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