How Te and T mean change with an atmosphere compared to no atmosphere.

This is actually very good and effective reasoning with a salient point at the end.
Worth publishing?
” That is why the effective temperature for Moon is so much higher Te =271K, than the satellite measured Moon’s mean surface temperature Tsat = 220K.
It is because they have not considered the Moon’s specular reflection.
As a result the theoretical Te for Moon was overestimated by 271K – 220K = 51oC”

Both the earth and the moon receive the same amount of radiation per square meter. 1361 W/M2 fact.

Both [reflection and emissions added] send 1361 W/M2 back into space per meter of disc or a quarter of this averaged over a sphere or half of this per meter averaged over a hemisphere. fact

The albedo of the moon 0.11
The albedo of earth 0.306 fact.

Specular radiation does not change this. Fact

The TE of the moon Te 270.4 C and that of the earth is Te 254 C due to the difference in the amount of light reflected only. Fact.

The Tmean and the Te for the moon surface are both measured at the moon surface as with virtually no atmosphere They are at the same level which is therefore the Moons TOA
The T mean is lower because the moon surface respective to the sun rotates extremely slowly hence the average of the cold and hot side surfaces is always lower than Te. Fact

The Tmean and Te for the earth or any planet with an atmosphere are measured at different levels.
A square meter at the earth surface is much larger at the Te height at the TOA.
Hence the surface of the earth radiates more energy per square meter and is hotter than the TE at the TOA where it is measured.

This is why the Earth is 33 degrees warmer.
It has an atmosphere with GHG whose absorption and emission profiles exactly match that needed to make the temperature differential occur.
Exactly. Fact

That is why we have radiative science and are able to measure temperatures from satellites. Fact

This would happen whether the planet is rotating or not. Fact

A rotating planet helps push the Tmean up to the Te for an airless planet
A rotating air planet is warmer than an airless planet at the surface
The Te does not change for an airless or air planet

Note the following conundrum or corollary and proof 17/3/2022.

Theoretically we could try imagine an atmospheric planet with a Te less than the Tmean.
All planets with no atmosphere have a Te higher than the Tmean.
All planets with an atmosphere should have a Te lower than the Tmean
Where does the crossover point occur?
The ingenious answer to this must be as soon as one designates a planet to have an atmosphere.
The Te must rise above the surface of the air planet yet fall below the Tmean of the the surface whether it is rotating or not.
This means that the TOA will always be higher in a rotating air planet.

Willis TOA

February 12, 2022 3:08 pm

I love TOA posts.
The topic has been raised by Willis on a number of occasions
and shows that most other people have fixed ideas and not many clues.
[This applies to me as well].

The first point is definition.
Where Is The Top Of The Atmosphere.
Cannot be answered without a definition of what is the TOA.
I note the proviso.
So just what is the TOA?
Reply to
February 12, 2022 3:20 pm

Willis includes a definition in his topic today.

(TOA) radiation at the top of the atmosphere . This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some of the sunlight is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the surface and the atmosphere.

The definition needs a number of important details added or clarified.
For instance is there a TOA on the dark side?
After all there is no incoming sunlight there.
Is the TOA a mathematical abstraction for the whole of the planet?
It is usually taken this way.
Is the TOA variable over the whole of the planet?
The TOA locally is higher when the amount of incident sunlight is higher.
How does one address the fact that there is not an easily definable TOA on the darkside?. Do we take the lit side and average it with the dark side?
And No.
The TOA can be considered as an averagefor the whole planet, treating it as a black-body [absorbed radiation] or as a grey body utilising albedo effect on the whole incident radiation.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 3:33 pm

Where Is The Top Of The Atmosphere.
Where is the TOA ?

A lot of different answers which is why I would appreciate an exact definition of which one we are discussing.

One answer is that we consider the amount of sunlight incident on a disc the circumference of the earth at a distance of one solar unit from the sun on a plane parallel to the centre of the earth.
The top of the atmosphere is then defined as the average distance to that spherical surface that energy would radiate from if that surface was at the blackbody temperature fot that energy received by the disc.


