Guest post by Rud Istvan
A few days ago, I posted another Lindzen Bode ECS reconciliation. It should have been controversial, stimulating many comments because of the divergence to higher climate models and also to Monckton’s often here posted much lower estimates. It was only mildly so, most about my penetration f/(1-f) versus Bode 1/(1-f) one phrase in one sentence goof, which did not affect the post’s conclusions since it only used Lindzen’s correct curve posted here decade ago.
Recently, Dr. Wentworth posted a ‘mathematical proof ‘ that the GHE must exist, even though misnamed (because real greenhouses retard local convective cooling, while greenhouse gases retard radiative cooling to space). This misnomer is no different than the equivalent ocean acidification misnomer we are also forced to live with in popular discourse. Warmunists long ago picked their definitional terms of debate, and WUWT skeptics are mostly stuck with them. Definitional quibbling may satisfy some, but probably isn’t an effective tactic.
I was very surprised at the number of negative comments at WUWT (now well over 600) to this rigorous post with an obviously verifiable conclusion. They spanned the gamut from epistemological (really a proof, or something else?), to the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’, to the new ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does), to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down). I chose not to name names; this possible guest post is only a general rebuke.
The surprisingly controversial post’s conclusion is also easily personally verified by simple observation. Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not. So a personal experiment can be conduced in any desert (mine was a summer day in the Mohave outside Palm Springs during a boring conference). The dry desert heats up a lot from insolation during the day, and cools down a lot at night thanks to desert low specific humidity, so not much GHG except well-mixed CO2, and therefore not much GHE at night. Burrr!
There are only two even semi-rational (but still erroneous) arguments why the CO2 GHE might not exist despite Tyndall’s experimental GHG evidence.
- The CO2 window overlaps the H2O window. Note, this does not say the GHE does not exist; only that CO2 ‘cannot’ be a contributor so IPCC is wrong. This assertion is frequently found on the internet in graphical form, but erroneously portrayed for two reasons (both errors are present in negative WUWT comments). The usual stuff omits radiation intensity; and while some windows do overlap, others don’t. Fine IR scale matters. The actual overlaps/windows plus their radiative intensities were provided in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. The essay’s illustration is reproduced below. Forgive the unfortunate insolation extra zero K typo, which I just caught myself. Absorption is a metric of the degree of a gas GHE effect at some frequency (wavelength), from 0 (none) to 100% (full).
Reality has to do with radiation intensity and window ‘shoulders’.
- GHG are saturated, so can have not have any further effect. This misunderstands saturation, since it depends on the effective radiative level (ERL). As CO2 increases, the ERL rises unconstrained, since CO2 is unaffected by the lapse rate, while H2O is and so decreases. This also reduces their mid troposphere’s overlapping radiative windows. More CO2 raises the ERL. As Callendar’s 1938 curve reproduced below (from Climate Audit) first showed, the GHE never saturates.
Also note that over the region of Callendar’s curve of present interest, the curve is approximately linear, which is why in my comment to UAH’s most recent report, I did not bother to make the log correction correctly suggested in subsequent comments to my back of the envelope implied 1.7C ECS fraction that Roy’s new update nicely implicitly brackets. ‘Good enough for government work’.
To summarize without any math, the GHE exists. It experimentally must, and easily provably does. The GHE issues are how much when (ECS), not if. Any ‘skeptical’ arguments to the contrary are fairly easily rebutted, as done here.
Neither you nor Bob Wentworth have successfully rebutted a GHE from convection.
Convection does not just move energy around.
It converts kinetic to potential in uplift and converts potential to kinetic in descent.
That process takes time and is slower than radiation so the system must heat up.
The process is renewed in every successive convective overturning cycle so the ‘time to cool down’ concept does not apply.
What you are describing is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Here is an example of exactly what you describe, if my embedded link works correctly. Donald Simanek (proprietor of the Museum of Unworkable Machines) calls it the “heavier on one side seduction”. In reality, these convection cells as you are describing them are always converting potential energy locally to kinetic, and the potential energy is constantly being renewed locally through heat transfer. The kinetic energy is perpetually dissipated through friction and heat transfer. It is a heat engine, and you should employ the first law of thermodynamics to offer a complete description (du=dQ-dW). You cannot just examine the dW side of this machine, and get a correct description.
Not correct because you ignore the underlying radiative energy throughput which is constant at hydrostatic equilibrium. In the equilibrium state new energy coming in matches old energy going out and the process continues indefinitely as a disturbance in the flow.
Stephen, hydrostatic equilibrium means the atm. is stable up/down, which is largely observed at any time but not all times in local disturbances (storms). The parcels along the hydrostatic lapse rate are equilibrated with local surroundings and cannot descend as you imagine. Your whole imaginary concept “converts kinetic to potential in uplift and converts potential to kinetic in descent”.is not actually observed. Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm. to perform lab “adiabatic heating” as you imagine.
The winds at the surface hit you in the face not the top of your head since as the surface parcels warmed above the local surroundings uplift the replacement air flows in laterally at ambient (meaning no surface heating in the convection process) and at each level above in ascent until the parcels equilibrate with surroundings.
I’ve pointed Stephen to youtube videos showing how convection works in reality but Stephen continues to write convection works as Stephen imagines and not as in nature.
I do know Stephen will never change to face reality (because of a book he read in the 60’s but cannot recall) and this circumstance needs to be pointed out from time to time.
The downward legs of the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells show Trick to be incorrect.
And the upward legs of the cells exactly balance the mass movement down simply moving existing thermodynamic internal energy around within the system. The cells do not allow convective energy to escape the system to deep space for no global temperature change within the system due these cells.
Maybe I am not following this correctly, but if you move hot air higher up into the atmosphere, the CO2 and water vapor molecules can then radiate any excess heat they have captured. The radiation, because it is higher in the atmosphere, is now more likely to escape the Earth’s atmosphere completely – so more likely to move up and away. The Earth’s surface is curved so at a higher altitudes the Earth’s surface becomes less of a target. Therefore heat that is trapped in an upward convection is more likely to escape – increase the convection and more heat escapes.
Lateral movement is important in that it will take heat from a warmer place to a cooler place, thus moderating heat buildup near the equators. If the heat is moved over an area where more water is available, then evaporation can increase. The higher amount of water vapor will lower the air density, and once again you get vertical air movement taking heat upwards.
These are not controversial claims, we know that they occur. It is completely ignored in any explanation of the “Greenhouse Effect” because it makes it too complicated, not because it isn’t there.
“It is completely ignored in any explanation of the “Greenhouse Effect””
Robert, when observed over 4-15+ annual cycles the weather related upward convection you describe removes as much relevant energy from near the surface as downward convection adds. Convection is NOT ignored, it’s just that measurement shows convective processes (mostly resident in the troposphere) remove no meaningful net thermodynamic internal energy from surface to deep space, natural convective processes are observed to only move that energy around within the atm.
Another thing that you can observe in the desert – if you stick around for a little while – is microbursts.
Colder and therefore denser air falling from a great height in the atmosphere. Thunderstorm NOT required!
Upward convection is warmer, less dense air. Downward convection is colder, denser air.
Warmer air becomes cooler air by losing energy. Just where do you think that energy is lost to?
“Maybe I am not following this correctly, but if you move hot air higher up into the atmosphere, the CO2 and water vapor molecules can then radiate any excess heat they have captured.”
It’s not like room in a house {room is too small- it doesn’t lower air density with the short room elevation. Warm air rises and becomes less density. But it’s really “all” about warm air mass movement- convection is more than a body/mass of air going up or down, rather average velocity of gas will equalize in energy/temperature, but lower density air has less mass per volume and so has less energy even as it has same average velocity of gas.
They are radiating heat all along the way. They don’t just wait until they reach altitude to radiate. Radiation at lower altitudes involves higher radiative fluxes because the temperatures are higher and the density of radiating molecules is higher.
Once heat reaches an altitude where the atmosphere above it is transparent to radiation, much of the heat can radiate to space. However, this occurs in gas that is at a low temperature and low density.
So, radiative heat loss at high altitude is inefficient, compared to radiative heat loss from the surface.
The net effect is that that, while convection is important in carrying heat upward in the troposphere, it’s not as magically effective at promoting radiation to space as some people seem to think it is.
The curvature of the Earth is small on the scale of the height of the atmosphere. This effect may amount to making a 0.5% difference. Other relevant effects involved are significantly larger. Overall, losing heat from high in the atmosphere is inefficient, and this modest effect does not alter that result.
Nobody is arguing that convection doesn’t transfer significant amounts of heat from the surface up and throughout the troposphere. It does.
That heat transfer just doesn’t necessarily have the implications that some people seem to think it does.
Some explanations of the GHE may ignore this, because they’re just trying to explain one aspect of how things work, without going into all the details.
But other explanations of the GHE may appear to be ignoring this, but aren’t.
My recent essay is an example of the latter. I don’t talk about convection, but it is implicitly accounted for. In particular, I show that certain things must be true, regardless of any details of heat transport occurs within the atmosphere or ocean.
It’s a little like the way that one can unequivocally say “energy will be conserved” in a system without bothering to talk about the details of the particular complex processes going on within the system.
There are certain conclusions that one can validly arrive at which don’t require analyzing the details of heat transfer within the Earth’s climate system.
It turns out that the relevance of the GHE to explaining Earth’s average surface temperature is one such conclusion.
“Once heat reaches an altitude where the atmosphere above it is transparent to radiation, much of the heat can radiate to space.”
