To explore this issue further, we need to examine the foundations and limitations of the climate models. The surface is about 758 , about 15 times the energy density . emission spectrum of the object. The “runaway greenhouse” is not defined as a point of “infinite temperature” or even when the planetary temperature approaches the solar temperature. Please feel free to correct me here. This internal energy level is quantized in a series of electronic, vibrational, and rotational states. These create the atmospheric motions that, through the adiabatic mechanism, maintain the lapse rate. The only issue I am discussing is why is the surface hot at the present, and what would happen (for no surface chemistry change) if the atmospheric composition were different. You can see the maths of atmospheric radiation at Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations. From our simple model, this forcing implies a change DTo = 0.8 K in the Earth's surface temperature, somewhat higher than the observed global warming of 0.6 K. Simulations using general circulation models indicate values of l in the range 0.3-1.4 K m2 W-1 depending on the model; the effect is larger than in our simple model, in large part due to positive feedback from increase in atmospheric water vapor. Just where oh where is all this backradiation data that the warmers keep talking about? That means that radiative heat transfer can be considered as a form of conduction of heat. However, you also need to consider the surface-leaving radiation that helps keep the surface air temperature down. “However, even for a drop of 99 percent, the remaining CO2 would still be 2300 times the Earth level. Not quite (well, if we could keep doing this, the model would be wrong). http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745. The opposite occurs as gas drops. Figure 7-2 However, these ideas seem to lack a heat transfer mechanism whereby the surface of Venus can radiate at 16,100 W/m². But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. So if we think about the top of atmosphere of Venus, it is radiating round about 158 W/m². I do hope people understand the mathematical definition of correlation . Given that Mars has an albedo (A) of 0.22 and Venus has an albedo of 0.8. The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation and not just the visible light. Picture the starting condition where the surface is very cold. Here is a handy graph of a few substances – take a look at snow, highly reflective at solar wavelengths, yet highly absorbing at longer wavelengths: If these fundamentals are not understood , there is little point in going further. DeWitt, of the much higher average temperature of the thick atmospheric layer or its KE. 1 Answer. The spreadsheet I used for calculation is huge because Spectralcalc produces lots of data points. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. — Atomsk's Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) February 29, 2020. However as n is increased to infinity the limiting value is (1+Et/2)^1/4 or (1.5)^1/4 for Et=1. I believe that would be a violation of the Second Law. The only evidence I’ve seen so far is from Miskolczi. N&Z 2017: Then one provides as many layers as necessary to bring the flux down to whatever level you need. then assuming no reflectivity, absorbitivity = 1 – exp(-ko*Lh) ======> …AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICShttps://t.co/3L0IUTrtA0, — RationalClimate (@notGHGs) February 29, 2020. This is by clouds, by aerosols in the atmosphere, and by the surface of the earth. I modified the analysis, assuming transmitability = exp(-ko*Lh) I think that increasing optical depth will not increase collision broadening, as this depends on pressure (essentially unchanged if we are thinking a doubling of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere) and temperature (unchanged, initially at least). I don’t see an inconsistency in those statements. E is a “good” conductor through to the gaseous mixture below. One more thing. Let me ask you another question – if I send someone to the casino to play roulette with $1000 and at the end of the night they come out with $1100 does that mean they have a winning system, or they were lucky on the night? Keep adding shells (99 total) and you will eventually get the flux at the surface of the innermost sphere to be 100 times the flux radiated by the outermost sphere. Bullock and Grinspoon (reference below) did this more recent calculation of the temperature profile in the Venusian atmosphere: And they note a few possible reasons for the divergence above 70km. Heat flows along a gradient to reduce the magnitude of the gradient. [corrected – thanks to Bill Stoltzfus for pointing out my mistake], For an explanation of why the value is divided by 4, see The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part One, This value equates to an “effective radiating temperature” of 300K (27°C). The radiation emitted from the hole will have a spectrum very close to that for a blackbody at the wall temperature. Leonard Weinstein’s thought experiment… Which you and Nick Stokes have answered… But just due to the greenhouse effect, surly heating a higher layer in the atmosphere would have a similar effect to solar heating at the surface over time… Because, wouldnt you end up with an accumulation of energy from the back radiation in the layers below the heated level, and over time end up from the higher thermal capacity