT online course (specifically says no transmission) have some observations.

These multi-layered models make no reference to conduction, convection or latent heat processes which leads me to conclude that these models include no molecules, aka a “non-participating media,” aka vacuum. This is a primary conditional for proper application of the S-B BB ideal, i.e. ε = 1.0, equation.

When energy strikes an object or surface there are three possible results: reflection or ρ, absorption or α, transmission or τ and ρ + α + τ = 1.0.

The layered models use only α which according to Kirchhoff is equal to ε. What Kirchhoff really means is that max emissivity can equal but not exceed the energy absorbed. Nothing says emissivity can’t be less than the energy absorbed. If α leaves as conduction/convection/latent (macro effect, non-thermodynamic equilibrium) than ε will be much less than 1.0.

These grey bodied layered models then exist in a vacuum and are 100% non-reflective, i.e. opaque, surfaces, i.e. just like the atmosphere. NOT!

So the real atmosphere has real molecules meaning a “participatory” media and is 99.96% transparent i.e. non-opaque.

Because of the heat flow participating molecules only 63 W/m^2 of the 160 W/m^2 that made it to the surface leaves the surface as LWIR.

63 W/m^2 and 15 C / 288 K surface gives a net effective ε of about 0.16 when the participating media is considered. (BTW “surface” is NOT the ground, but 1.5 m ABOVE the ground per WMO & IPCC AR5 glossary.)

So the K-T diagram is thermodynamic rubbish, earth as a ball in a bucket of hot mush is physical rubbish, the Δ 33 C w/ atmosphere is obvious rubbish, the layered models are unrelated to reality rubbish.

The atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, is a closed system and as a consequence neither Stephan Boltzmann nor Kirchhoff nor thermodynamics can be a abused the ways the GHE theory applies them.

What support does the GHE theory have left besides rabid minions?

I see no reason why GHE theory gets a free pass on the scientific method. (example 12.4)

The condition of thermodynamic equilibrium is necessary in the statement, because the equality of emissivity and absorptivity often does not hold when the material of the body is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

In non-equilibrium systems, by contrast, there are net flows of matter or energy. If such changes can be triggered to occur in a system in which they are not already occurring, it is said to be in a metastable equilibrium.



Mike Haluska Added Apr 28, 2017 - 9:41am
Nicholas - the answer to your comment:
"I see no reason why GHE theory gets a free pass on the scientific method."
is best answered by Dr. Michael Crichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Utpal Patel Added Apr 28, 2017 - 3:19pm
No offense but without a PHD in science this article is nothing but gobbledygook.  This much I know, those that disagree with whatever it is you’re attempting to say could also write down a bunch of contrarian gobbledygook.  So to the extent you have a point to make, make it in layman terms and then support your argument with this stuff. 
Mike Haluska Added Apr 28, 2017 - 3:31pm
Utpal - you make a great point!  If you read my post above there are larger issues than correct math.  The "Climate Change" gang are at war with legitimate science, trying to replace rigorous and rational Scientific Method with "Consensus Science" - which is politicized science.  So what if 97% of a group receiving hundreds of millions of dollars all agree that the hundred million dollar Gravy Train should keep rolling? 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Apr 29, 2017 - 9:11am

I published my first WB paper back in early 2014. I maintained four or so WB papers until they collected over 2,500 views and then took them down because they were stale and needed revisions. The current set, earliest being 12/16, just passed 1,000 views.

I write for those who have done the homework, understand the jargon, nomenclature and concepts. I’ve been following CAGW since 1989 and have a reading list of books, papers and downloads that runs two pages long. My BSME, PE and 35 year career means I understand them. I’ll post a copy if you would like to catch up.

BTW CAGW is NOT about “climate” science, whatever that is. Maybe astrology or cosmetology or horse whispering. The atmosphere is all about chemistry, physics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics.  Experts in those concepts are chemical and mechanical engineers who have to make them actually really work in the field. Screw up the science and install millions of dollars worth of equipment that doesn’t work is hard on one’s career.

In a layman’s nutshell.