Someone has the IR spectrum upside down. Radiation is transparent from the surface (8-14µm) to tropopause > 14µm (when temperature stops decreasing). Ignoring hot solar energy (106°C) 7.65µm hitting cold atmosphere 15µm (-80°) leaves 27°C at surface. Sea temperature hardly changes in the low latitudes of the pacific ocean in 24 hrs. 0.3°C.
Atmosphere > 14µm cold, surface (9,10µm) and sun hot > 8µm. Remember that.
I have no idea what you could mean by that.
Why in the world would you believe that?
You couldn’t possible be more wrong. The part of the atmosphere that is most absorbent to LWIR is the troposphere.
Why? Two powerful reasons:
So, the majority of the materials that absorb LWIR are in the troposphere. How could the troposphere possibly be “transparent” to LWIR?
Your mention of wavelengths leads me to wonder if you are one of the people who has the mistaken idea that a particular temperature is only associated with one wavelength.
You do realize that things anywhere in the temperature range of the -80℃ to 30℃ radiated in all wavelengths over entire range from 4µm to 24 µm?
And, that water vapor and CO₂ absorb the wavelengths that they absorb, regardless of their temperature?
That is why the concentration on CO2 reduction with unreliable renewable wind/solar products and spending trillions to do so is a joke. We would be better off trying to limit water vapor and clouds.
This flies in the face of vibrational modes in molecules and atoms that allow absorption/emission at specific wavelengths. If there is radiation at all frequencies by all substances, it derives from overtone wavelengths of the fundamental vibration frequencies and the power is miniscule.
Jim, 5:26 am: “If there is radiation at all frequencies by all substances, it derives from overtone wavelengths of the fundamental vibration frequencies and the power is miniscule.”
No.
In a solid, the vibrations of the constituent particles with electrons moving generate EMR at all frequencies during the vibration process and photons exit through the surface.
Consider a gas: the constituent molecules are moving very fast at room temperature & you can fairly easily compute that average speed after a 1st course meteorology course of study.
Since the molecules are moving, the frequency of the incident illumination absorbed varies from the incident light rays. On top of that, the molecules emit while in motion so the frequency of emission observed varies with the speed. These processes makes the spectrum of a gas continuous with certain higher intensity lines of emission at quantum jumps. This is called doppler broadening for obvious reasons.
There is a third way to generate other emission frequencies in that the gas molecules are not really hard billiard balls, they have a certain “softness” & this is called collisional line broadening.
All this was an interesting and fundable research topic after quantum mechanics became understood back in the 1930s, 40s, maybe 50s. The original research is largely complete long ago no longer under study, so to find it, a visit to the library stacks is needed.
Yes the heat is transported (internal energy) + absorbed heat to another area along the gravy-train of air advection. Only a small amount of heat goes up that was absorbed. From minimum to max adds 50 watts. 6 goes up the rest travels somewhere else. Reason water/sea temperatures is hotter near desert areas. Water vapor gives off latent heat, carbon dioxide doesn’t do anything. CO2 is a ideal gas at 0.04% is is part of internal energy and does not absorb excessive heat unless heat is equilibrium to negative 80 degrees Celsius. Remember TOA -80°C, solar input 107°C surface 27° (low latitudes). Land absorbs excessive heat which is transported by elsewhere after dark.
Trick says
“And the upward legs of the cells exactly balance the mass movement down simply moving existing thermodynamic internal energy around within the system.”
I agree.
However gravity is 0.3% less at 20 km height.
This gravity gradient causes the temperature gradient
Gravity potential energy GPE is changed to kinetic energy KE
GPE =mgh
KE = mcT
mgh = mcT
T/h = g/c
Gravity causes change of velocity
change of velocity of molecules causes change of T
Roger 3:42am, the .003 loss doesn’t convect out of the system control volume to deep space changing thermodynamic internal energy, it stays in the system returning exactly .003 in the cell downward leg for no change in system internal energy in the process.
The heat source creates the gradient. The heat source is the Earth surface. Look at any diagram modelling a gradient, the heat source is what determines the gradient.
Temperature and Altitude (wisc.edu)
Look at those cumulous clouds rising and falling. There are a lot of water droplets and Ice particles in there circulating vertically and losing heat accordingly. Convection is indeed a powerful heat engine in UK.
Adiabatic heating of as much as 100 degrees F has be measured. It often effects large areas (much of Europe and Australia in recent years, various areas quire regularly on an annual basis). Since energy is radiated away, the heating could not continue without solar input but the process does often warm the surface considerably.
Adiabatic heating is certainly a thing. Many times I have cited
this effect in regards to the drying out of the Mediterranean basin
{Messinian salinity crisis}:“…As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink“, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain,..”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
And every night and everywhere on Earth one gets such warming. But I refer to it as the large thermal mass of the atmosphere. But Adiabatic heating generally means increase in temperature cause higher air masses falling. Every night, it reduces the surface air cooling. Or one might have say 1 C cooling per hour of night, and having large air mass, slows this cooling {not normally making night air warmer, but that could happen in some places and time.
What is global temperature is the surface temperature of the ocean which covers 70%, and ocean is roughly, level. Is really anything to do with land and higher elevation and lower elevations- isn’t a global thing.
Stephen isn’t talking about winds, he is talking about pressure (forced motion through compression and increased collisions) which can be horizontal as well as vertical. No wind required.
“What you are describing is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Here is an example of exactly what you describe, “
That roughly depicts, but rather than 2 d it’s 3 d.
Here is a “perpetual motion” machine that works.
What is OTEC (otecnews.org)
Perpetual motion machines run forever without using energy. How can something that is powered by the sun be a perpetual motion machines? By that reasoning, life is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
Huh. I had no idea that OTEC was still alive. I always thought it was a viable technology, but was stupidly implemented and thus doomed. The description of how they implement it in your link is the way I would have done it, and is perfectly workable.
Plus, a couple of the girls in the splash screen picture on your link are really hot, so I like the technology even more, now. And yes, I am that shallow.
That is very interesting technology, thanks for the link.
Kevin, I think you are missing a pithy point in taking the larger bite (I agree you were offered the large bite by Steven). Consider Willis E’s view of tropical thunderstorm as a chimney that whisks enormous volumes of warm water vapor evaporated from the ocean’s surface quickly to the stratosphere where it can emit LWIR directly to space. In this case, although this shift of water vapour is rapid, it still has the effect of delaying exit of LWIR, thereby causing some degree of warming of the atmosphere. Am I making any sense here? (My wife and I are10 days into contracting Covid so that may be a factor)
I am having some trouble seeing exactly what you are getting at. It seems that you are arguing about a short delay in the LWIR, which is a sort of storage of energy, and therefore must make the atmosphere warmer, as though it is a savings account in a manner of thinking. I have no data regarding this, but does this actually delay the LWIR much as opposed to competing means of getting energy to a high place where it can finally radiate to space? More to the point, does this delay accumulate and make the atmosphere warmer without end?
I hope you, et ux, feel better soon.
It doesn’t. Delays have no effect at all on temperature, in steady-state.
Delays could only affect temperature in an ongoing fashion if the delays were steadily increasing, day by day and year by year. They don’t. Whatever delays are present are likely to remain roughly the same in the long run.
As an analogy, think of a river flowing from Lake A to Lake B. Does it matter how long it takes water to get from Lake A to Lake B? Does the duration of the trip affect the water level in Lake B? It does not.
Rhetorical question, Bob.
Wrong, of course it affects the level in Lake B.
Try just evaporation for starters.
There is no temperature equilibrium in Earth’s climate, it never stops changing.
The claim I was responding to essentially asserted that delays inherently lead to temperature increases.
Evaporation is a side-effect, not an inherent aspect of a transit delay.
Suppose we shipped the water in a pipeline, instead of a river, so that there was no evaporation. In that case, the water level in Lake B would not depend on how long the water takes in transit.
And, rivers and lakes don’t have fixed levels.
That doesn’t mean it’s not useful to talk about the mean water level, and do urban planning that relies on predicted flood levels.
There is a false meme going around that “delaying the exit of LWIR” causes warming.
It doesn’t.
A transient increase in the net delay would increase temperature temporarily, but in steady-state, delays make no difference whatsoever to temperature.
What you are describing is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
============
Nope. What is being described is an OTEC generator, using the atmosphere in place of the ocean.
What is OTEC (otecnews.org)
Here is an OTEC generator. Also a “perpetual motion” machine that runs “forever” using the heat gradient of the oceans, producing excess electricity in the process.
Well, not forever but until the sun burns out.
Please see my comment with respect to the surface energy balance components. Wentworth’s ideas do not make any reference to the various real energy exchange mechanisms between the surface skin and the atmosphere. These concepts may help consolidate the radiative components and surface properties with your views on atmospheric convective overturning. I could have written more concisely in the comment but the general concepts are there. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/04/mathematical-proof-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3263069
HelloJCM.
The point you made is broadly correct. The thing is that S-B only applies to black bodies but neither the unevenly lit surface of a sphere nor the mobile atmosphere around it constitute a black body on their own because non radiative energy transfers are also ongoing. They should properly be described as grey bodies which are beyond the S-B parameters.
However, once in hydrostatic equilibrium the surface and atmosphere are also in thermal equilibrium and so S-B can be applied when viewing the two grey bodies together from outside the system.
Furthermore, objects within the system will also act as black bodies because they will be in thermal equilibrium with the mobile gases surrounding them.
Climate scientists usually show a flat surface for their radiative energy budgets and include upward convection as a surface cooling effect so they have to counter that with an assumed heating effect from back radiation.