I doubt anyone can come up with a much better more exact definition although it has flaws.

Any takers?

A key flaw neglected by all is that the earth, having an atmosphere actually receives more energy that hits the atmosphere but missed the disc of the earth as that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere at the periphery but would miss the earth if there was no atmosphere.
The whole absorbing area is a disc of which the earth centre is only a major part.
I hope Willis factors this in.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 3:46 pm

There are two deeply conflicting ideas at play here.

One is the idea that an imbalance must exist because

• In order to restore the balance so that incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.

The other that physics absolutely dictates that the outgoing energy must equal the in-going energy.

There are time frames involved that suggest this is not so.
Physical observations that suggest this is not so
Leading to this statement that seems to make absolute sense.

• The amount of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane, CFCs, etc.) is increasing. • This absorbs more upwelling longwave radiation, which leads to unbalanced radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some of the sunlight is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the surface and the atmosphere.

However, boring everyone to tears,
The two ideas as stated are fundamentally incompatible.
Hence we ignore the very physics everything is based on
To go with a concept of plausible imbalance.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 3:54 pm

The two definitely coexist but are incompatible as we view physics on our intuition and observation.
One concept I have toyed with is that what we see on our time scale is not what is actually happening in the true time space continuum.
Just as the sun and the earth are travel ling in straight paths through time space but we see one orbiting around the other.
The explanation for this phenomenon is that distance and time warp.
If the time is the same the distance is different. If the distance is the same the time is different depending on frame of reference.

I could and have argued that what we see as a build up of energy is really just our perception and the reality is that the energy entering and leaving the system actually has to balance.

Crappy argument but the best example I could give for a possible divergence.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 4:06 pm

If not, what are we left with?

The definition of a TOA which is physically real rules out the very accumulation of energy that we see in the atmosphere.

Again physics V observation.

I point out that if a TOA exists, at the TOA , by any definition, the energy in always equals the energy going out.

Must. Should. Could. Does.

If not, do not call it a TOA..

To illustrate.
Shine a light on an object and turn it off and describe to yourself the energy flow.

I defy anybody to show how the energy stays in or on the object.
How after it is shone and turned off the object can legally retain any of that energy.
This is talking pure physics of energy and objects, and not solar batteries or internal energies, nuclear energies etc.

Again any takings arguing physics?
Reply to
February 12, 2022 4:26 pm

Hence as energy cannot be stored how can we talk about an energy imbalance?
There are three possible states?
Energy coming in.
Energy going out.
Energy going out coming back in and going out again.

At all stages they are equal
At the TOA specifically the actual amount of radiation out is the full amount the earth receives in

I could try to say that energy in equals energy out at all levels,not just at the TOA .
The reason the earth’s surface is hotter than the TOA is that the light and short wave that gets through is converted to IR at the surface [did not touch the atmosphere on the way through] and being back radiated heats the surface up much more than the atmosphere.
The thicker GHG atmosphere at the surface heats up the surface and itself until that outgoing energy reaches the level at which it is not blocked from going out.
No energy imbalance.
Everything is in balance.
Just the radiating surfaces are hotter which they have to be with that degree of radiation passing through
Not absorbed, Not stored.
R Ellison put it beautifully. The delay in that energy getting back out to space is microscopically small.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 4:36 pm

The upshot of this is that there is no
• In order to restore the balance so that incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.

The surface appears to warm up with radiation because we measure the temperature by measuring radiation, usually infra red.
What are we measuring?
We are measuring outgoing radiation.
The molecule has cooled down because that radiation has left it.
As we measure that it is it is warm no longer.
When there is back radiation we measure radiation and back radiation leaving those now cooler bodies.

So sure it is hotter when more sun comes in.
When there is more water and CO2 GHG causing more back radiation on the way out from the light that reached the surface unimpeded.
But no storage.
There is no retention.
No imbalance.
Reply to
February 12, 2022 5:10 pm

As a final comment, sorry Willis, for taking up so much space, consider the so called TOA measurements showing the so called but impossible imbalances.