1) Between 1750 and 2011 fossil fuel and cement added 160 Gt (0.34%) of CO2 to the carbon cycle which contains 46,713 GT of stored carbon in its various forms and hundreds of GT flowing between those stores annually. The uncertainty band is over 1,500 Gt wide. Nobody knows with certainty how much CO2 there is in the carbon cycle, where it comes from or goes and what source is mostly responsible.

2) Between 1750 and 2011 the 555 Gt (1.2%) of additional atmospheric CO2 added 2 W/m^2 of heat. The elliptical orbit swings the solar input 92 W/m^2 every year and the tilted axis swings upper level solar inputs over 600 W/m^2 and all we get is winter and summer. 2 W/m^2 is a) bogus and b) insignificant.

3) IPCC AR5 admits the models don’t work and there are huge uncertainties about clouds, feedback, ice sheets, and weather in general.
Autumn Cote Added Apr 29, 2017 - 11:13am
Please note, the best way to draw more attention to your work is to comment on the work of others (it's been more than 3 days since you've made one).  I know this to be true because of you do I'll do everything in my power to draw more attention to your work. 
PS - There is a lot I can do and would like to do. 
Tamara Wilhite Added May 1, 2017 - 8:29pm
Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Lukewarming World
Edward Miessner Added Dec 17, 2017 - 4:12pm
Well, well, well. I was looking into the ACS Climate Toolkit and they have a section on Climate Sensitivity in their chapter on How Atmospheric Warming Works. And I looked at the equations and realised, Oh my God! How could they use the S-B BB equation in such a manner?
Climate science should be using Q = U * A * dT instead! Add CO2 to the atmosphere and you add a thin layer to its insulating blanket, that is, increase its R-factor and decrease its U. So for Q to be the same, dT must increase. 
Like your paper on Venus shows how it gets crazy-hot, hotter than Mercury even, with Venus's 250-km thick atmosphere which is 96.5% filled by volume with carbon dioxide.
And that's why we still have AGW caused by increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 based on burning of fossil fuels.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 17, 2017 - 4:49pm
So, 96.5% = 0.04%. Only in the bizarre world of "climate" science where physics and math are optional.
Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon make up 99.96% of the earthly atmosphere and are transparent to LWIR.
Yeah, same - same
Edward Miessner Added Dec 18, 2017 - 2:34pm
And yet the terrestrial annual mean temperatures have still increased over the past century. And during the past forty years, when we have the solar irradiance direct data (instead of proxies like sunspots) which shows that the solar output on average has not increased, the above temperatures have still increased. How do you explained that?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 18, 2017 - 7:56pm
What do natural variations prove? Besides bogus attempts to correlation/coincidence connect to cause.
Explain how up/down/"back" radiation actually works with real science and no handwavium or piss off.
I don't have to explain shit, especially the null state. You think there's something unusual then YOU have the' 'splaining to do.
Edward Miessner Added Dec 19, 2017 - 4:00pm
"Explain how up/down/"back" radiation actually works with real science and no handwavium or piss off."
Well you don't even believe in up/down/"back" radiation. Well all three types of radiation (actually, two---"back" is the same as down) have been verified by satellite and surface field measurements. For example, see this paper on an actual field observation in Alaska, and this webpage on the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer. Careful when you look at the paper's Figure no. 8 -- the upwelling radiation plot is a very faint dotted line and it's very easy to miss. And there is another paper that one of the commenters posted in your Greenhouse? We Don't Need No Stinkin Greenhouse! notes that the downwelling or "back" radiation of 342 W/m^2 was also determined by field measurements.
Edward Miessner Added Dec 19, 2017 - 4:01pm
Last sentence: "notes" should read "which notes".
Bill H. Added Dec 19, 2017 - 6:35pm
Edward - There will always be a fight to try and prove that CO2 is not involved with our present accelerated warming event. CO2 emissions are a byproduct of profits, as are the depletion of fish populations and loss of natural habitat.
As long as there are profits to lose, there will be those that put up the fight to continue with the practices.
Edward Miessner Added Dec 20, 2017 - 5:59pm
Bill H,
"CO2 emissions are a byproduct of profits, as are the depletion of fish populations and loss of natural habitat.
"As long as there are profits to lose, there will be those that put up the fight to continue with the practices."
Sad but true. And getting someone to understand this fact is impossible when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. (Upton Sinclair, paraphrased).
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:03pm
Regarding your second linked paper: Well, looky here it’s a variation of the Nikolov/Zeller paper I reference elsewhere and from their opening abstract – look at what they have concluded.  
“Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” 
AND NOT THE GHGS!!!!!!!!!!!! 
“In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.” 
“Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift” 
“in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.”
You are right about the money – all the lying weasel “climate” pseudo-science Feynmann wanna-bes are about to lose their taxpayer financed multi-million dollar free rides studying a problem that doesn’t exist.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:12pm
Are they cheating?
Are sea level groups like Nerem’s cheating? Cooking the books? Fudging the results?
No, not actually. They are serious scientists trying to do a job and do it well. [Though some, like Nerem, also engage in unseemly advocacy and fanatical CAGW propaganda — as evidenced by Nerem’s Washington Post piece and his group’s Comment on Mörner’s (2004) paper.] The majority are doing what they have been trained to do, using the tools and data available. They have been trained to engage in what I have call “Computational Hubris”,
and to accept its results without question.