They forget that we are dealing with spherical geometry so that upward convection on the lit side then comes down on the unlit side for an equal and opposite surface warming effect there. When correctly accounting for that spherical geometry one gets a balanced energy budget without any warming effect from back radiation.
One could say that they are ‘flat Earthers’.
Since Earth is a rapid rotator the ascent and descent regions get split up and spread all around the sphere.
“S-B only applies to black bodies.. objects within the system will also act as black bodies”
There no black bodies existing Stephen. Maybe you can learn how black body radiation exists in spite of that reality but I doubt it.
“assumed heating effect from back radiation.”
Actually measured heating effect from radiation emitted by all-sky toward the surface from a hemisphere of directions.
“convection on the lit side then comes down on the unlit side”
For no change in thermodynamic internal energy of the earth/atm. system control volume thus the process described cannot alone change the global median surface temperature since only radiation can escape the control volume of interest (around earth/atm.) to deep space and no convection/conduction escapes to space.
Earth is a blackbody object with a uniform temperature 5.3°C 340 watts. 5.5×10^21 molecules / (4*3.1415*(6371)^2*1000*1000*1000*10780) = 0.287 per molecule. 1187g x 0.287=340 watts. This fluid motion keeps this uniform temperature between summer and winter. Summer land NH adds 3-4 degrees, winter land snow lowers this by 3 degrees. Solar radiation controls these changes, absorbed during summer and reflected during winter. TOA is warmed by solar energy in SH as NH isn’t as cold. And cools in NH summer as SH is much colder TOA.
Uniform Temperature?
I think not, it never stops changing anywhere on earth.
You need a better description, maybe “controlled”, or something similar.
I tend to think of surface energy balance with the atmosphere as complementary to total radiative energy budget of the surface skin. The surface energy balance is partitioned among various flux mechanisms described in boundary layer concepts. I make no specific mention of S-B theory. Boundary layer balances are useful and demonstrated to adequately partition net flux at various scales. It can be used for the surface budget of an individual leaf on a tree to the entire earth surface (and every scale in between). I encourage you to revisit this idea as it is meant to be complementary to your observations and completely fits within the hydrostatic equilibrium idea your propose. It is also meant encourage the radiatively minded to think beyond their knowledge horizon. The notion that different perspectives are mutually exclusive is not correct. The boundary layer concepts are meant to provide a link between these various perspectives. For convenience I will provide the key concepts HERE. Cheers.
The key here in the overall climate change debate is that while the surface energy balance does rely on the concept known as GHGs for certain mechanisms, the overall surface energy balance partitioning is easily able to adapt to minor perturbation of GHG concentration to maintain the average density profile required for hydrostatic equilibrium. The main mechanism of this is adaptability is the turbulent energy flux.
Yeah.
But I would say this largely about the tropics which receive more sunlight, the turbulent nature of tropical ocean heat engine warms the entire world.
Sure, in the presence of more available energy in a water rich environment turbulent flux is most certainly the dominant factor of air-ocean heat flux in the tropics with relatively large magnitude compared to other regions. However I would caution to avoid thinking in terms of isolated geographies when, in fact, all regional geographies of the atmosphere are coupled. If you’re interested in an observational case study of the surface energy balance in the pacific warm pool I recommend this paper: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/teaching/MT23E/grant_hignett.pdf
For anyone who might point it out: yes I am aware I should be more precise in identifying turbulent flux vs the radiant components (i.e. irradiance). I get lazy and call everything heat-flux and that’s obviously not accurate.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “S-B only applies to black bodies…”
Here’s the Stefan-Boltzman relation:
E = ε σ T⁴
where:
sigma σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant, 5.670374419E−8 W/m²K⁴
Temperature T is in Kelvin
E = radiative emission.
So, if you think that S-B relation only applies to back bodies, then what is ε ?
I’ll give you a hint. ε is always between 0 and 1, and it is actually a function of frequency, except for emissions from a perfect _____-body. (Can you fill in the blank?)
Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.
From here:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
Since no blackbodies exist in nature (“theoretical surfaces”) that ref. is telling Stephen that the S-B law applies to no surface in existence. Yet inexpensive IR thermometers based on S-B work fine to measure real surface temperature.
There is a reason one needs to consult modern meteorological and/or science texts which will show Stephen has not done so (preferring to go with his imagination) or Stephen would have recognized the issue.
The thing is that since the S-B Law only applies to black bodies then it follows that the greyer a body the greater the departure from the S-B Law.
So, the more competition there is from non radiative energy transfers the greyer the body becomes. That competition arises from the mass density of an atmosphere because it is upward convection that removes surface KE before it can be radiated to space.
Thus the lit side will have an E figure of less than 1.
It then follows that the unlit side will have an E figure of more than 1 because irradiation is zero but yet energy is still being supplied to the surface from descending air.
On the face of it that balances out at equilibrium but we are left with the unlit side warmer than it otherwise would be if there were no descent warming and that less cold air circulates back to the lit side where the additional surface energy must be added to full irradiation and the temperature rises on the lit side as well.
So. what we actiually have is two separate grey bodies interacting via convection until they reach thermal equilibrium at which point the system viewed from space appears as a black body.
But the surface and the atmosphere always remain grey bodies on both the lit and unlit sides.
The S-B Law should never have been applied to such grey bodies.
“The thing is that since the S-B Law only applies to black bodies…”
No. BBs don’t exist. Consult a relevant meteorology text Stephen. The math will be beyond Stephen but maybe not the prose.
Planck’s law is idealized for intensity of blackbody radiation at a temperature and frequency. S-B law converts Planck’s ideal law across the spectrum to real body radiation and computes brightness temperature with a measured factor for emissivity of the material being illuminated. Inexpensive IR thermometers work fine Stephen.
This is an unjustified belief you have apparently invented with no empirical evidence or support from mainstream science.
Every single book on thermodynamics and heat transfer would disagree with you.
Citing an entry from an encyclopedia does not establish truth. Wikipedia’s entry includes grey bodies.
What is known is that:
If you don’t consider #2 to be the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, that’s just semantic nit-picking. It’s still a valid, well-established physical law.
You just pointlessly make conversations more difficult if you refuse to call #2 the S-B Law.
Bob 9:11 pm: “all matter obeys M = 𝜀σT⁴ where 0 < 𝜀 ≤ 1.”
This is not quite true Bob even with semantics considered; even you can learn that you haven’t read your Planck close enough.
A well-known meteorology professor once had his grad. students measure the emissivity of various materials. He well knew one material sample would show an emissivity greater than 1 and wanted to thereby teach a lesson as the students struggled with their conclusion that they must have made a mistake.
There is a clue in Planck’s writing: “Throughout the following discussion it will be assumed that the linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wave lengths of the rays considered.”
I see that you’re right: for materials with dimensions smaller than the relevant wavelength, emissivities greater than 1 are possible.
Thanks for the information.
Interesting. I’m guessing this doesn’t have any measurable impact on the conclusions though.
No, it doesn’t. The conclusions depend on materials having an emissivity value. It doesn’t matter what that value is.
Where this diffraction effect becomes important to understand is for the material particle size of the moon surface since order of 25% of the surface is estimated to be powder material with dimensions smaller than the relevant wavelength.
This circumstance affects computed lunar brightness temperatures especially over a (nonequilibrium) wide range of temperature and solar incidence angle. This issue calls into question the current estimates for global average lunar brightness temperature (or any airless celestial body) vs. unknown global equilibrium thermometer temperature.
Interesting. Any references?
See ref. ‘The global surface temperatures of the Moon as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment’ 2016 Williams et. al. in Icarus.
You should be able find free pdf online:
“Brightness temperatures in Diviner’s individual infrared channels may vary depending on the distribution of sub-footprint-scale temperatures, spectral emissivities, and photometric properties….. Therefore the brightness temperatures cannot be interpreted in terms of a unique surface temperature.”
Bob W and Trick,
Would that make a molecule of H2O have an emissivity of greater than 1 at the instant of condensation or possibly evaporation?
———
This comment was intended to be made with regards to Bob Wentworth’s @ 2:10 pm, June 7
Boltzmann did not derive any radiation law (see his original work). He used thermodynamics and Maxwells equations to show that the internal energy and the radiation pressure is proportional to the temperature raised to 4 – at thermodynamic equilibrium in a cavity.
He commented that there is a resemblance between his expression for internal energy and Stefans observed radiation law.
Thermal radiation is generated by lattice vibrations (phonons). To me it seems logical that there should be similarities between the vibration spectum (phonon dispersion relations) and the emitted radiation spectrum – since the radiation spectrum is generated by the phonon spectrum.
If so, it is very likely that there exist more terms than only one T^4.
As long as people use this correction factor – emissivity – it will always be possible to fit SB law to the observed radiation.
Main point – radiation generated from lattice vibrations is not the same as thermodynamic equilibrium in a cavity.
I have never seen any theory that derive the thermal radiation from it´s source (lattice vibrations).
That form of the S-B equation does indeed only apply to idealized blackbodies.
Using the S-B equation in that form assumes emission to equivalently 0 K, so if one uses that form of the equation for graybodies, you’re treating graybodies as essentially idealized blackbodies with ε<1.
For graybodies, one must take into account the energy gradient by using:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
To do otherwise results in a violation of Stefan’s law, and results in double the energy density in a blackbody cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium.
It also results in too-high radiant exitance figures, which one must then get around by assuming a ‘cold to warm’ energy flow (a violation of 2LoT), and subtracting that ‘cold to warm’ energy flow from the real ‘warm to cold’ energy flow. This results in nonsensical numbers such as seen on the K-T diagram.