Firstly they can be positive or negative, always.
Which means they are variations in the ability of the measuring instruments, not real.

There are two types of measurement, counting Earth shine estimations which agree poorly with Ceres particularly the last few years.
Satellites can and should take in most of the radiation from the earth.
Of course this means they would assess a TOA greater than what they claim to measure as they would get the radiation that hits the atmosphere outside of the disc of the earth, but who cares about a 3-10% discrepancy or adjustment due to this.
Does anyone know how this particular adjustment is done or do they even bother?

Roy Spencer has categorically asserted that the satellites make large errors in assessing IR in regions with cloud cover.
Large errors.
Anyone care to corroborate this?
Anyway the Satellites offer the best assessment even though they are 10% or more out.

“TOA fluxes based on ADMs from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) applied to the same CERES radiance measurements show a 10% relative increase with viewing zenith angle in the SW and a 3.5% (9 W/sq m) decrease with viewing zenith angle in the LW.”

To sum up,

Energy imbalance as a concept allows de novo creation of energy in the atmosphere [storage of energy] which then allows GHG propnents to claim extra warming can continue to occur when physically all the energy that comes in [and there is a heck of a lot over 8 minutes from the sun] has gone 8 minutes later
We merelt observe. like with a thermometer how much energy is in our local area.
The world warms up and cools down through 15- 30C range every day.
No batteries store it at night or during the day.


Fermat’s theorem solved correctly and simply.
Paper written on 28/12/2021.
By Dr H W. Lee. Mb, Bs

Fermat made a conjecture that no two positive numbers greater than 2
could be raised to a power greater than 2 and yet add together to form a third positive number to the same power.
This is trivially true due to the fact that when any two such numbers are added it creates an extra factor of 2 in the resultant third number.
which means that any reduction in the number by the power cannot be a positive complete number.
The easiest way to show this is to take two simple cubes such as 8 and 27 or a and b.
There is always a gap between the first and second cubes in any sum
The resultant addition is always the first cube added to itself plus the gap between the first and second cubes.
Therefore any cube has to equal the first cube doubled plus the gap between the first and second cubes.

Since both the gap b-a and and the first cube a are cubes
this can be written in 2 ways
2a^3 +b ^3
or 2b^3 +a^3
When a and b are two different numbers they add up to 2 different sums.

Thus the one simple sum of addition gives 2 different answers
If the numbers do add up to a third number it would have to be the same either way.
Since it is not, neither answer can be correct
so two cubes cannot equal a third numerical cube.

Further every a and b as a gap does form a cube with two cubes.
But only when those cubes are half of a real cube.
Hence 2[1/2 a^3] +b^3 = c^3 but only when the 1/2 cubes add to form a real cube.
Similarly 2[1/ b^3] + a^3 = c^3 but only when the gap is a half gap or cube
In other words for every gap b-a there is a cube c^3 which = 1/2 a^3
where two such cubes can form a cube but only if they themselves first add to a cube.

So when the cube is doubled it always has a factor of the square root of two as a cube and
therefore cannot form a cube with a numerical cube root when added to a cube with a numerical cube root.
When swapped around the same logic applies to the gap as a cube.
If it is a cube b^3 [ eg 19] then it will form a doubled cube 2b^3 that has to add to a cube a [8] to form a numeric cube and again,
as a doubled cube it cannot make a rational numeric cube root capable of adding to the gpa which is now the cube 8.

dave burton

daveburton | December 14, 2021

angech, it is specifically where the in going and outgoing energy fluxes are equal.
You know that.

Actually, I don’t know that, angech. That definition is new to me.
There is not necessarily any altitude at which the incoming and outgoing radiant energy fluxes to and from a particular location on the Earth’s are equal at any given time. On the night side, at most latitudes, outgoing flux is much greater than incoming (which is why temperatures cool after sunset). Conversely, on the day side, the outgoing flux is generally much less than the incoming flux.

Those are good points.
I think we should talk more about the definition of TOA to clear it up as others are definitely not understanding it

The problem is that TOA is actually a specific average flux figure for the whole of the planet,so the value does not vary depending on which side of the planet or which pole you are at.
Are you happy with that?