The problem, as I see it, is as described early in the computer era by
Feynman and others — a scientific field gets rolling, builds on early results, and goes off down some garden path that becomes impossible to backtrack. No prestigious sea level group could possibly agree with Mörner and the INQUA Commission — it would mean that everything they’ve done, everything they’ve based their careers on, was off the mark.
(Too effing bad. Had they listened to the skeptics instead of 86ing them.)
It is a rare (and precious) person that can do that. (Colin Powell and WMDs!) The vast majority will stay comfortably in the fold of the current consensus (There's that consensus thang!! Don't be thinkin' fo' your self!)) position, with which they honestly agree.
John P. A. Ioannidis found the same situation in bio-medical research and published his findings as “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, concluding “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
I fear that Sea Level Change research is one of those fields.
NO S**T!!!!!!!!!!!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:47pm
I am going to keep this short. You should have relinked that Nikolov/Zeller paper so I can take a look at it myself. Or was it the paper that the authors and editors agreed should be taken down?
So tell me: if RGHE theory is bogus, like you claim, how come engineers can build precision instruments using S-B BB theory to measure the upwelling and downwelling of IR radiation from the Earth's atmosphere, and upwelling IR radiation from the Earth?  And how come some global warming scientists were able to make accurate predictions back in the 1970s and 1980s, shooting full of holes your natural variability explanation for the 1.1 deg C rise in global mean temperature since 1976? 
Yes, I know I am pissing you off. Tough!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:50pm
PS sea level change being faked? Why don't you go down to Miami which suffers nusiance flooding from high tides called King Tides and ask the locals if they experience this sort of thing in the early 1980s? I went to college [BSCE] at the University of Miami there and I can tell you right now, they'll say they never heard of such a thing back then!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:51pm
experienced this sort of thing
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 21, 2017 - 8:14pm
I can craft an experiment and instrumentation to “prove” my preconceived notions and wishful thinking. That’s what happened with cold fusion. It doesn’t take much to Google-search the dark side – “debunk measuring downwelling LWIR.” Of course, you have to defy the high priests and go look.
Here are two links, one you cited apparently without reading, not that you would understand it.
I don’t know your background, technical training, experience, etc. but this topic takes a lot more than citing articles you have zero clue of understanding from the web, you have to know enough to activate your lying BS detector. My background fuels mine big time.
If I get pissed enough I’ll just disengage.
Anecdotes about sea level aren't science.
“…make accurate predictions back in the 1970s and 1980s, shooting full of holes your natural variability explanation for the 1.1 deg C rise in global mean temperature since 1976?”
They were? They did? If so that was the ONLY thing they got right. 1.1 C since 1976? One, that’s just lost in error and uncertainty, 2) according to USCHN data – never happened.
Edward Miessner Added Dec 22, 2017 - 4:56pm
Your first two links show you're going back to disbelieving in the IR feedback loop (which that paper said was a feedback of pressure...). I never linked the second two links.
And yes, I do read those paers you ink and I click on, til my eyes glaze over...
"the ONLY thing they got right" "just lost in error and uncertainty"