In using the S-B equation in the form you specify for the atmosphere, just as it does in a blackbody cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium, it results in too-high energy density.
Photons not only do not, they cannot, flow from cool to warm… a photon is a persistent perturbation of the ambient EM field. A photon with lower chemical potential (from a cooler object) attempting to ascend the energy gradient toward a warmer object will be subsumed by the higher energy density of that energy gradient before it ever reaches the warmer object:
Energy only flows if there is an energy gradient. That energy gradient is set up by the object’s surface molecule’s magnetic dipoles generating a radiation pressure. It is the energy density differential between cooler and warmer object which determines the radiant exitance of the warmer object, for a system with only two objects. For a complex system consisting of many objects, it is the energy density differential of a multitude of objects, but the same principle holds.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy gradient.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
Photons from a lab glass of ice water do “flow” (Clyde verbiage) into my room temperature $30 Ryobi thermometer and register 32F just fine, proving Clyde is wrong about the physics of absorbed, scattered, transmitted incident radiation.
Clyde should go back and read the original experiments leading to Planck’s Law to learn the physics.
Your non-contact thermal sensor uses a thermopile (a series-connected number of thermocouples), which converts thermal energy into an electrical signal. It does not respond to absolute temperature, it generates an output voltage proportional to the differential in energy density between a local thermistor and the thermopile…. meaning it’s measuring a relative dearth of photons from your lab glass of ice as compared to the reference point thermistor, then mathematically interpreting that to arrive at a temperature output.
Perhaps if you’d stop posturing for your own aggrandizement, and actually buckled down and studied how reality works, you’d be able to figure these sort of things out… but I doubt you will.
In other words, photons are not flowing from your lab glass of ice water to your Ryobi’s thermopile, they’re flowing from your thermopile to the lab glass of ice water, the energy gradient determining the radiant emittance, which affects thermopile output as compared to a thermistor.
All in accord with 2LoT and Stefan’s Law, whereas your take on radiative transfer of energy blatantly violates 2LoT and Stefan’s Law.
I really don’t follow your argument. IR thermometers certainly do work in cold applications. Who hasn’t checked air conditioning and freezer temps with a newly purchased IR thermometer that remains at ambient temperature? The only potential source of the data are IR photons moving from the cold surface to the thermopile and hence against the gradient you propose. It doesn’t matter if absolute or relative temp the photons still traveled from a relatively cold to a relatively warm object.
The cosmic background radiation is about 2.7 degrees K while the WMAP detector is about 90 K and photons seem to make the 14 billion year journey just fine.
Someone mentioned no greenhouse glass in the atmosphere but funny to me that commercial greenhouses supplement carbon dioxide to 1200 ppm to speed plant growth and crop yields.best
I agree with the OP-no matter how much we loathe warmistas it is just more lunacy to counter bad science with bad science. We all need to do better.
It’s really very simple… energy only flows due to an energy gradient, just as water only flows due to a pressure gradient. In the case of energy, that pressure is radiation pressure.
If the thermopile is warmer, photons will descend the energy gradient toward the cooler surface, cooling the outward-facing side of the thermopile, which changes the output voltage of the thermopile as compared to a reference thermistor which is generally affixed to the back side of the thermopile.
It is possible to detect EM waves without relying on their thermal heating potential, by using resonance instead (which is what WMAP did). Just like a radio antenna, which upon excitation by incoming EM waves, can deliver a signal which can be amplified. Resonance does not connect to internal heating and thus does not have the frequency-temperature restriction imposed by 2LoT. You’re constructing your system such that it resonantly oscillates at the frequency of the EM waves you’re looking for, and if there are EM waves of that frequency, your system will oscillate at that frequency, then you amplify that.
The WMAP detector calculated CMB temperature by referencing antenna temperature thusly:
then modeled CMB temperature thusly:
WMAP did not measure absolute intensity of microwave signals, it measured the difference in antenna:CMB temperature ratio between different-frequency detectors (23, 33, 41, 61 and 94GHz), in what they call a differential pseudo-correlation radiometer…
“Since WMAP employs differential receivers, the zero level of each temperature map is unspecified.”
… then calculated its output based upon those differentials, then combined the resultant images to remove foreground data… but for some reason, the WMAP team weighted 61 GHz. WMAP images also had a signal-to-noise ratio that barely exceeded 1, so the detectors were mostly detecting noise. That’s why they built Planck with better shielding and cooling of the detectors… because WMAP couldn’t really show CMB anisotropy.
“Due to a combination of 1/f noise and observing strategy, the noise in the WMAP sky maps is correlated from pixel to pixel. This results in certain low-l modes on the sky being less well measured than others.”
In the absence of a high signal-to-noise ratio, the only indicative feature of the images is reproducibility… except WMAP couldn’t take an image of the same slice of sky twice and get identical images. That’s why they published the first-year images, then skipped publishing images for years 2 and 3 (likely when they discovered their output was not reproducible), then published an average of the 3 years.
Thus, that WMAP actually measured the temperature anisotropy of the universe is in doubt.
WMAP’s successor, Planck, cooled its detectors to as low as 0.1 K via 3-stage active refrigeration, which is why Planck was able to detect signals 10 times fainter than WMAP and collect 15 times more information than WMAP.
As to ‘greenhouse’ gases in actual greenhouses, they don’t pump in CO2 to increase greenhouse temperature, they do it so that the plants don’t have to work as hard pulling CO2 from the air to produce C6H12O6. Thus their stomata remain closed more, thus the plants require less water, grow faster, are hardier and produce more fruit/vegetable/etc.
Photons certainly aren’t charged and are Boson’s that don’t interact with any appreciable probability below 1 MeV. Thermal photons at low energy are essentially transparent to their quantum brethren and so are not subject to radiation pressure that relates to photons interaction with a non quantum solid. Water flowing downhill is not in any way a good analogy to quantum mechanical interactions.
Sorry if it appeared I was suggesting that the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide in greenhouses is due to elevated temperature, I know that is not the case and in fact carbon dioxide supplementation is often used with an exogenous heater to elevate internal greenhouse temperature to further optimize growth.
Where did I ever state that photons carry net charge? Nowhere, that’s where.
You should study up on what a photon gas is. In physics, a photon gas is a gas-like collection of photons, which has many of the same properties of a conventional gas like hydrogen or neon – including pressure, temperature, and entropy.
If photons did not interact with EM fields, then the speed of light in a vacuum would essentially be infinite (just as it would be in a ‘perfect’ vacuum (no matter, no energy)… but a ‘perfect’ vacuum (no matter, no energy) cannot exist… space and time are intricately intertwined, removing all matter and all energy would effectively erase photon transit time by shrinking space to nothing)… it is the EM field component (the non-zero expectation value) of the quantum vacuum which slows light to 299,792,458 m/s in the vacuum of space (which is not a ‘perfect’ vacuum due to not only matter, but the non-zero expectation value of the quantum vacuum).
Oh, would you look at that… exactly what I’ve been stating, from none other than CERN:
https://sci-hub.se/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/epl/i2000-00465-1
Photon-photon interaction in a photon gas
“Owing to the cosmic microwave background, the velocity of light in the Universe is reduced compared to the vacuum.”
Uh-oh! Does that say that photons interact with photons to such an extent that the speed of light is slowed? LOL
Oh, would you look at that… direct sampling of electric field vacuum fluctuations by measuring its effects upon a light beam… didn’t you claim that photons of low energy couldn’t be affected by radiation pressure? Yet here we have the ultra-low radiation pressure of the quantum vacuum affecting a relatively low-energy light beam at 1.18µm (which is in the IR band):
https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6259/420
Huh… it’s almost as if I’m right, and you’re wrong. LOL
Unless you’re now claiming that an electromagnetic field cannot interact with the electric and magnetic fields (oscillating in quadrature) of a photon.
A photon is a persistent perturbation of the EM field above its ambient (at ground state, the quantum vacuum)… raise that ambient field energy density, and the photons are subsumed in the ambient EM field, and are thus no longer persistent.
Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero.
Photons are bosons that interact in accordance with Bose-Einsten statistics. At IR energy levels they do not interact. Quantum mechanical interactions are really not classical and you can try to describe them as much as you like with fundamentally classical ideas but not how it works. Photon-photon interaction is referred to as photon scattering and becomes important at gamma ray energies and higher, certainly not at IR energies.
I never stated that you stated photons carried charge so no reason for me to look to establish you didn’t say it. I was trying to understand what sort of gradient could possibly exist that impacted thermal photons.
It’s never fruitful to discuss quantum mechanics in terms of classical thought so good luck to you Clyde.
Who’s “describing photons with fundamentally classical ideas”? Certainly not myself. Classical physics can’t even describe the photon. Had you known that, you wouldn’t have even attempted to make your statement.
I’m quoting from the latest quantum physics knowledge, and studies done at CERN, for crying out loud. Your non sequitur is noted and mocked as the weak attempt at denigrating a superior debating opponent and far superior intellect that it is. LOL
Your denial of the studies above (which prove your stance wrong) shows that you’re not objective, nor are you here to learn… you’re here to continually reiterate your incorrect stance in defense of your ‘CAGW’ / ‘backradiation’ / ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient’ narrative, a twisted mish-mash of long-debunked ideas from the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, misapplied physics, ignored reality and conflated concepts.
The photon is a component of the ambient EM field (the photon is a persistent perturbation above the ambient)… if the ambient EM field chemical potential rises above the chemical potential of the photons in a given space, those photons will be subsumed into the ambient EM field. If the ambient EM field chemical potential in a given space is higher than the chemical potential of another space or of an object in the space, photons will manifest from the ambient EM field until chemical potential returns to zero.
Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero.
This means that energy (remember, photons are quanta of energy, the electric field and magnetic field oscillating in quadrature, just another part of the ambient EM field) cannot flow if chemical potential is zero… unless you’re telling everyone that you don’t know what ‘chemical potential’ and ‘Helmholtz Free Energy’ even mean. LOL
You don’t see 0K in a fluid atmosphere even when incoming radiation has gone out. Fluid atmosphere has internal energy that controls temperature gradient. Only radiatively can 0K exist but not observed in fluid atmosphere.
0 K can’t really exist anywhere. Idealized blackbodies are exactly that… an idealization. They don’t actually exist.
Using q = ε σ T^4 for a graybody leads to nonsensical results. Doing so essentially treats a graybody as an idealized blackbody, but with ε<1.
It essentially assumes the graybody emits as though in a 0 K ambient and absorbs all radiation incident upon it.
So between two objects, it would assume the warmer object emits as though in a 0 K ambient and absorbs all radiation incident upon it; and it would assume the cooler object emits as though in a 0 K ambient and absorbs all radiation incident upon it, then subtracts the ‘cooler to warmer’ fictional energy flow from the ‘warmer to cooler’ real energy flow. That’s not how the real world works.
But we now have two people in these comments section advocating for using q = ε σ T^4 for graybodies, then subtracting a fictional ‘cold to warm’ energy flux from the real ‘warm to cold’ energy flux… at least one of whom is a physicist, and should know better.
They were taught this in graduate school, because it’s a convenient way of accounting for energy flow, but it’s unphysical and results in a violation of Stefan’s Law and 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense) if interpreted as being physical.
It leads to further complications… such as assuming at thermodynamic equilibrium between two objects, both are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, which doubles energy density in the intervening space, a violation of Stefan’s Law.
Clyde: …which converts the photons into thermal energy from the glass of ice water into an electrical signal and my Ryobi displays the brightness temperature 32F same as the thermometer temperature immersed in the ice water.
The photons “flowing” from my Ryobi at room temperature incident on the ice water are absorbed, scattered, and transmitted by the lab glass of ice water.
No violation of 2LOT as universe entropy is increased in the Ryobi measurement process since it is a real process.
The energy gradient between Ryobi thermopile and lab glass of ice water determines which will emit, and by how much. If the thermopile is warmer than the lab glass of ice water, the thermopile will emit. The thermistor (usually affixed to the back of the thermopile) is used to calculate the temperature differential across the thermopile (no matter if it’s warmer on the outward-facing side or the thermistor side), and the circuitry calculates the remote temperature in a something akin to a Wheatstone bridge.
You’ll get right on detailing exactly how a photon (a quanta of energy) from a cooler object (and thus with a lower chemical potential) can even reach the warmer object (it is subsumed as it ascends the energy gradient toward the warmer object), let alone incide upon it, let alone do any work upon it. Do keep in mind a warmer object has higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
———-
A photon is a persistent perturbation of the EM field above its ambient (at ground state, the quantum vacuum)… raise that ambient field energy density, and the photons are subsumed in the ambient EM field, and are thus no longer persistent.
Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero.
———-
Energy cannot flow unless work can be done. A photon with lower chemical potential than ambient is not persistent. A photon from the cooler object will have lower chemical potential than the energy gradient between warmer and cooler object, and will be subsumed, it will not be persistent.
Are you now claiming that energy transfer has nothing to do with work? Or do you not understand what ‘chemical potential’ and ‘Helmholtz Free Energy’ mean?
Are you now claiming that energy can flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system, a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense?
You’ve been taught a convenient means of accounting for energy flow (use q = ε σ T^4 for all objects, and assume all objects emit as though in a 0 K ambient and absorb all radiation incident upon them (essentially treating graybodies as idealized blackbodies, but with ε<1), then subtract fictional ‘cold to warm’ energy flow from real ‘warm to cold’ energy flow to account for the energy gradient), but that does not represent how reality actually works, and leads people to believe that energy can flow from cooler to warmer.
Reality works via energy gradient determining radiant exitance. Reality doesn’t allow energy to flow from lower energy density to higher energy density, unless external energy does work upon the system… that’s 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense) in a nutshell, which you fundamentally misunderstand.
As an analogy… consider two batteries, one 1.5 V and one 12 V.
We electrically connect the batteries ‘+ to +’ and ‘- to -‘… according to your take on energetic transfer, you claim the 1.5 V battery can do work upon the 12 V battery.
Now analogize the 1.5 V battery to a cooler object, and the 12 V battery to a warmer object.
In other words, photon emission can only occur if the radiation pressure of the atom or molecule which would emit is greater than the ambient field radiation pressure, and the rate decreases as the differential between the emitting atom or molecule radiation pressure and the field radiation pressure decreases.
In other words, photon absorption can only occur if the photon radiation pressure is greater than the radiation pressure of the atom or molecule upon which that photon is incident, and the rate increases as the differential between the field radiation pressure and the atom or molecule radiation pressure increases.
In other words, 2LoT holds even at the quantum scale:
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
As Rudolf Clausius wrote in his paper entitled “Entropy”:
“A transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body always occurs in those cases in which work is done by heat…”
“But… but… but Clausius wrote of heat flowing from cold to hot!“, you may say… yeah, no. He wrote of that only in refuting Carnot’s assumption that the equivalent of the work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished.
Do remember that “heat” is definitionally an energy flux, thus we can rewrite Clausius’ statement above:
“An energy flux always (and only) occurs in those cases in which work is done by that energy flux.”
Your claim that photons from the cooler lab glass of ice water can flow to the warmer thermopile implies a 2LoT violation, which implies a reversal of time (ie: the principle of irreversibility), because energy is flowing from lower to higher potential without external energy doing work upon the system, thus system entropy is spontaneously decreasing. That cannot happen unless the system experiences time reversal.
There’s a million and one ways to show that your take on energy flow is flawed, a misinterpretation brought about because your institution of higher learning misled you by teaching you a convenient means of accounting for energy flow (use q = ε σ T^4 for all objects, and assume all objects emit as though in a 0 K ambient and absorb all radiation incident upon them (essentially treating graybodies as idealized blackbodies, but with ε<1), then subtract fictional ‘cold to warm’ energy flow from real ‘warm to cold’ energy flow to account for the energy gradient), and either neglected to inform you that it was merely a means of accounting for energy flow and did not represent actual energy flow in reality, or you weren’t paying attention that day.
I know you assert that it’s “unphysical”, etc. But, I’d like to be clear: Do you see this “way of accounting” leading to incorrect predictions about the temperatures of objects, and if so, in what situations?
Well, as I stated above, and assuming a two-object system at thermodynamic equilibrium, it assumes that both objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (when in reality, they are emitting nor absorbing none, and a standing wave has been set up in the intervening space (with the same energy density as the objects), with the standing wave’s nodes at the surfaces of the objects (just as we find in a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium), thus no energy can be transferred between objects, nor from the intervening space to either object), which leads to calculating double the energy density in the intervening space than that expected from Stefan’s Law.
Now extrapolate that to using q = ε σ T^4 for a graybody planet… do you suppose the atmosphere is going to have a higher calculated energy density than reality? Sure it is.
In addition, it leads to the incorrect assumption that an object’s radiant exitance is much higher than it actually is…
…which then causes the follow-on assumption that we must subtract a fictional ‘cold to warm’ energy flow from the real ‘warm to cold’ energy flow… which naturally leads some people to believe that energy can actually flow ‘cold to warm’… it confuses people.
I get that you believe the way I and some others have “accounted for” radiation leads to statements about the radiation you don’t agree with and believe confuses people.
Eventually, I’d like to get to the bottom of those issues. (It will still be at least another week before I get my copy of Morse’s “Thermal Physics,” which I’m hoping addresses some of these issues?)
And, it would be an even more urgent issue if you told me that the accounting method I’ve used leads to incorrect predictions about net heat flows and the temperatures of objects.
Everything you’ve listed sounds like it is at the level of what is being said about radiation.
So, although you haven’t directly answered my question, unless I hear otherwise, I’ll infer that your view of the physics and how I’ve been taught to think about things don’t lead to different predictions about the thermodynamic effects on the matter involved in a system.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
I’ve already told you that your means of accounting for energy flow results in double the energy density in the intervening space at thermodynamic equilibrium, and as you know, U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T… I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
“In other words, photons are not flowing from your lab glass of ice water to your Ryobi’s thermopile”
Clyde!
I see you haven’t taken my advice. Both cooling and warming increase universe entropy. Here’s a short primer:
1. Planck law, developed from room temperature thermopile, computes the nonzero ideal intensity of radiation emitted by my glass of 32F ice water at each and every frequency (you can plug and chug if curious to know the intensity at ANY frequency).
2. In its field of view on my glass of ice water, my room temperature IR thermometer absorbs about 95% of these emitted photons, reflects/scatters 5% and transmits none. These incident photons did not interact at all with the photons emitted by my thermometer that, going the other way, became incident on the glass of ice water, and again about 95% of those were absorbed, about 5% scattered, transmitted, and a very small percentage of those incident photons reflected right back into my thermometer.
3. S-B law instructs the IR thermometer across ALL frequencies what to read out from the absorbed photons on its temperature scale: 32F.
It’s a pretty simple process to explain but a lot of hard work (using thermopiles) went toward its development.