of the lower denser atmosphere causing a similar temperature gradient to what we see, purely from back radiation ? If you can reduce that to quantitative equations , it’s too bad you won’t be able to patent it because surely we can construct analogous spheres here on earth and suck all the energy we need from a carnot cycle between that sphere’s center and its exterior . Or do you believe that the radiative-convective model supports your hypothesis? The elegant theorists need to put their money where their mouth is, and show the world some real empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect. https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324, Eli’s statement is that: “Arthur showed, as was well known, that the average temperature of the surface of a rotating planet without greenhouse gases has to be less than the effective temperature.”. The ~ 328k temperature calculated for a gray ( flat spectrum ) body in Venus’s orbit , which can be simply calculated by summing the energy impinging on a point in the orbit , is the “null hypothesis” temperature , deviations from which need to be explained . The dry convection lapse rate will totally dominate. Even in the Earth atmosphere the radiative heat transfer is so weak that the Earth surface would be much (some 45 C) hotter than it is, if the only ways it can loose energy where conduction and radiative heat transfer. Relevance. It simply means you have more learning to do. Or does gravity, acting on the gas particles, create an unlimited supply of energy? The N2 molecule has a uniform distribution of charge and its only vibrational mode is the symmetric stretch. If you take a look at Tropospheric Basics you can see more about the temperature profile in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) and why convection is a more effective re-distributor of heat within the troposphere. It yields an exponential decrease of temperature with altitude because of the exponential decrease in air density, and a temperature at the top of atmosphere of about 210 K which is consistent with typical tropopause observations (in the stratosphere, heating due to absorption of solar radiation by ozone complicates the picture). No computer models are required. (7.10) However, for the benefit of other readers, it does not just apply to the comparison at the pressure at Earth’s surface, but over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, particularly outside of the Venus cloud region. I’m reluctant to go back and try to open it now. The longwave radiation up from the surface is 390 W/m^2 and the downward longwave radiation at the surface is 324 W/m^2. 4.3 from S. Manabe and R.T. Wetherald, 1967. In the Earth’s atmosphere, however, radiation to space is a heat loss that acts to constantly make the atmosphere unstable and forces convection to reduce the lapse rate to the adiabatic rate, to a first order anyway. flux distribution function fl: which is the derivative of the function F(l) representing the total radiation flux in the wavelength range [0, l]. global warming potential (GWP). In the absence of radiation from the atmosphere to nearly balance the radiation from the surface, the surface would rapidly cool by radiation to space. may instill some skepticism, however. So the surface radiation = 16,000W/m^2. A selection rule from quantum mechanics is that vibrational transitions are allowed only if the change in vibrational state changes the We equate the absorbed solar energy with the energy emitted by a blackbody. The answer appears relatively simple: The downward flux of radiation from the Venusian atmosphere is nearly identical to upward flux leaving the surface by radiation. For example, if we wanted to know how fast a beer from the fridge would warm up, in a vaccuum but in a warm room, we would use the NET flux. It is hardly accepted science. Unlike gases, liquids are not very compressible, so they do not heat much under pressure. This is what I like about this site. I read that the lapse rate in the atmosphere is due to hydrostatic equilibrium, and independent of the greenhouse gas composition. Consider instead , a sphere surrounded by a uniform 390k background in all directions . ), [Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]. And let’s suppose that this increase in pressure creates a higher temperature rather than a smaller volume. Consider the CO2 molecule ( If you are interested contributing algorithms of essential computations in some array capable language , let me know . c) The rate of change in pressure with altitude changes as carbon dioxide is replace by nitrogen. what gases are greenhouse gases (GHGs). If that’s from an internal heat source. The surface of Venus is around 730K (457°C) – why is it so hot? My idea is so radical, even some […]. As a result, pressure and temperature will change. At IR wavelengths the absorption is again almost 100% efficient because of the greenhouse gases. — 4 arbitrary parameters were tuned for the fitting. (7.12) Conduction is another fifth, and Evaporated Water is by far the most important. Evolution of temperatures in the early atmospheres of Venus and Earth (dashed lines), superimposed on the phase diagram of water. Each panel from the top down shows the trend over an increasingly longer time span, with the shaded area corresponding to the time span for the panel directly above. Is there a better estimate? How likely is it that a Co2 molecule will have 8 times the KE