COULD THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT BE DUE SIMPLY TO HEAT STORAGE

PHENOMENA?

ABSTRACT

An energy/mass-balance model is presented to account for the greenhouse

effect. It is demonstrated that daily temperatures in July and December at a wide
variety of locations can be understood by considering only the amount of solar
energy used by photosynthesis and the amount of heat stored by the air column.
The temperature at a given location is determined primarily by the amount of
solar insolation that reaches the surface. The amount absorbed directly by the
air column is much smaller, but is also significant. The energy from this
insolation heats the air and water vapor in the air column. It is demonstrated that
first 5-7 km of the troposphere has plenty of heat capacity to store all the heat
generated by solar radiation during the day in July. In December all the heat can
be stored in an air column that is about half that high. Thus, the natural
greenhouse effect can be explained simply as the capacity of the air column to
store heat. This is similar to the construction of a home with thick concrete walls
to retain some heat at night. Under this concept, all gases are greenhouse
gases, to the extent that they store energy. Water vapor is the best one because
it holds twice as much energy as N2 and O2. This explanation of the
greenhouse effect does not contradict the radiative models, insofar as they
explain the average temperature of the Earth and measure the amount of
radiation that occurs. However, there is no need to invoke special infra-red
“convective-radiative” models to explain how the greenhouse effect works. Since
CO2 is present at such small concentrations and has a very low heat storage
capacity, it plays an insignificant role in storing heat. Therefore, it has a
negligible greenhouse effect.

Hard (well-agreed-upon) Assumptions:

Cp (heat capacity) water (liquid)= 4.184 joules/ml/k

Cp water vapor = 2.0 joules/g/K

Cp dry air = 1.0035 j/g/K. The amount of water vapor in the air is so small, that
its effect on Cp of air is considered negligible.

Heat of vaporization for water = 2500 joules/gram

1 joule = 2.778 e-4 watt-hr

Expansion of air due to a change in temperature = delta T/273

The equations used to determine air density at a given temperature and elevation
are provided here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Effects_of_temperature_and_pressure

Soft (Tuneable) Assumptions:

Ten percent of incident solar radiation energy is used for photosynthesis in July in
moist areas and in December in subtropical areas. The amount used for this
purpose in dry areas in July and most areas in December is considered
negligible.

In all areas the amount of energy absorbed by the surface during the day is
released to the atmosphere at night.

On average, all the daily energy received by the sun which is not used for
photosynthesis ends up in the air and water vapor column above the surface
(land only). This means that all latent heat of vaporization is transferred back to
the air and water vapor column through condensation in the air (clouds and rain)
and dew formation.

Temperature decreases roughly linearly with altitude to a height of 10 km, or so

(lapse rate). It is assumed that the amount of energy in the air column also
decreases linearly with altitude (Steffan-Boltzmann relationship is nearly linear
between + 40 C to -40 C).

The solar insolation in very dry and cloudless areas in July is about 11.4 kwh/day
over most of the “lower 48” states. In moist and cloudy regions, the insolation is
around 7-8 kwh/day, indicating that clouds are reflecting radiation and the
atmosphere (water vapor) is absorbing radiation. In this analysis, it is assumed
that 50 percent of the energy difference between 11.4 kwh/day and actual
insolation at the site is absorbed by the atmosphere. Similarly, it is assumed that
the insolation above the clouds is 6 kwh/m^2 in December.

The average lapse rate in dry areas is -6.5 C/km, and the average lapse rate in
moist areas is -5.5 C/km.

The calculations apply only to locations on land, not over water.

Albedo is ignored for the purpose of this discussion.

Considerable changes have to be made in these assumptions to make a

significant difference in the results of the calculations. And such changes just
affect the magnitude of the numbers, not the concept. It is the concept that is
important here.

2
I recognize that there may be some errors in the assumptions and calculations,
but I have to start somewhere.

Calculations of the heat storage (“greenhouse effect”) for Jackson, MS on

an average July Day.