—-
Clyde writes: “As Rudolf Clausius wrote in his paper entitled “Entropy”:
“A transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body always occurs in those cases in which work is done by heat…”
And Clyde should look up Clausius’ definition of heat used in his sentence and find his defn. of heat is NOT an energy flux as Clyde re-writes so Clyde’s conclusions are wrong after that according to Clausius.
{sigh}
So, are you now telling us that radiative emission and absorption has nothing to do with work? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re telling us.
First, according to your take on energetic transfer, with photons flowing from cooler lab glass ice water to warmer thermopile, the thermopile’s entropy is spontaneously decreasing, energy is spontaneously flowing from lower energy density to higher energy density. That doesn’t happen, as 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense confirms, which you fundamentally misunderstand. The significance of the Clausius inequality is that it shows that the definition of entropy, i.e. δ S = δ q r e v T (note that entropy change is defined for a reversible process) is consistent with observed reality: the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease spontaneously. That would make radiative transfer of energy a reversible process… we know it’s irreversible because it’s time asymmetric.
Second, “at every frequency” means you misunderstand how your Ryobi non-contact thermometer works… a typical non-contact thermometer uses 8 – 14 µm radiation only.
Third, it’s not about photon-photon interaction, it’s about photon (which is merely a quanta of energy) interaction with the energy density of the ambient EM field… and between a warmer and cooler object, there is an increasing energy density (the energy gradient) as the photon from the cooler object (lower chemical potential) approaches the warmer object. Since warmer objects have higher energy density at all wavelengths than cooler objects, that means the energy gradient’s chemical potential increases as one nears the warmer object… photons from the cooler object (lower chemical potential) will be subsumed by the higher chemical potential of the energy gradient before those photons can ever incide upon the warmer object.
Fourth, Clausius’ definition of heat is the same as the scientific definition of heat… energy in motion.
Fifth, you’re attempting to resurrect the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges, a long-debunked theory of energetic exchange first promulgated in 1791. It assumed that radiation is an actual material fluid which is highly rarefied, it assumes objects emit regardless of ambient radiation pressure, it is predicated upon Caloric Theory of Heat (which is also debunked).
In fact, it was none other than James Clerk Maxwell who was instrumental in tossing the Prevost Theory of Exchanges on the midden heap of scientific history after he read Joules’ paper and convinced the scientific community to instead use the Kinetic Theory of Heat.
Radiation energy density is proportional to T^4 and is derived via the thermodynamic relation between radiation pressure p and internal energy density u, using the form of the electromagnetic stress–energy tensor: p = u/3, it represents the EM field contribution to the stress–energy tensor, describes the flow of energy in spacetime, and is a representation of the law of conservation of energy.
At thermodynamic equilibrium, the Helmholtz Free Energy is zero, thus photon chemical potential is zero, and since photons are quanta of energy, and since free energy is defined as the capacity to do work, if free energy is zero, no work can be done, thus no energy can flow.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temperature
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the
object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Photon chemical potential is zero. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy gradient.
It requires energy (an energy gradient) to perform work, to provide the impetus for any action.
2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense… “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body”) states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system… not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale [1], not ever. Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux”. Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
Study quantized standing wavemodes in a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium [2] and apply that to an object at thermodynamic equilibrium with ambient.
[2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/rayj.html
Just as in a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium, (if you will remember, blackbody radiation used to be called cavity radiation) between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, each object emits blackbody radiation until a standing wave between the two objects is set up with energy density equal to the two objects, after which no energy is exchanged, that’d violate 1LoT, 2LoT and Stefan’s Law.
Neither object can do work upon the other (nor upon the space between the objects) at thermodynamic equilibrium, thus no energy can be transferred between the two objects.
If one object changes temperature, the standing wave will begin traveling toward the object of lower temperature, with the group velocity of that traveling wave proportional to the temperature differential of the two objects, the operating principle behind it all being radiation pressure and energy gradient.
At the limit of two particles at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows between them.
Now, let’s expand upon that limit of two particles in thermodynamic equilibrium… now each object will have two particles.
Now, we have two objects with two particles each, Particle 1 of Object 1 is identical to Particle 1 of Object 2; and Particle 2 of Object 1 is identical to Particle 2 of Object 2. The objects are in thermodynamic equilibrium, right? The radiation each object is giving off is identical, right? As the two objects reach the point of thermal equilibrium, the macroscopic wave (ie: the tensor product of many singular photons) emitted by each object is identical, right?
A standing wave results from two waves of the same frequency with different vectors within the same medium.
Once thermodynamic equilibrium is attained, the standing wave has energy density equal to the energy density of the objects, so the objects can neither absorb nor emit radiation… that standing wave is reflected from each object (assuming no leakage of energy outside of the space between the two objects due to misdirected photons, nor no stray photons from outside entering the space between the two objects) because the standing wave’s nodes are at the surface of each object.
I encourage you to expand the number of particles in the system to whatever arbitrary number you wish, while keeping in mind what ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’ is… how energy transfer shifts temperature distribution within and between the objects until a Planckian distribution is attained in each and thus thermodynamic equilibrium is attained between them.
The photon has a chemical potential of zero at thermodynamic equilibrium, so photons at thermodynamic equilibrium are not absorbed and re-emitted, that’s a physical impossibility and results in a violation of Stefan’s Law [3] because the standing wavemode nodes are always at the surface in question at thermodynamic equilibrium.
[3] https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-nested-black-body-shells-model-and.html
This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects [4] takes into account Tc when calculating radiative flux from Th: q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
[4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
You misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for real-world objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) slows radiant exitance of the warmer object. The differing energy density between objects manifests an energy gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
Your take on radiative transfer would violate 1LoT, 2LoT. Stefan’s Law and a whole host of other fundamental physical laws by claiming that energy can flow from a lower to a higher energy density region.
—–
“First, according to your take on energetic transfer, with photons flowing from cooler lab glass ice water to warmer thermopile, the thermopile’s entropy is spontaneously decreasing”
No Clyde, you must have missed my statement: Both cooling and warming increase universe entropy because they are real processes thus consistent with Clausius stated 2nd law in his 9th memoir near the end.
Second, “at every frequency” means Clyde misunderstands how a Ryobi non-contact thermometer works (or any mass works)… a typical non-contact thermometer uses 8 – 14 µm radiation but it emits and absorbs ALL frequencies. All means all, there is no exception. Ever. For any mass.
“Photons from the cooler object (lower chemical potential) will be subsumed by the higher chemical potential of the energy gradient before those photons can ever incide upon the warmer object.”
Subsumed? Incide? That’s a bit archaic. Sorry Clyde, actually look up Planck’s Law, you just wrote an exception to the law and there are none . Ever, that’s why they call it a law. Note that there is no hedging here, Planck’s Law is never identically zero, it says all bodies exhibit radiation intensity (emit) and absorb by (Kirchhoff law) at all temperatures and all frequencies. All the time.
“Fourth, Clausius’ definition of heat is the same as the scientific definition of heat… energy in motion.”
No. That is the anonymous writer of the encyclopedia defn. of heat and is different than Clausius’ defn. Try again. Look it up. I am not resurrecting that radiation is an actual material fluid as you should learn by consulting Clausius, Prevost or Planck’s original work. If you want to know what our illustrious predecessors really did and said, then look up their own words. The last place to look is in a blog, or encyclopedia, which are notorious spreaders of rumors, half-truths, and outright errors.
Find a firsthand quote from those guys you name that “Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a “violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law)”. It is simply Clyde that has erroneously used that statement because cooling is a real process that increases universe entropy.
NB: The Planck function is worthy of respect, if not awe, in that it contains not one, not two, but three fundamental constants of nature: the speed of light in a vacuum c, Planck’s constant h, and Boltzmann’s constant kB. You can’t get much more fundamental than that.
You’ll get right on explicating exactly how a higher-entropy object can decrease the entropy of a lower-entropy object… if you can’t prove that mathematically, your entire argument collapses, and you’ll be forced to concede that your take on radiative physics is incorrect.
Trick wrote:
“Planck’s Law is never identically zero, it says all bodies exhibit radiation intensity (emit) and absorb by (Kirchhoff law) at all temperatures and all frequencies.”
Thank you for exhibiting yet again your inability to understand Planck’s Law.
Planck’s Law does not state that all objects furiously emit and absorb all the time, as you claim (except for idealized blackbody objects).
Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation of a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
You’re yet again confusing idealized blackbody objects and real-world graybody objects.
Idealized blackbody objects essentially assume an infinite energy gradient (equivalent to emission to 0 K ambient, absorption from ∞ K ambient).
Real-world graybody objects emit and absorb in accord with the energy gradient, which is a manifestation of the radiation pressure.
You are correct Clyde, Planck’s Law does not state “furiously”.
“Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation of a black body..”
You are wrong though in that Planck’s law could not possibly describe a black body as none of those exist and yet Planck’s Law was established experimentally using stuff that DOES exist and in a lab at STP (not 0K). Btw, the law states radiation intensity not density. Can Clyde explain all that? Hint: the experimental setups used can be found for free on the internet.
Your graphic shows real-world object’s emissivity .LT. 1 yet real-world objects exist with measured emissivity .GT. 1. Can Clyde explain that miss? Hint: read through the opening paragraphs in Planck’s “Theory of Heat Radiation” which Clyde can find for free on the internet.
Clyde’s graphic “this doesn’t exist” is wrong. Hint: Tc and Th are temperatures and wherever there are temperatures there are averages around which fluctuations occur.
Pedantism is no way to win an argument, Trick. “Furiously” was my modifier… in reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium between two objects, neither is emitting (nor absorbing) any radiation, nor is the intervening space. There is no energy gradient, so no work can be done, no energy can flow, so there is no impetus to do anything (emission or absorption). All actions need an impetus. No energy can flow unless work can be done.