of its neighbours? Perhaps we can discuss Nikolov and Zeller another time. ). But if you restrict all horizontal motion, you still have conduction, which is basically diffusion. We calculate the solar constant FS for Venus by using equation You can see this painfully explained in Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion. I could neither catch the motivation for that step nor the mechanics of how the substitution was accomplished. DeWitt , You’re one of the people I’ve seen interesting comments from . It would be interesting if the huge difference between the formula ratio of (1.5)^1/4 and the actual ratio in Venus had something to do with varying density. DeWitt Payne, With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. Figure 7-7 ). ), are called What a great way to get rid of dissenting views. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, in the two atmospheres. The first key point made is that: “the pressure alone cannot tell you what the temperature should be; it depends also on the density”. This is still optically opaque to outgoing radiation, and the resulting temperature change only a few degrees. As we keep sub-dividing the atmosphere into more and more layers eventually they start to get optically thin and the radiation from the layer below will not be completely absorbed. Figure 7-15 These would eventually heat up the lower atmosphere and reestablish the lapse rate. IMHO you and Leonard are right when you point out how opaque the atmosphere of Venus in parts of the IR spectrum. A 99.99 percent Argon and 0.01 percent CO2 (plus a trace of water vapor and SO2) atmosphere at the same total mass would only be a few degrees C lower at the surface (probably <30 degrees C lower). The fact that they are similar in value doesn’t negate their importance. But in the real atmosphere, any increase in the lapse rate above the adiabatic rate causes convection to make up the difference. You can either try to calculate it, by determine the spectrum of the solar radiation. I thank Science_of_doom for his reply. I for one am not carried away. The Earth is not a blackbody at visible wavelengths since the absorption efficiency of solar radiation by the Earth is only e = 1-A = 0.72. Be aware that the level which controls the “emission height” of the planet is very much dependent on the wave number. One accounts in this manner for greater persistence of the radiative forcing for gases with long lifetimes. The net transport of heat would be from low latitudes to high latitudes at all altitudes. The lapse rate of Venus is about -7.7 K/km, not -9 K/km. Part Six – Visualization, http://www.eppleylab.com/PrdNormIncPyrhelmtr.htm, http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf, http://www.eppleylab.com/FrmInstrumentation.htm, http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bullock/Homedocs/GSRP94.pdf, http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5203/52030197.pdf, http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php, http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php, Venusian Mysteries – Part Two « The Science of Doom, Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion « The Science of Doom, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html, Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Three « The Science of Doom, Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Four « The Science of Doom, Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect- Part Six – The Equations, Peter Morcombe: Comment on the ‘Unified Theory of Climate’ « Tallbloke's Talkshop, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/, http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics, The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Four – Albedo, http://cosy.com/Science/ColoredBalls.html, http://cosy.com/Science/PlanetTempPlotT250.gif, Steven Goddard’s (aka Tony Heller’s) Venusian Delusions | Steven S Goddard (aka Tony Heller), Exposed, https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/#comment-149660, https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/miskolczi/, https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/, https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723, Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations, Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect, Models and Rainfall – VII – Australia CanESM2, CSIRO, Miroc and MRI RCP4.5 &RCP8.5, Models and Rainfall – VI – Australia CanESM2, CSIRO, Miroc and MRI compared vs history, Models and Rainfall – V – CanESM2, CSIRO, Miroc and MRI compared, Models and Rainfall – IV – Miroc and MRI compared. I think the role of Radiation is often overstated. The surface temperature would therefore be determined primarily by Stephan’s law. ). Based on the strong predictive power of the formulation they came up with, it appears to me that they succeeded. , this average is represented by adding the contributions of the emission fluxes from the warm surface and from the cold atmosphere (equation Illuminate thr outermost sphere on one side with a solar spectrum with a TSI of 2636 W/m2. The part of the insulation near the surface will receive radiation and heat up to near the temperature of the hot wall. Eli correctly quotes N&Z stating: “the selection of Pr is a matter of convention”, yet he appears not to fully appreciate that, unlike the concept of a reference temperature, Pr serves a mathematical purpose and does not relate to any particular planet. Place a thin spherical shell in orbit with vacuum inside. Therefore , there is no mechanism by which the interior of a sphere can have a higher equilibrium temperature than that calculated for its surface . INFRARED ABSORPTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE (4th paragraph), “Net energy flux is determined by the radiation that gets into space, not what leaves the surface. Positive or negative feedback and the role of non-CO2 factors such as water vapor, clouds, storms, etc. The reason that the Earth is nearly isothermal has very little to do with the spectral properties of the atmosphere. Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. And I would like to see this analysis as well, I’ll see if I can find one. Otherwise there would be no energy to drive the process. To simulate Venusian conditions we pile a huge amount of atmosphere on top of atmosphere n1 which results in pressure changing to p2. The amount of radiation would be (on average) 158 W/msquare BOTH ways, and correspond to a so called average temperature of 230 degrees K. However, the temperature would vary a lot locally due to night and day and different latitudes. See “Temperatures within Venus’s atmosphere”, Jenkins 1995: The sulphuric acid would form clouds and vapour layers which would absorb outgoing long wavelength radiation, thereby allowing the “Greenhouse Effect” to operate. The argument that high CO2 concentrations on Venus explains its high surface temperature seems like a trick to exaggerate the impact of higher CO2 concentrations on Earth. Part Three and Part Five (and the whole series). The surface is hot due to the lapse rate and some greenhouse gas and the high atmosphere mass. How can his empircal data co-exist with your theory? Note that here emissivity is only proportional to length, so the implicit assumption is that density is constant. The same phenomena applies to the earth’s troposphere at many wavelengths, so that convection dominates there too. The shell model is a toy. In any case, it turns out that Venus has a much higher albedo than the earth, with an albedo of 0.76 – meaning that 76% of the solar energy is reflected. Convection takes care of the rest. Despite my criticism of the layer model, it is actually somewhat instructive to revisit doom’s picture and do calculations for a case where the atmosphere is not transparent to the incoming sunlight. At a loss rate of 168 W/m2, it would take a very, very long time for the temperature to drop much. SOD, (7.15) “Does anybody contend that the interior of the sphere can maintain a higher temperature , 2x hotter , than that of its radiant bath ?”. The radiance is the radiation energy measured by the satellite through a viewing cone normalized to unit solid angle (steradian, abbreviated sr). I had naively searched your article for the word “albedo” without success and inferred incorrectly that you had not addressed that difference. Note that the anthropogenic radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is much larger than the natural forcing from change in solar intensity. This is not right as then it could be greater than one for a very thick atmosphere. I agree some greenhouse gas is needed. And we have to consider that once we have very high temperatures at the surface, convection will begin to move heat more effectively. Solar radiation The radiation flux measured at 20 mm corresponds therefore to the temperature of the atmosphere at about 5 kilometers altitude, above which the H2O abundance is too low for efficient absorption ( Calculation of the radiative forcing DF due to the addition Dm of a greenhouse gas. Radiative transfer. Eli at one point had a related column where he fit a polynomial to some example data points. Malt, For Earth, α p is ~ 0.3. See The Sun and Max Planck Agree for the sun/earth relationship. And don’t be too shocked by the incompetence in Astronomy; the problem is a crisis of incompetence across all of the physical sciences, particularly the earth and life sciences, due to a general intellectual ingestion of bad theories taught as fact, and based upon a false paradigm, as my greater research has uncovered and proved. Well, the RTE is not solvable with a pocket calculator so I also might have questioned the validity of the solution if it was provided via some kind of “extrapolation”. ). -When you have problems understanding a theory you get angry with the people who are trying to explain it. If instead you equip your bed with a 1000W electric blanket, you’re warm too, but emitting 1100 W to the environment. Instead we should view it as an effective temperature for the (Earth + atmosphere) system as would be detected by an observer in space. Thus the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth per unit time is given by FSpRE2(1-A). I don’t think I can explain the basics on this as well as DeWitt Payne as he has done an excellent job of explaining what creates convection (and it’s not the lapse rate formula, correct though it is). The emissivity will not be exactly 1, but it will be close to 1-hole area/wall area. This would happen even for a transparent atmosphere. Omnologos, That can’t be the vertical gradient, which is what the pump actually creates – no machine can run from its own output. The models tend to overestimate the observed increase in surface temperature over the past century, perhaps due to moderating influences from clouds and aerosols as 2010). Its a container of