From the Data Table in the HeatStorage.xls spreadsheet: Average minimum air
temperature in Jackson in July is 21.4 C, and average maximum is 33.6 C, for a
diurnal variation of 12.2 C. The average temperature is 27.5 C.

Total average daily solar insolation in July in Jackson is 7.8 kwh/day. The energy
required for photosynthesis, assuming 10 % of available energy = (0.10)(7,800) =
780 watt-hr/day. This leaves 7,020 watt-hr/day to heat the surface and air
column and to evaporate moisture.

From the calculations in the spreadsheet, the average air density in Jackson
(elevation 101 m) at the average air temperature of 27.5 C is 1.16 kg/m^3.

To heat 1m^3 of dry air by an average of 12.2 C, it takes (1,160 g/m^3 air
density)(12.2 C)(1.0035 j/g/k)(2.778 e-4 watt-hr/joule) = 3.93 watt-hr/m^3.

The extra heat will have expanded the air by delta T/273 = 12.2/273 = 0.045 m^3.
Thus, it is necessary to correct the amount of energy it took to heat 1 m^3 air by
(1-0.045)(3.93 w-h/m^3) = 3.75 w-hr/m^3.

If the remaining energy is apportioned to an air column with the same density as
the surface, its equivalent height would be 7,020 watt-hr/m^2/3.75 watt/hr/m^3 =
1,872 meters.

Average solar insolation in Jackson in July is 7.8 kwhr/m^2/day. Assuming that

at least 11.4 kwhr/m^3/day is available above the clouds (similar to the insolation
in very arid areas), then 11.4 – 7.8 = 3.6 kwhr/m^2/day is absorbed by the
atmosphere or reflected by clouds. Assuming 50% is absorbed, then the
equivalent of another (3,600 kwh/m^2)(0.5)/(3.80 w-h/m^3) = 474 m of air can be
heated by 12.2 C. Adding that to the 1,872 m above gives a total equivalent
column height of 2,346 m.

The 2,346 meter air column height still assumes a constant amount of energy in
each m^3. If a linear decrease in energy with height is assumed (due to
convection, adiabatic expansion, and radiation escaping to space), then this
would be the level with the average energy, and the effective height would be 2
times this height, or 4,692 m.

So far, it has been assumed that air density is constant, when it actually varies
almost linearly with height. Using the formulae in the spreadsheet, it can be
shown that the average air density between the surface at Jackson (101 m elev.)

3
and 4,692 m is about 0.94 kg/m^3. This average density is (1,170/940) = 1.244
times less dense than at the surface. Correcting the column height for average
density gives (4,692 m)(1.244) = 5,836 m for the total column height that is
heated during the day. Adding the elevation of Jackson, 101 m gives 5,938 m for
the height of the column above sea level.

Notice that simple heating of the air column can account for all of the energy that
is “soaked up” by the ground, water and atmosphere in a day. The air and water
vapor in that air provides the greenhouse effect simply by storing energy for a
day. It is all lost again at night through radiation to space (of course, during
transitions between, say, spring and summer, less is lost at night than is gained
during the day).

This analysis does not invalidate the radiative models, to the extent that they can
account for the average temperature of the Earth. Indeed, the same radiative
balances would be preserved by this simple heat storage concept. But there is
no need to invoke the so-called “radiative-convective” model which accounts for
“downwelling” and “upwelling” infrared radiation from greenhouse gases as the
atmosphere gets more “opaque” to IR, as described by Wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.

The special convective-radiative balance mechanisms only consider convection

via the lapse rate and actually ignore other convective effects (as admitted early
in the Wikipedia article). This could easily be why the climate models are falsely
indicating that the mid troposphere should warm more than the surface. The
model described here assumes convection is the dominant factor in heat transfer.

Indeed, if heating were caused by the atmosphere becoming more “opaque” to

infrared radiation, as the “radiative-convective” models posit, then there should
be much more heating from water vapor (the most important “greenhouse gas”)
in very humid environments than there is in arid environments. This is clearly not
the case, as demonstrated in my other papers on this site (the maximum
temperatures over water at the Equator are about the same as the minimum
temperatures at low elevations in the summer in Iraq, e.g.).