The TOA does vary in average height over the world depending firstly on the input radiation.
If the sun goes up a notch the TOA goes up a notch both in value and height.
Agreed on that?

I would guess that if albedo goes up so there is less incoming radiation that TOA value and average height go down.

Three out of three?

Now the tricky bit .
While the average height of the TOA is a specific figure the amount of energy going out increases as the amount of energy coming in increases during the day due to the sun being overhead.
The amount of energy hence the height of the TOA under the sun is quite large in value and quite high in altitude.
But it is in balance as it is measured where the two are in balance always
The TOA refers to the height of the atmosphere where the air is thin enough to allow as much energy out as came in.

Now the night side. though you do not see it, there is no heat source external to the atmosphere. The atmosphere still contains energy that is escaping to space all night long.
As long as the amount of energy going out

Nor are even the average fluxes necessarily balanced. Some places have positive average net radiative fluxes, and others have negative average net radiative fluxes, because air and water currents also transport heat.

Overall, the Earth is believed to have a current slight net energy imbalance at TOA (which NASA estimates at 0.6 W/m², but that’s pretty clearly too high).
No it is specifically where the in going and outgoing energy fluxes are equal.
You know that.
It therefor can be well within the earths atmosphere [night time cold side] but never above or outside the atmosphere.

Taken literally, it suggests some unspecified distance/displacement from the Earth’s surface or orbital path.

Not unspecified. It exists everywhere the fluxes are equal in and out all around the earth in the atmosphere.

Attribution ATTP

“I’m starting to better understand why some reasonable people are often concerned about the way in which the impact of extreme weather events are sometimes framed.”

How does one demonstrate that climate change has influenced the severity of an extreme weather event?
Are there politics involved in attributing extreme events and disasters to climate change?
Should we really be worried about the extreme events which by definition are bad and rare or as
smallbluemike might say worry more about the persistent long term general effects which are bad?

These are the questions that arise.
We have covered this ground a number of times before but it is still relevant.
Usually it is on the basis of assessment by Roger Pielke Jun v the assessment, usually bad, of a new paper on this subject.

Severity [of the event].
Damage now, compared to past and future.
Influence [once attribution is established].

I have argued, in the past, that extreme and severe weather events evade labeling and pigeonholing of these events in a useful manner.
Better to stick to the overall general changes that occur and cause problems if that is what one is looking for.

The problem with attribution is that general weather patterns due to climate change do not lead to predictable outcomes.
Because, weather.

Every argument that a cyclone or tornado might have been made worse falls on the side that the same changes might have made it better [less harmful].
The butterfly flapping its wings causes an event that though catastrophic could have been made better or worse by one flap more or less. No one can know. Speculation, worse rife speculation can be entered into but it is always, individually, a coin toss..

Warming we say has increased in the last 20 years.
Anecdotally I would say that tornadoes have been less frequent and deadly up till now over the last 15 years and cyclones the same.
When one calls out these extreme weather events as attributable to global warming now, and uses the example of the last 20 years, the argument falls flat.
This point can and will be soundly debated but the only result will be noisy opinions.
Not attribution.

Damage is another issue which is difficult to qualify for the reasons that ATTP put up plus population growth and the growth of more expensive things to damage.

Influence is the most interesting.
Once attribution is insisted upon , and damage, one can look at influence.
Here the jury has the option of looking at conditions and causation.
Two questions.
Does colder weather increase tornado frequency?
Does warmer weather reduce Hurricane frequency?


Christos Vournas | November 29, 2021 at 6:56 am |
“Hi angech.
What I would like to discuss is the planet theoretical blackbody temperature being a highest temperature a planet without-atmosphere average surface temperature may reach…
I very much disagree with that concept. That concept is expressed as:
Tmean ? Te which I disagree with.
What actually happens is:
Tmean ? Te for planets and moons with a lower planet surface and
Tmean ? Te for planets and moons with a higher planet surface ”

The best way is to conceive of a true BB [black body] temperature that would approach the SB concept in real life.
This can only be achieved by having a uniform globe of radiation around a planet.
Further the source of the radiation would have to be totally transparent to the radiation coming back out.
To prevent back radiation problems.
A bit like Willis’ steel globe model at WUWT but not really.[ that has back radiation.