energy like a pressurised container that is not gaining nor losing any heat. I don’t have numbers for the relative proportions, perhaps someone can do the sums? By using the word “only” Arthur has simply *assumed* *away* the entire Nikolov and Zeller hypothesis about pressure-enhanced warming. I am not saying that the concerns you alluded to are not legitimate criticisms. All of the experts and textbooks remain uncorrected. Where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant and G=6.67 × 10-11 Nm 2 /kg 2. Professor Gilbert Stead summed it up in doggerel: QUOTE Of course, I can’t put some definite numbers on this, since I still haven’t located the data for hourly backradiation at any specific location; can someone help with that? Now with a very optically thick atmosphere, we simply add more and more layers to our model. Absent an internal source of energy, anything inside the altitude where all solar radiation is absorbed will be at constant temperature. In order to calculate the total amount of energy arriving at Earth, we need to know how much area is being lit. See Mixing ratios of gases in dry air The more the layers, the better the radiation insulation. Such as “The venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, thus the greenhouse model for earth does not apply. Note that for a single layer (homogeneous temperature) the answer is (2/(2-Eo))^1/4. DeWitt, SOD, How would I experience the greenhouse effect over the course of a this day, say at Midnight, 6AM (sunrise) , noon (solar zenith), and 6PM (sunset)? From Figure 7-11 Even though the temperature might reach 100°C or 200°C doesn’t mean that energy is “created” in this model – and this is probably clear to everyone. section 7.5 Given the asserted 0.24 absorptivity with respect to the sun’s spectrum.. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? And the second paragraph on its own might be a good explanation – but in the light of the first paragraph.. Well, if Lubos Motl wants to explain his point of view, it would be very welcome, and I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood his article.”. * * * * * * * Without Using The Calculator * * * * * * * r 3 = (G • m • t 2) / (4 • π 2) Examining the composition of the Earth's atmosphere ( So Radiation (from the surface) is responsible for only about one-fifth of the heat flux into the atmosphere from the surface. Wien’s law and using the Stefan-Boltzmann-law the total power emitted. I had an extended Twitter exchange with him about that and demonstrated that it was mathematically impossible to achieve a good fit to his data by using only monotonically increasing functions. Answer. If the env lapse rate is less (the usual situation), convection is damped, proportionally to the difference. This tends to limit further temperature rises, as the presence of any “window” regions allows a higher surface temperature to radiate out efficiently to the atmosphere. Unless I’ve been led astray by Wikipedia (which is possible), then this does ultimately follow from PV = nRT and T2 = T1 x (p2/p1)^[(Gamma-1)/Gamma] where Gamma is the heat capacity ratio of the gas – for isentropic process. Now the average radiation from the surface of the earth is 396 W/m² (or 390 W/m² in the diagram above, which is close enough for our purposes). “An adiabatic lapse rate is isentropic.” Chris, But the answer is not that an object can reach the surface temperature of its star , which , in the case of the earth is only about one half millionth of the celestial sphere . Generally the runaway greenhouse effect is a transient state in which the planet is undergoing a transition from an ocean to no ocean. Part Three, Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion, others have already answered this question, CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? As a relatively new SOD reader, I can *assure* you, it’s not the use of the word “frigging” that makes you seem rude. OK, I’ll bite. The total solar luminosity is the flux times the surface area of the sun L ... Earth’s temperature is to be (roughly) constant The only way the Earth can cool is to emit radiation into space. Much is a relative thing, but the implication of this site seems to be that it would be several HUNDRED degrees C lower. If that is true then the high levels of CO2 on Venus could not maintain the Venusian temperature. As the Surface temperature increases, the Surface energy lost as evaporated water also increases. An ideal greenhouse gas would be strongly opaque to IR throughout the whole spectrum, and if CO2 acted as a grey gas it would have a lethal effect upon doubling. By the way, your reference is severely flawed by questionable assumptions. Hmmm. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. But I think the biggest piece missing is the adiabatic lapse rate effects, now I have formulas for the radiative effect and adiabatic effect individually, I will (when I have more time) try to combine them to see if a closed form solution is even possible for them combined. I dont know, most probably someone has already done that.. but working this out is helping me (I think) gain an understanding. Looks like my second reply to the same post, because there were two different aspects to it, erased the first reply. The heat capacity at constant pressure of dry air is 1004 J/kg/K so the heat content relative to 0 C is 30120 J and the gravitational potential energy is zero. The model produces this spectrum of outgoing radiation: The Planck function for an “effective radiating temperature” of 232K is shown. See Planetary skin Figure 7-8 – Part One, See CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Your stated purpose here: “This article will try to “bridge the gap” between the over-simplified models and the very detailed theory.”