Also, notice that the 5,938 m level is not too far from the level where the climate
modelers claim that, on average, more radiation goes to space than goes toward
the ground. I think they generally assume 5,000 m.

Similar calculations are shown for Jackson, MS in the Spreadsheet, using

average December temperature data. Total effective heated column height in
December is only 3,261 m, about half of the greenhouse effect in July.

It is important to note that these calculated column heights are a type of long-
term look at what happens. In the short term in humid areas, much of the energy
goes into evaporating water, which tends to hug the surface. Since water vapor

4
has a lower molecular weight than air, one might expect it to rise quickly.
However, probably due to hydrogen bonding, it does not do this. “Clusters” of
water vapor molecules probably form, due to hydrogen bonding and this tends to
keep the vapor close to the surface. Ultimately, however, most of it rises and the
heat of vaporization is released to the air column; although some is returned to
the surface when dew forms.

In dry areas, much of the heat goes into heating the surface, but this is also
released to the air column at night.

It is emphasized that the “heated column” calculations are not meant to portray
exactly what actually happens each day. They are meant to show only that there
is sufficient heat capacity in the air and water vapor to account for the heat
received by the Earth and to account for the temperatures and temperature
changes we experience. It is recognized that he oceans absorb huge amounts of
energy, which causes the formation of all sorts of currents, which in turn, affect
climate all over the globe. Thus, these simple column height calculations don’t
represent a complete picture of what is taking place.

This is not to suggest that greenhouse gases are not important. To the contrary,
they absorb infrared radiation directly and indirectly, and this probably aids in
transferring that energy to N2 and O2 (thermalization). Water vapor also tends to
hug the surface, and it has twice the heat storage capacity as other air molecules
(2.3 times as much as CO2). This is why the diurnal variation is less in humid
areas than in arid areas and why it is so balmy at night in Jackson.

Calculations of Heat storage (“greenhouse effect”) for Daggett, CA on an

average July Day

What about the deserts and dry areas? Barren deserts are characterized by high
ground surface temperatures and large diurnal variations. Ground surface
temperatures in deserts often exceed 50 C on a hot summer day
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v237/n5351/abs/237162a0.html).
However, this stored heat is lost at night and goes into heating the air column.

The radiation from such a hot surface elevates the surface air temperatures
during the day and at night, making the deserts hotter than humid areas at similar
elevations and latitudes (see other papers on this subject). This mechanism
does not operate in moist environments, since the temperature of the ground
surface is limited by evaporation and is therefore in approximate equilibrium with
the air immediately above the ground surface at all times.

No significant amount of energy is taken up by photosynthesis in the desert, due

to lack of plant life. Thus, this factor is ignored.

5
The average minimum air temperature in Daggett in July is 22.8 C, and average
maximum is 40 C, for a diurnal variation of 17.2 C. The average temperature is
31.4 C.

Energy balance calculations:

The average air density in Daggett (elevation 588 m) at the average air
temperature of 31.4 C is 1.08 kg/m^3.

The energy required to heat 1 m^3 air by 17.2 C = (1,080 g/m^3)(17.2 C)(1.0035
j/g/k)(2.778 e-4 watts/joule) = 5.19 watt-hr/m^3.

Expansion of the air due to the diurnal temperature change of 17.2 C is 17.2/273
= 0.063. Correcting for expansion gives (1 -0.063)(5.19 watt hr/m^3) = 4.86 w-
hr/m^3.

Total energy available from sunlight in Daggett = 10.1 kwh/day/m^2 = 10,100 w-

hr/day/m^2.

Effective column height heated per day = (10,100 watt hr/m^2/)/(4.86 w-hr/m3) =
2,078 m.

