It’s always a pleasure to interact with Roger Pielke Sr. A climate scientist who is open to debate, respectful of honestly held opinion, and willing to concede ground where the facts dictate.
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·Nice to see sfc moist enthalpy that we proposed being added to the assessment of heat. “Outdoor Thermal Comfort and Building Energy Use Potential in Different Land-Use Areas in Tropical Cities: Case of Kuala Lumpur” https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/atmosphere/atmosphere-11-00652/article_deploy/atmosphere-11-00652.pdf… Our paper is https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-290.pdf…
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke·My experiment ended today Roger. It took 25ml of water at 20C at sfc pressure 12 days to evaporate compared to 2.5 hours at 20C in 266 times less pressure. What do you think really makes Earth’s surface ~90K warmer than the moon’s; GHGs or atmospheric pressure?
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·Pressure occurs from weight of air – hydrostatic relation. It certainly is part of the vertical distribution of T – ideal gas law. But GHGs result in a warmer temperatures than would otherwise occur – from radiative flux divergence. More GHGs, the warmer atmosphere becomes.
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke·OK, thank you. This is progress. All GHG based models predict mid trop warming faster than surface. It has to, to warm the surface. But has this been observed in sufficient magnitude?
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·The climate models quite significantly over predict observed warming as you and others have shown.
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke·52m I’m not gloating. There’s something more fundamental. Gavin Schmidt shows that climate models are not as far off at surface as they are at mid trop. But this is fatal for GHG theory itself. Where did the energy come from? Sun via cloud cover reduced by undocumented GHG effect?
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·That the surface has a different magnitude of trend than the troposphere clearly indcates the models are significantly incomplete in representing forcings and feedbacks. Unfortunately this is still mostly ignored in climate assessments.
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke·I’m encouraged. I want to demonstrate that pressure doesn’t just redistribute energy in the vertical profile, but raises absolute T at surface by impeding energy flows from land and ocean, causing the rise in T necessary to the emission of as much energy as arrives from the Sun.
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·Integrated global surface pressure is essentially constant. Has been for a very long time. Not sure why you propose pressure impedes energy transfers. There are significant issues with the models but I don’t see this as a robust hypothesis.
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke·I’m not arguing pressure drives decadal change in surface T (That’s clouds ;-)). I’m proposing pressure does most of the heavy lifting from Moon temp of ~198K towards 288K Earth sfc T. Please look again at calcs on right here. PV/Nr=T
Roger A. Pielke Sr@RogerAPielkeSr·We will just have to disagree on this. Earth’s surface is as warm as it is from the reduction of long wave radiative emission to Space due to atmos water vapor, CO2 & other GHGs. We see this occurring, for example, by comparing Tmin on nights with low dew versus high dew points.
Rog Tallbloke @RogTallblokeReplying to @RogerAPielkeSrYes, atmos water vapour keeps sfc warmer at night. BUT, the WV evaporated from somewhere, cooling the surface during the day. LW absorption/emission redistributes energy as well as pressure. BUT, look at the impedances, not just the W/m^2, for really big forces. Thanks for debate.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
June 25, 2020 at 02:39PM