Unless you are stating that radiative energy flow has nothing to do with work. Are you?
Planck’s Law refers to spectral density. Perhaps you should brush up on your definitions.
Planck heuristically derived a formula by assuming a hypothetical electrically-charged oscillator in a blackbody cavity. It was not derived “experimentally using stuff that DOES exist and in a lab at STP (not 0K)” (your words).
STP in a lab… so you’re saying Planck worked in a lab at 273.15 K? LOL
Real-world objects can only have ε>1 if their size is smaller than the emitted wavelength and if the particle is in relative isolation from other particles… it does not apply to macroscopic objects… unless you’re calling µm sized objects “macroscopic”.
So essentially, everything you’ve stated is incorrect.
“Planck’s Law refers to spectral density. Perhaps you should brush up on your definitions.”
No. Just look up the units for radiant intensity from the Planck formula.
“Planck heuristically derived a formula by assuming a hypothetical electrically-charged oscillator in a blackbody cavity. It was not derived “experimentally using stuff that DOES exist and in a lab at STP (not 0K)” (your words).”
No, there was no oscillator that’s hilarious actually. He used cavity lab work initially and then found the same formula theoretically.
You are way behind looking up the original work Clyde, you need to catch up so you know what you are writing about.
“and if the particle is in relative isolation from other particles”
No. You just need to catch up on the historical lab work – reading about it is ok but I recommend going there and doing it yourself (it’s called replication) if you really want to up your game & understand radiative emission and absorption so you can tell when you pick up nonsense from the internet such as you do.
If you insist upon rewriting history, creating your own definitions and denying reality, then no one can help you.
Good luck with your alternate universe, in which energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient… that energy only flows when there’s an energy gradient is the reason for the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter in the universe, after all (see below)… I expect your alternate universe will self-destruct shortly as all bound electrons undergo electron capture. LOL
And we’re all still waiting on your answer explicating exactly how a higher-entropy object can spontaneously decrease the entropy of a lower-entropy object… if you can’t prove that mathematically, your entire argument collapses, and you’ll be forced to concede that your take on radiative physics is incorrect. I note you tap-danced away from that.
Planck’s treatise The Theory of Heat Radiation opening paragraphs state that ‘heat rays’ are identical to ‘light rays’ of the same frequency, therefore ‘light rays’ and ‘heat rays’ are synonymous.
Now, light is composed of photons. Photons are quanta of energy, consisting of the electric and magnetic fields oscillating in quadrature (see below).
Photons also have no rest frame. Since photons have no rest mass, if a photon had a rest frame, no mass and no momentum equals nothing. Therefore photons must always be in motion.
Therefore “heat” is definitionally energy in motion. I seem to remember you denying this fundamental fact. LOL
———-
The sinusoidal ‘waves’ of photons are not actually waves… they’re spirals.
The first image above shows the real (cosine… labeled ‘Re’ in the image) and imaginary (sine… labeled ‘Im’ in the image) components of an electromagnetic ‘wave’. When viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it will appear to be a sinusoid, when in reality it’s a spiral.
This is because a sinusoid is a circular function.
You’ll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 pi radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 pi radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
Thus the magnetic field and electric field (oscillating in quadrature) of a photon is a circle geometrically transformed into a spiral by the photon’s movement through space-time. This is why all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or antiparallel to their direction of motion. This is a feature of their being massless and hence having no rest frame, which precludes their exhibiting the third state expected of a spin-1 particle (for a spin-1 particle at rest, it has three spin eigenstates: +1, -1, 0, along the z axis… no rest frame means no 0-spin eigenstate). A macroscopic electromagnetic wave is the tensor product of many singular photons, and thus may be linearly or elliptically polarized if all singular photons comprising the macroscopic electromagnetic wave are not circularly polarized in the same direction.
For a practical lab experiment, go outside on a sunny day and stretch out a Slinky so its shadow falls upon a surface perpendicular to the incoming sunlight… you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a sinusoid. Now turn the Slinky so its axis is aligned parallel to the incoming light such that the light is falling through the center of it, you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a circle. Our oscilloscopes show us a shadow of reality because they can only account for the electric field and not the magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation.
The above ties into vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom) creating a geometrical transform of resonant scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of an atom’s bound electron(s) (ie: the bound electron ‘spirals’ around the nucleus, (acted upon by the Lorentz force of the EM interaction between bound electron and nucleal proton and sustained by energy from the quantum vacuum), which is why a bound electron must have an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit (the underlying reason for quantization of energy and hence the basis of Quantum Mechanics) or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit which lowers electron orbital radius, which is how and why electron orbital radius falls to ground state from a higher excited state when the excitation energy sustaining it in that higher orbital is removed). This is what feeds energy to a bound electron to prevent it ‘spiraling in’ to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism… which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain electron valence configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer[1], Haisch and Ibison[2], Puthoff[3] and NASA[4] showed.
[1] https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.790
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… a bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) will emit Larmor radiation), which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.
This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.
———-
“Therefore “heat” is definitionally energy in motion. I seem to remember you denying this fundamental fact. LOL”
Here’s what I wrote: That is the anonymous writer of the encyclopedia defn. of heat and is different than Clausius’ defn. Try again. Look it up.
I see Clyde still hasn’t looked it up.
Clausius wrote:
“Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
You claim it can.
You’ve claimed that energy (in the form of photons) can spontaneously flow from cooler to warmer, when you claimed photons from a cooler lab glass of ice water would flow to the warmer Ryobi thermopile.
Clausius wrote:
ΔS = Q((1/T_2) – (1/T_1))
Where:
ΔS = change in entropy
Q = amount of heat
T_1, T_2 = absolute temperature
The observation that heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot is equivalent to requiring the net entropy change to be positive for a spontaneous flow of heat.
If T_1 = T_2, then the reservoirs are in equilibrium, no energy flows (there is no energy gradient, no energy can flow), and ΔS = 0.
That destroys your take on radiative physics. Now, you can either continue denying reality, making up your own definitions and rewriting history, or you can admit your mistake and learn.
The choice is yours.
I see Clyde still hasn’t looked up Clausius’ defn. of heat and started using it correctly causing Clyde to take his demonstrated sure route to befuddlement. If heat is energy in motion (as Clyde writes) and temperature (Th,Tc) is energy in motion, then it certainly seems to follow they are the same thing.
Clyde is still caught in the state of confusion prevailing over a century or two ago when the distinction between heat (Clyde’s erroneous defn.) and temperature (Clyde’s Th and Tc pix) was vague at best. Clyde still needs to up his thermodynamics game by reading and understanding the masters of the game.
Once Clyde begins to correctly use Clausius defn. of heat I can see Clyde moving on to understand and use entropy more correctly but it will take Clyde some time to make correct use of both terms.
You’ve been shown that your take on radiative physics causes a higher entropy object to spontaneously lower the entropy of a lower entropy object. You should know that for irreversible processes, entropy can only either remain the same or increase. You should also know that all real-world processes are irreversible.
You’ve also been shown that if there is no energy gradient, no energy can flow.
You’ve also been shown that free energy is defined as the capacity to do work, and if there is no free energy, no energy can flow.
You’ve also been shown that the modern scientific definition of ‘heat’ is energy in motion, an energy flux.
Thus your take on radiative physics has been mathematically shown to be incorrect. yet you persist in denying reality, rewriting history and making up your own definitions.
In his 1851 treatise “On the Moving Force of Heat, and the Laws regarding the Nature of Heat itself which are deducible therefrom“, Clausius wrote:
“The steam-engine having furnished us with a means of converting heat into a motive power, and our thoughts being thereby led to regard a certain quantity of work as equivalent for the amount of heat expended in its production, the idea of establishing theoretically some fixed relation between a quantity of heat and the quantity of work which it can possibly produce, from which relation conclusions regarding the nature of heat itself might be deduced, naturally presents itself.”
He also wrote, in refuting Carnot’s assertion that heat is never diminished:
“If we assume that heat, like matter, cannot be lessened in quantity, we must also assume that it cannot be increased; but it is almost impossible to explain the ascencion of temperature brought about by friction otherwise than by assuming an actual increase of heat.”
And:
“It may be remarked further, that many facts have lately transpired which tend to overthrow the hypothesis that heat is itself a body, and to prove that it consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies. If this be so, the general principles of mechanics may be applied to heat; this motion may be converted into work, the loss of vis viva in each particular case being proportional to the quantity of work produced.”
And:
“These circumstances, of which Carnot was also well aware, and the importance of which he expressly admitted, pressingly demand a comparison between heat and work, to be undertaken with reference to the divergent assumption that the production of work is not only due to an alteration in the distribution of heat, but to an actual consumption thereof; and inversely, that by the consumption of work heat may be produced.”
And:
“Heat can only be measured by its effects; and of the two effects mentioned, mechanical work is peculiarly applicable here, and shall therefore be chosen as a standard in the following investigation.”
What is work? Is it not mechanically defined as the product of the component of the force in the direction of motion, times the distance through which the force acts?
So while Clausius never actually defined ‘heat’ in his 1851 treatise, he most certainly did equate it to work, and the mechanical definition of work is W = |F| (cosθ) |d|.
IOW, heat is energy in motion, which is the modern definition (which you deny).
IOW, if no work can be done, no energy can flow.
But then, you’re attempting a back-door means of claiming that energy flow has nothing to do with work, aren’t you? Because that’s what it seems you’re doing.