In such a setting the energy in would truly equal the energy out. [apart from the Curious George random U235 and the internal heat of some planets type arguments].
This in itself creates other problems such as why the energy does not go into and be “stored” in the planet. as well as radiating out.
The answer that energy cannot be stored is easier here.
As it is in balance it is easy to see that what goes in on one side is coming out on the other side everywhere, even though standard physics says it is “heating up”.
What is actually happening is that the bucket is being filled rapidly and empties rapidly. The bucket in a higher energy transition state [energy in and out, not stored, appears to us as hot.
The true internal energy of mass does not change.
What we measure, as the temperature, is never the temperature of the mass but that of the energy being transferred through it.
What we see say a red sword going white hot or even melting is merely the difference in radiation coming out[which is what went in.
The state of the mass appears to alter, does alter in our world, but does not have any more natural internal energy. Mass is is unchanged still a one size bucket. , our perception of the mass is altered.

GHG help form a multi level layered surface capable of interacting with electromagnetic energy.
In an airless water less planet both the SW and IR hit the solid [if far enough away from the heat source] surface penetrating fewer but much more condensed layers of molecules for a few mm.
Albedo alone dictates how much SW is taken up.
The amount of energy absorbed is possibly over counted as albedo is generally considered to be visible light but it is possible that longer [and shorter] wavelengths might have some reflection as well but this is not mentioned by anyone.
One reason may be an assumption that IR is too widespread in its wavelengths to be capable of being reflected but this is possibly not true.

Ina planet with an atmosphere the level of absorption changes from a few mm to 100 kilometers or more. with most occurring in the final 10 kilometers.
This energy is not stored . Once it interacts with matter it moves back out.

On the way in and on the way out the energy,now a lot more at IR wavelengths can either reflect back out to space, move sideways or go further down.
The energy is not being stored, just continually being redirected.
The mass and the internal energy of the mass does not change [except in a nuclear reaction which is outside the scope of explaining existing energy transfer.
Consequently all the energy goes back out again at the rate it is coming in.
and extremely quickly.

If it did not do this it would buildup in an unstoppable storage feedback loop and become hotter than the original distant source.

We all know it does not and cannot do this or we would have a way of making infinite energy from a finite energy source.

I guess an easier way for people to try to understand this is to consider an impermeable, non conducting perfectly flat surface barrier.
It would have to send all the energy straight back where it came from.

A lot of imponderables here.
If EM had mass then it would have to make the mass it hit move further away due to the force it exerted.
If it reflects it would have to push the mass away twice as hard.
If it had mass the force it possesses would have to have a force vector which would demand one of the two results above.
If not then we would have to say that force meeting a mass reacts in two different ways.

One, a reversal of direction mediated without a change in the mass field settings.
This is possible if one considers a completely reflective [white body].
It does not change in temperature .

Two, a reversal of direction mediated by a change in the mass field setting.
This leads to the mass altering to change of position of where the mass appears to be [movement of a molecule].
At the same time the original energy is sent back in the same direction.

Where the EM energy goes deeper into a layer before being sent back a problem arises with potential reabsorption on the way out which could send it back in again.
Since there are more molecules on the way in than out all of the light will shortly be remitted to space.

GHG are molecules that absorb and re-emit energy rather than reflecting it.
The GHG effect is real and necessary as part of this system.

An argument against this is that there is a finite time between absorption and emission of energy in this setting. The problem with accepting this is that storage of energy would be admissable.
Another is the actual motion of the molecules.
A third the lag in temperatures changing direction after the longest and shortest days occur.

Which in turn would overturn the SB law, as far as I can understand.

I am still trying to work out a way to combine these two apparent opposites.