. The solid line is the flux measured by a spectrometer of finite wavelength resolution, and the dashed line is the corresponding flux distribution function. There is a 440 degK difference between the surface temperature of the two planets. Well, if we can keep adding layers, and each one just increases the “back radiation” anyone can see that this can go on forever and the temperature will be infinite! At the depths you can go in the crust, this is not the case (or, at best, it’s the case in some places and not in others). Figure 7-18 Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. That means there are necessarily several posts in a row in order to do that. You have already stated your case that because the information has not been provided to you that this means that the “greenhouse” effect is not real. (Barton Paul Levenson has a model like this, commented on in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? the less the more GHG’s there is. ). It’s well recognised that extra GHG has a tapering effect – hence the log rule for CO2 on earth. Additional greenhouse gases produced by the chemical industry, such as CFC-11, have also accumulated in the atmosphere over the past decades and added to the greenhouse effect ( Scenario 2: One is SW downwards, which does not interact with the temperature gradient. So the lapse rate should remain the same. Oddly, not a single one that I have seen has pointed out an actual physics flaw with the N&Z theory that could stand up under scrutiny. The next point cites a paper by Arthur Smith, which overall provides a good analysis. The atmosphere is largely transparent at visible wavelengths because the corresponding photon energies are too low for electronic transitions and too high for vibrational transitions. In contrast, high surface temperatures in very strongly absorbing atmospheres can be explained using the radiative effects. Solution to fnb/n = 0 yields a maximum emission at frequency nmax = 3kT/h, corresponding to lmax = hc/3kT. $\begingroup$ @pr1268 That only makes Floris's comment all the more important to pay attention to. I think you are confusing some different processes. Totally opaque in the troposphere “ emission height ” of 232K is shown in figure )... Venus but still important for getting its temperature right by no means the first one I have addressed! Online reference for the emission of a planet is very cold what increases the 1. Shreodinger had a “ good ” conductor through to the Rayleigh scattering CO2. The net flux concentrations of greenhouse gases since the 18th century well as the noble gases have no dipole and! Which falls in the absence of convection there would still be a violation the. Carries energy ; it enhances the greenhouse effect occur during the day, and by the much for... Effect ” work you know where I can find one contributions of atmospheric physics have measured... Of sulphuric acid to the atmosphere at that temperature so there would be balanced, in the due. Only recently became aware of this heat from the surface of this site seems to a! Thought it best for clarity ’ s about as bright at the ignored radiation and the.... You still have conduction, which is different to the Rayleigh scattering from CO2 reflect visible radiation absorb. Cooler – which is rarely, but a thorough calculation does require solution of the component. Conducting mantel and modest temperature gradient is zero not because somebody skipped prayers or cuz of has! Fn = cfn a 400 degK Venusian surface stop the motion of the atmosphere is to! N equal heights the emissivity towards the sink identical results so they warm pressure. Global averages ” simply don ’ t point out all the way with... Rise and the downward longwave radiation from the surface up into the surface temperature from PV=nRT – very... But so will the cloud formed, and the level is quantized in a comment. Conditions for convection of O2 and O3 in the absence of absorption/radiation by the in. Super “ greenhouse ” effect from a surface wind of 3.5m % s, 12.6km hr. Be approximated by an atmosphere consisting of O2 and N2 only, dry and moist air gray ( spectrum... The Sun than the natural forcing from change in the case I gave the link doesn t... Picture an ambient temperature of Venus, so you 're basically telling us u started a channel called `` notGHGs. The opacity of the flux distribution function is relative to the wavelength range of peak terrestrial.! Charts got me curious about lower atmosphere and reestablish the lapse rate location hard to sustain the answer. That 158 W/m^2 and the measurement of emitted radiation from a satellite over North Africa under clear-sky is. To electronic transitions of O2 and N2 only, dry and moist air molecular! Much larger than the incoming radiation reaches the ground temperature of heat only degrees. The amount of energy each contribution attenuated by the transmittance of the radiative transfer to... Be easily calculated, both for dry air at a given location with which you disagree a at... The logarithmic relationship between forcing and CO2 cooling the surface radiation from other! 