Which just goes to show you the science works, and it's not the only thing. And it's been determined that natural variability only accounts for +/-0.2 to 0.4 deg C in the variation of temperature. Higher rises have to be caused by... something.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 22, 2017 - 6:18pm
"And it's been determined that natural variability only accounts for +/-0.2 to 0.4 deg C in the variation of temperature."
By whom? Have a reference? Or is it the usual - revealed truth by magic unicorns in someone's sleep?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 22, 2017 - 7:57pm
Sea levels rising – NOT happening.
Open this link and a map will appear with numerous multi colored arrows. Click on an arrow and the data for that location will appear, e.g. Miami. In the pop up window select “linear trend”.
2.39 mm/y, that’s 0.094” aka 3/32 of an INCH each year!!!! OOOOHHHHH SCARY!!!!
Which is NOT actually measured but computer MODELLED!!!!
0.78 ft over 100 YEARS or a WHOPPING 9 inches!!!!
Alarmists pushing the dangers of sea level rise are nothing but a pack of lying weasels!!!
Temperatures rising – NOT happening.
1.1 C since 1979? Not there.
United States Historical Climatology Network
Import this monthly data set into Excel and use data/text to column/delimited/space to format into workable data. This anomaly (difference from average) monthly data runs from 12/78 through 10/17 using the average of 1980 through 2010. Selected both Global and US48 columns.
Global: linear trend line, R^2 = 0.39 (data is almost random, fitting a curve is foolish), linear curve fit slope = 0.045 C/y, 0.45 C/decade, 4.5 C/century.
US48: linear trend line, R^2 = 0.068 (data is almost random, fitting a curve is foolish), linear curve slope = 0.059 C/y, 0.59 C/decade, 5.9 C/century.
1978 through 2017 rose 0.7 C. '76 through '78 jumped .4C Wow! Somebody might have noticed.
Ice caps melting – NOT happening.
EVERY^3 year the polar SEA ice swings from about 3 km^2 to mid to high teens of km^2. And no ice anywhere in the cryosphere is melting or behaving in anyway it hasn’t for decades. You can go to the the following links and look at REAL^3 data, graphs, trends, etc. Beware of scales chosen to exaggerate the trends!
(See NSIDC & DMI & Climate4you)
Real data, no magic unicorns were used, abused or consulted.
And of course none of this matters because man caused CO2 and RGHE theory are junk.
So, quit changing the subject and address the only issue that matters - RGHE.
End of line
Edward Miessner Added Dec 23, 2017 - 3:41pm
The sea level rise at Miami has been enough for Miami Beach to construct protective measures, and for Miami to consider them.
I got my temperature rise from the NASA GISS GISTemp raw data stated in hundredths of a degree Celsius, anamoly from the 1951-1980 mean. 1976 anamoly = 11/100ths deg C, 2016 anamoly = 99/100ths deg C.  2017 not in yet. Your source claims a rise of 0.72 degrees Celsius temperature rise from 1978-2017, 0.99 deg C rise from 1978-2016.
natural variability? I got my information from the 2017 draft Fourth National Climate Assessment. Then there's this Nature article to chew on.
The Japan Meteorlogical Agency is not a skittle-shitting unicorn. Their Arctic Sea Ice Extent decline is not offset by the gains in Atnarctic Ice Extent through 2016. Also, This NSIDC page shows a graph indicating an 18% drop in Sea Ice Extent since 1980.
Gotta go. Merry Christmas!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 23, 2017 - 3:43pm
Oh, fuck. The Nature article is only an abstract!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 23, 2017 - 5:18pm
Correction: 1976 anamoly = -11/100ths deg C
Again, Merry Christmas!
Edward Miessner Added Dec 23, 2017 - 5:24pm
The more I look at your temperature source the more I realise it can be confusing unless you look at it very carefully. And now in this case, I did: December 1978 (-0.36 deg C) through November 2017 (+0.36 deg C) yields an increase in global mean temperature of +0.72 deg C.
So once again, Merry Christmas. :^)