Average solar insolation in Daggett in July is 10.1 kwhr/m^2/day. Assuming that

at least 11.4 kwhr/m^3/day is available above the clouds, then 11.4 –10.1 = 1.3
kwhr/m^2/day is absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by clouds. Assuming
50% is absorbed, then the equivalent of another (1,300 kwh/m^2)(0.5)/(4.86 w-
h/m^3) = 134 m of air can be heated by 12.2 C. Adding that to the 2,078 m
above gives a total equivalent column height of 2,212 m.

The 2,212 meter air column height still assumes a constant amount of energy in
each m^3. If a linear decrease in energy with height is assumed (due to
convection, adiabatic expansion, and radiation escaping to space), then this
would be the level with the average energy, and the effective height would be 2
times this height, or 4,424 m (this assumes that the energy added during the day
becomes 0 at a 4,424 m height above the surface).

So far, it has been assumed that air density is constant, when it varies almost
linearly with height. The average air density between the surface at Daggett (488
m elev.) and 4,424 m is about 0.91 kg/m^3. This is (1,080/910) = 1.19 times less
dense than at the surface. Correcting the column height for average density
gives (4,424 m)(1.19) = 5,264 m for the total column height that is heated.

In order to compare this column height with that for Jackson, MS, another
correction is made for lapse rate. The lapse rate in Daggett is assumed to be the
environmental lapse rate, - 6.5 C/km; whereas, the lapse rate in Jackson is
assumed to be -5.5 C/km. The column height in Daggett is therefore adjusted by

6
6.5/5.5 = 1.18. The corrected column height then becomes (5,264 m)(1.18) =
6,211 m. Adding the elevation of Daggett, 588 m gives 6,799 m for the height of
the column above sea level. The 6,211 column height in Daggett compares fairly
well with the column height of 5,938 in Jackson, MS.

Similar calculations for December in Daggett indicate an effective column height

of 3,528 m (compared to 3,261 m in Jackson, MS).

Other Areas:

The spreadsheet includes similar calculations for 44 other locations, covering a

wide variety of climates. The average column height for all inland locations in
July is 6,401 +/- 1,290 meters (2 sigma). This is not much above the average
height of 5 km that the climate models assume is the “turning point” in the
radiative balance calculations.

Note that a lapse rate adjustment was used depending on the average absolute
humidity. If the average absolute humidity is equal to or greater than 10 (humid
area), the lapse rate was assumed to be -5.5 C/km and no adjustment was
made. If the humidity was greater than 10 degrees (arid areas), an adjustment
was made as shown for Daggett, CA above.

The average height for all inland locations in December is 3,629 +/- 1,508 m (2
sigma). No lapse rate corrections are included, since nearly all areas are quite
humid in December.

Column heights at locations adjacent to the oceans are often almost double
those over land. This is undoubtedly due to the marine influence at those
locations. The onshore winds dominate the average daily temperature changes
and decrease the diurnal variation. This is probably due to the fact that the
ocean is absorbing much of the heat that is being attributed (falsely) to air
column height in these calculations, and may give a handle on the amount of
heat absorbed by the ocean. A doubling of column height would suggest that the
oceans are absorbing about half of the heat.

Column heights are also higher in locations near large bodies of water, such as
Chicago and Salt Lake City. This is probably also due to the same type of effects
observed near oceans.

I believe that this demonstration indicates that radiation is NOT what determines
temperature. There is plenty of heat capacity in the air column to account for all
the energy received daily and to explain the temperature. Convection greatly
overrides any radiative effects. The average constancy of the lapse rate
demonstrates that convective mechanisms are much more important than
radiative ones. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy in the molecules

7
in the air, which is in turn determined by how much energy they have absorbed;
i.e., their stored heat.

So, what is the role of CO2? Since this gas is capable of absorbing/transferring
infrared radiation, it is considered a “greenhouse gas.” However, its heat
capacity is even less than that of O2 and N2, at about 0.87 joules/g/K. Because
it is present in the air at only about 0.03 percent, for a temperature change of 10
C at sea-level, it stores only approximately (0.0003)(0.87 joules/g/K)(10 K)(1,180
g/m^3)(2.779 e-4 watts/joule) = 0.0086 watts/m^3 of air. It is insignificant.