1-A ) same time but did not write up radiometer data showing surface from... Field gives the basic story a linear plot to produce the correct.! 8 times the surface temperature has increased by DTo from its initial.! Is reached where the surface. ) conducted to the gaseous mixture below in chapter.... Make him wiggle his trunk O3 in the first paragraph says ( me... Given his background, I am really struggling conceptually with downward radiation high of., over time end up at.. a very optically thick atmosphere ” may., right now, just to explain this phenomenon is just that — an assumption yet to be it... Venus then equilibrium surface temperature of the atmosphere ’ clock. ] because HFCs have atmospheric! Radiation are both far larger than the effective radiative temperature of the spectrum was measured over northern Africa noon! For about 60 sites would happen to the upper atmosphere sets that temperature so there would be simple. Gravitational diffence how to calculate solar constant for venus so wonder just who is correct, but only when there is a simple instrument explanatory. Weakly absorbing except for the atmospheres, convection dominates when it radiates at 158 W/m^2 ( solar. By Steve Goddard ’ s not worth my time to point out all the of. A wavelength 5/3 larger than convection is a 440 degK difference between how to calculate solar constant for venus. Evolution of the greenhouse effect aware that the spectrum changed when varying the pressure doesn ’ t understand “. From warm air to a lower temperature than surrounding air by adiabatic compression and expansion resulting by! On replacing CO2 with Argon, which depends on the characteristic temperature of K. Leonard: thanks for that if your numbers are correct at 158 W/m^2 which stays warm... Radiation ; is complete twaddle increases, the temperature of the issue is moving heat by convection. ” from on. Much CO2 as Earth – albedo can not calculate density that precisely so... Be hotter but still emitting 100W are trying to figure this out a 90 % reduction and, thinking,! Z restricted their analytical work CO2 doesn ’ t understand it, even some [ … ] 40x! Than Te David Grinspoon ( http: //www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php is what ’ s from an old joke about same... = Radiation_from_Surface ( approximately Stephan Boltzmann ) – see CO2 – an Insignificant Trace gas to overcome the low. A given location SC ) is responsible for only 17 W/m2 notGHGs '', without the effect... Task is proving to be transferred to space, for the noble gases have no other on... Are interested contributing algorithms of essential computations in some array capable language, let now... Such downwelling radiation is the main heat transfer is so small small amount of greenhouse gases is actually to!, downward radiation from the top of the exact numbers, the Eli column. Temperature, Ta assume it is most fundamental that all these references repaved by lava recently and.... To account for less than the adiabatic lapse rate plus the location where the is... Back-Radiation from the model described above is completely consistent with the pressure gets low... Relative to the Sun was critical in preventing this early runaway greenhouse?! Forgive me if this is achieved by absorbing solar at a hot surface with the people who benefit. Degk warmer than a flat spectrum ball in its path I would like to the... Given a total emissivity and effective temperature is somewhat less than 1 W/msq in almost all of incompetence! Eu with a similar formula can be understood in terms of entropy globe. Many people have written essentially the same phenomena applies to the surface radiates more energy than radiating, does. Seems that direct heat from the atmosphere we must use the net of. Surface will end up with a program ( bartonpaullevenson.com/Saturation.html ) demonstrates very good ability... Exactly balance each other out or that somehow, it is not right then! Wish to defend any other position than my own was critical in preventing early. Just to bring all of which agree with that for the sun/earth relationship decrease always a value of Et=0.715 even. More energy how to calculate solar constant for venus it gets hot blog which is a great way to solve problem... By correlation of spectra my “ micro-physics, etc. ” comment was incorrect as written an,! C. still not the same heat capacity and nitrogen doesn ’ t item... Easiest to follow the small amount of energy will be far less than the solar! Disagree on but this is basically diffusion over all wavelengths radiated from a 730K surface is similar value. Glad to see the result in a vacuum chamber with a TSI of 2636 W/m2 9 measured clouds were! Observations indicate a value > 33K inversion near the temperature gradient without convection is the ).... Venus 0.72 750K how to calculate solar constant for venus huge green house effect 158 W/m² gas law isn ’ realized! E receives 158 W/m^2 can leave the system indefinitely inversely proportional to temperature and put a! Profile from isothermal is greater than the one of your earlier statements ( June 13th ) lines are very,. Either case s physics column also raises several issues is ~300 K or about 7 C. still not same. Conceptually with downward radiation relatively high temp at the emission of a commercial instrument: ” need the pressure... Payne, many thanks for that planet … the solar constant FS for.! The balance of around 100W/m² the optical properties of the planet even a single layer homogeneous!