Tamino redux.

ecoquant | November 15, 2021 a
“In general extrapolation is a terrible way of “predicting the future.”
kinimod | November 16, 2021 at 12:34 pm |
“Extrapolation may be the best we have”

Hopefully Ecoquant can explain what he actually meant or in lieu of that explain a good method for prediction.

On a different note I still fail to see what Judith has said that is so upsetting.
“Judith Curry, showed a single tide gauge record, did no analysis at all, and said (quote) “Since 1910, sea level has been rising at a steady rate of 1.36 feet, or 16 inches, per century.”

If she states a range, 110 years?
and says there is a rate of 16 inches per century then the rate is 16 inches a century over that time gap.
Whether she characterizes it as an average rate or a steady rate for that time span the comment is perfectly acceptable for that time period.
Steady in that sense means average.

I have taken you to task in the past about your choice of mathematical models. Rough stuff from someone who lacks your expertise level in mathematics.
The problem in part is that mentioned by Ecoquant.
” Suppose there’s no knowledge of where breaks in a series are supposed to go?”
Worse suppose that 30 years is not the right metric at all?
Why not 60 or 120?
Redo your data at a 15 years different starting point.
At a different time interval.
Finally it is not right to select one set of data that you can see a pattern in and extrapolate it to a generalization on tides in general.
No matter how long the record.
Tides are complex. Erosion is complex, Land rise and fall is complex.
You have made a point but the very act of stating that it means something important to you destroys its validity.

One of the best to ask about my theorem but so driven by motivation.
[And I am not??]

C who are you?
F Your just a man….
G Your just a man…. G MIN Your just a man….
C who are you?
F Your just a man….
F In my G travelogue of C dreams C CMIN C

C MIN doo F doo rEPEAAT

In my travelogue of dreams.
Curtains fall Your coming home

Fancy cars a cadillac a catalogue of stars.
Drivin the machine
in my dream,
My machine
A catalogue, Cadillac
a kiss and cuddle in the back
and goodbye Mac

Who were you, Anyway.
Just another, just another memory
another man a mystery why you came why you stayed so LONG

your just another MAN in my catalogue of dreams

Climates changing
Hold on tight
Rainy days and rainy nights,
Never happened before.
Close, close that door
Hurricanes on every side, Mississippi flooding.
Droughts on the border
Happened all of sudden.
No law and no order.

liz entry

new coach
new team
new Silvagni
new dream
All of those dark days gone,
nothing but blue skies,
from now on
Go Blues and AFL

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming that would convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

Climate crisis is the term adopted by the IPCC to describe projected changes in the climate that they attribute to human activity.
The IPCC mandate was to examine Climate Change with particular emphasis on human causation.
The second part was to evaluate if this was harmful.
The third to advise on what to do about it if it was.

I must say it is difficult to initiate a study into something you believe is happening and then have results that show the 3 premises for your inquiry were not justified in the first place.

The IPCC faced an inordinate number of challenges in regard to this study to do it successfully, safely and satisfactorily.
The difficulty in their tasks was in establishing a satisfactory scientific understanding of climate and climate change.
Then how to estimate human influence, if any, on this. Then what the outcomes were likely to be from any influence.

To see where and why they got it so badly wrong needs a textbook , not an essay but a summary of such a textbook would go as follows.
Climate definition.
Factors affecting climate.
Human influence on such factors.
Projected outcomes of such human influence.
The need , if any, to take action to change human behaviour.

Everyone knows what climate is, even if they cannot describe it scientifically.
Climate is the environment we live in as humans around the globe.
There are 4 seasons due to the variation in orbit of the earth around the sun and its inclination and wobble.
We have day and night which vary over the year and seasons in their ratio to each other.
We have an oblate spheroid of a world two thirds covered by water and one third by land which varies in height above sea level.
The large bodies of water put a lot of moisture into the air which precipitates in some areas as rain.
The rotation of the earth leads to a rolling wave of heat below the sun which causes air to heat and rise giving formation of clouds winds and hurricanes at times.

The atmosphere is composed of nitrogren, oxygen, 3% of GHG water as water vapour and clouds and trace gases including another GHG CO2.