A conversation with Ken Rice on the causes of the ‘Greenhouse effect’
Yes, adiabatic compression heating is an ongoing process, due to the convection cycle. I’ve tried to illustrate it by modifying NASA’s energy budget diagram. Calcs on right show PV/nR=T gives correct values regardless of radiative transfer.
This has probably been explained before, but if adiabatic heating is to be an ongoing process then that would suggest the atmosphere is contracting. Since it clearly isn’t, this can’t be the source of the enhanced surface temperature.
Ken. Air convecting upwards every day displaces cold high altitude air downwards through the pressure gradient which compresses and heats it. If it didn’t, that air would be colder at the surface, and would allow much more rapid conduction of heat from surface to the air. Agree?
Roger, if you want to enhance the temperature on the surface via compression then the atmosphere would need to continually contract.
You’re wrong about this, and have misunderstood what we’ve been pointing out all along. By now it’s clear, you’ll never be able to admit the truth to yourself, let alone publicly, as it means losing too much face. You’re condemned to live with your cognitive dissonance.
Even @richardabetts now concedes the validity of what we’re saying. Although his coping mechanism is different. He’s now claiming the models already have the compression heating coded in. I await access to the proprietary code he’s referring to…
Yes, models already have convection, which includes the upward and downward motion of gas parcels. However, that does not mean that this process alone can sustain an enhanced surface temperature.
-
Replying to @RogTallbloke @theresphysics and 9 others
No Rog, I only made one remark in this conversation, which was to say that the convection schemes account for the effects of downward as well as upward motion. This is meant kindly, not rudely – I’m afraid that from past conversations, you don’t know as much as you think you do.
-
Well Richard, and I mean this kindly, if you’re going to withhold the code you rely on to make your claims, and disparage me for not knowing as much as I would if you were prepared to share the data, you’re no better than Phil Jones.
What you and Richard and the modelers have missed, is that the adiabatically heated descending air doesn’t have the heat capacity to warm the surface, it does have the temperature to inhibit conduction of heat from surface to air. That is NOT coded into the models. However 1/2
You are right that this mechanism alone is not enough. That’s why the caption to my modified NASA energy budget lists another: The surface air pressure impedance of evaporation from the ocean surface. That’s not coded into the models I have access to either.
In your hypothesis, there is no greenhouse effect and therefore the net flux from the surface should be 390W/m^2, not 56 W/m^2 (as shown in your figure).
Defeated by observation and logic, Ken resorts to tactic 2: diversion. He still gets it wrong though. The NET flux is 398up-342down = 56W/m^2, as the original NASA energy budget diagram clearly shows.
It comes from the air warmed by the solar shortwave heated surface, and convected/radiated upwards. Everything radiates according to its temperature, at every level in the atmosphere.
Hold on, but there is no greenhouse effect, so all of the energy radiated from the surface (390W/m^2) goes directly to space. Only about 100W/m^2 is transported by non-radiative processes. How can this then produce a downward flux of 342 W/m^2?
You seem to be conflating absorption/re-emission with a mythical ‘heat trapping’ effect. Low heat capacity air that freely convects can’t ‘trap heat’ Ken. That’s just a fiction dreamed up by C19th natural philosophers who didn’t understand bulk gas thermodynamics. However 1/2
-
Baron Fourier did have an inkling, though he couldn’t quantify it: “with respect to the temperature which each of these bodies owes to the sun, it is not known; because it may depend on the pressure of an atmosphere and the condition of the surface.”
I haven’t mentioned heat trapping. I’m trying to understand the energy fluxes in your theory. How can the lower atmosphere have a net downward flux of 345W/m^2 if it only receives ~100 W/m^2?
Still want to divert the debate to radiation? At least get it right. There’s no such thing as a NET downward flux. There’s an upward component, a downward component, and a net flux.
That’s just pedantry, and of course there can be a net downward. But, okay, how can the downard flux from the atmosphere to the surface be greater than the amount of energy it receives from the surface?
The Sun heats the surface, which conducts/convects/radiates energy upwards into the atmosphere. Downwardly convecting air is heated by adiabatic compression impeding the rate of conduction, causing surface to rise to the temperature is has to in order to conduct/convect/radiate
at a rate sufficient to lose heat as fast as it gains it. The atmosphere similarly reaches the temperature it has to, and everything at every level in the atmosphere radiates according to its temperature. If you agree this qualitative description, we can proceed to quantify it.
But in your scenario there’s no greenhouse effect, so the energy radiated from the Sun (390 W/m^2) goes directly to space. The rest (~100 W/m^2) can be transported into the atmosphere. Again, how does this result in a downward flux of ~340W/m^2?
There’s no greenhouse, because there’s no roof to prevent convection. But there is an effect which raises surface temperature, as I describe it above.
Hold on, so your argument against the greenhouse effect is that there’s no roof in the atmosphere?
Absorption and re-emission of radiation in a freely convecting atmosphere cannot ‘trap heat’, as is claimed by the Royal Society, NASA and other augustly wrong bodies, no.
Okay, so just to be clear, you accept that the atmosphere can absorb, and then re-emit, radiation?
Absolutely, yes. We measure it all the time. The problem is, we’re so fond of measuring it, climatologists have come to think of the thing they measure as the cause, rather then the effect of the temperature of what’s doing the radiating.
Okay, so basically your argument against the greenhouse effect is entirely based on inappropriate terminology (there’s no roof and gases don’t trap heat)?
And that climatologists have got cause and effect muddled up, since everything radiates according to its temperature, not the other way round. And that the ‘effective emission altitude’ is an unmeasurable numerical fiction. And other physics the ‘greenhouse’ hypothesis mangles.
The problem (as far as I can tell) is that you’re basing your understanding of what climatologist thinks on the basis of simplified descriptions provided to illustrate the process, rather than on their actual understanding of the relevant processes.
I did degree level training in assessing scientific theories Ken, so don’t insult my intelligence. Whose description of the ‘greenhouse’ effect do you adhere to? Pierrehumberts?
And climatologists have mostly got PhDs in relevant disciplines and you somehow think they’re very confused about a fundamental aspect of their discipline? I think you’re confused about who is insulting other people’s intelligence.
Answer the question please. Whose theoretical basis for a radiative ‘greenhouse’ effect do you accept? There are several, and they conflict.
Ok. Just as @richardabetts won’t reveal the code he claims supports his contention that the effect of adiabatic heating on conduction is already in the MET-O model; you won’t even reveal which version of the radiative ‘greenhouse’ hypothesis you adhere to. You’re both charlatans.
Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/a-conversation-with-ken-rice-on-the-causes-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,599,496,467 |
| Stories: | 8,139,410 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