Who said that “temperature (Th,Tc) is energy in motion“? Certainly not I… that was you.
Temperature is a measure of energy density:
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature. U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That pressure is radiation pressure.
As for temperature for macroscopic particles such as in a gas, it is a measure of the kinetic energy (and thus the kinetic energy density per given volume).
Oh, did you confuse ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’? Sure you did… that’s a common neophyte error. Perhaps, rather than grandstanding and posturing, rewriting history and making up your own definitions, misunderstanding standard definitions and generally flop-sweating all over the place, you should damp your hubris, buckle down, brush up on your definitions and actually learn something for once. LOL
Clyde, I see you STILL haven’t looked up Clausius’ defn. of heat and used it correctly. It is Clyde’s “energy in motion” defn. for heat that equally applies to temperature so it is Clyde that has confused heat and temperature not Clausius. Also, and again, Clyde’s picture for Th & Tc confused heat and temperature.
Presumably Clyde can eventually catch on to Clausius’ original writings however it is beginning to appear that may not be achieved anytime soon. Though I am always hopeful.
Wow… so you’re now claiming that the scientific definition of heat (an energy flux) is actually the definition of temperature, despite being shown that temperature is actually a measure of energy density… you’re fundamentally confused.
I wrote above of Clausius and his equating heat and work in his 1851 treatise… but you seem to be saying that energy transfer has nothing to do with work… is that what you’re saying?
Consider two reservoirs, in contact with each other, at T_1 = T_2, which direction is the energy moving between the two reservoirs, according to your take on energetic exchange, in which you imply that energy can flow even at thermodynamic equilibrium?
How is entropy changing with your purported energy movement?
Because every time energy moves for an irreversible process, entropy will increase, and all real-world processes are irreversible.
So you’re essentially stating that the system above will continue increasing in entropy, and since temperature can be defined in terms of entropy via: 1/T ☰ (∂S/∂E)ₙ,ᵥ, you claim that the system will spontaneously cool even if it’s not losing energy to its surroundings, meaning energy must be destroyed.
Are you sure you’ve thought through your stance? LOL
“is that what you’re saying?”
What I am evidently saying is Clyde’s “energy in motion” defn. for heat equally applies to temperature so it is Clyde that has confused heat and temperature not Clausius. And yes Clyde, Clausius does write out the definition of heat. I’m sure Clyde can find it, just dig a little harder since reading up on the subject is good practice.
I am consistently saying I see Clyde still hasn’t looked up Clausius’ defn. of heat, temperature and started applying physics correctly. This would be the first step for Clyde to understand for two reservoirs, in contact with each other, at T_1 = T_2, the direction energy is moving between the two reservoirs.
So you’re now claiming that temperature is defined as an energy flux… just as heat is scientifically defined as an energy flux.
You’ll get right on presenting the mathematics of your supposition. Otherwise, you’ll be forced to admit that you’ve gotten the definitions wrong, that’s led you to false premises, which has led you to incorrect conclusions, which has compelled you to embarrass yourself online.
And we’re still waiting on your mathematical proof of exactly how a higher entropy object can spontaneously decrease the entropy of a lower entropy object. Your failure to prove this mathematically will lead you to admit the same as above. Your tap-dancing away from that mathematical proof twice now doesn’t bode well for your stance on radiative physics.
For two reservoirs, in physical contact or not, at T_1 = T_2, no energy flows. Your inability to admit to this reality doesn’t bode well for your knowledge of physics in general.
In Clausius’ 9th memoir in The Mechanical Theory of Heat: With Its Applications to the Steam-Engine and to the Physical Properties of Bodies, he wrote:
“If we denote this quantity of heat by Q, a quantity of heat given off by the body being reckoned as a negative quantity quantity of heat absorbed, then the following equation holds for the element dQ of heat absorbed during an infinitesimal change of condition,
dQ = dU + AdW
Here U denotes the magnitude which I first introduced into the theory of heat in my memoir of 1850, and defined as the sum of the free heat present in the body, and of that consumed by interior work. Since then, however, W. Thomson has proposed the term energy of the body for this magnitude, which mode of designation I have adopted as one very appropriately chosen…”
“heat given off”
“heat absorbed”
Both describe energy in motion.
“free heat” equates to free energy, the capability of doing work.
And what do you know, Clausius adopted Thomson’s use of the word energy to denote what he previously termed “free heat“.
So even Clausius eventually came around to the realization that heat is an energy flux.
One must wonder when Trick will achieve the same? LOL
Now, Clausius also wrote in his first memoir:
“We shall forbear entering at present on the nature of the motion which may be supposed to exist within a body, and shall assume generally that a motion of the particles does exist, and that heat is the measure of their vis viva.”
‘Vis viva‘ is the one-half the product of an object’s momentum and the square of its speed… or what we now call kinetic energy.
So Clausius did indeed confuse ‘heat‘ and ‘temperature‘ in his first memoir.
‘Heat‘ is definitionally an energy flux. ‘Temperature‘ is a measure of that energy, in Clausius’ case kinetic energy.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature. This is why, for instance, as one reduces the volume of a gas (compresses the gas), the ‘temperature’ increases (the kinetic energy per volume increases because the volume decreases)… the ‘heat’ (energy flow into or out of that gas) does not necessarily increase.
Trick clings to an erroneous definition from 171 years ago (because it supports his narrative that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient, which supports his ‘backradiation’ narrative, which supports his CAGW narrative) rather than using modern definitions… a disingenuous attempt at sustaining CAGW, which is on its deathbed.
Reading this exchange shows someone who knows Physics down through the Molecular, Atomic and Quantum levels arguing the Science with someone who doesn’t.
All the someone who doesn’t understand it to the samel level can do is continually repeat the same irrelevant remark without adding anything of physics to the debate.
I think the term is “schooled”.
Mhem…
“momentum”
-should be-
“mass”
Now, let us examine the temperature / pressure / energy relation in an atom / molecule sense and in relation to photons:
An atom or molecule moving in a single translational mode DOF will have a higher temperature for the same kinetic energy than if it’s moving in more than a single translational mode DOF.
KE = (DOF / 2) k_B T
T = (2 KE) / (DOF k_B)
p = −1 / 3 * (the components of the stress tensor)
The 1/3 assumes that the pressure is equipartitioned in all 3 DOF (ie: static pressure). In reality, a more accurate equation for dynamic pressure would be:
p = -1 / DOF * (stress_tensor_x + stress_tensor_y + stress_tensor_z)
static pressure + dynamic pressure = total pressure
p + q = p_0
Where: p = static pressure (Pa); q = dynamic pressure (Pa); p_0 = total pressure (Pa)
Bernoulli’s Principle states that if dynamic pressure increases, static pressure must decrease. In other words, for a flowing fluid, it is trading static pressure (in 3 DOF) for dynamic pressure (in less than 3 DOF). Thus for a compressible fluid, static temperature orthogonal to the plane of flow will decrease, while stagnation temperature in the plane of flow will increase.
The equation for dynamic pressure: q = 1/2 p v²
Where: q = dynamic pressure (Pa); p = fluid density (kg/m³); v = velocity (m/s)
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
Now, knowing that you’re a pedant, Trick, you’ll likely bleat something like “Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!“… note the ‘for a given volume‘ blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit.
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
———-
Now, that’s for particle kinetic energy, and we can see that temperature and pressure are intimately linked. What about photons?
The pressure P for a photon gas exerted in the x-direction on area A of the wall is summed over all i = 1 to N photons:
P = ½ ∑ 2 pix vix / V = ⅓ U/V = ⅓ e,
U is just ∑ pix vix + piy viy + piz viz for photons.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It most certainly is not “energy in motion” as you claim. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.
Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.
Now that we see that all are in agreement, let us move on to chemical potential…
Among the properties of the cavity with volume V in radiative thermal equilibrium at temperature T is that:
U = a V T^4
P = ⅓ a T^4
S = (4/3) a V T^3
We can calculate the chemical potential, µ, which measures the ease with which the number n moles of photons adjusts to keep the energy density constant in the cavity in radiative thermal equilibrium:
µn = U – ST + PV
µ = 0
When photons are in radiative thermal equilibrium in a volume V at a constant temperature T, their chemical potential is zero.
Chemical potential is a measure of the ability to do work. If chemical potential equals zero, no work can be done, thus no energy can flow.
Also remember that there is no conservation law for photons. Since photons are merely persistent perturbations of the EM field above the ambient, should the ambient EM field chemical potential exceed the photon chemical potential, those photons will be subsumed by the ambient EM field.
Also remember that between two objects, one warmer and one cooler, the chemical potential increases in the intervening space as one ascends the energy gradient from cooler to warmer object. Thus photons from the cooler object will be subsumed before they ever reach the warmer object because warmer objects have higher energy density at all wavelengths than cooler objects.
See how simple it is? LOL
Very good Clyde, you made progress since you have finally found Clausius’ defn. for heat which is: the measure of (all the particles of a body) kinetic energy.
Heat is defined as a measure by Clausius! More precisely note that to Clausius heat is the measure of the total KE of the object’s particles.
So, contrary to Clyde’s statement, Clausius did NOT confuse heat with temperature which is: the local average KE of the object’s particles.
Note the difference in the words “total KE” for heat and “local average KE” for temperature. So, it is Clyde that confused heat and temperature when Clyde erroneously advocated “energy in motion” defn. which is true for both heat and temperature.
—–
“For two reservoirs, in physical contact or not, at T_1 = T_2, no energy flows.”
Now let’s use Clyde’s new enlightenment to examine Clyde’s erroneous conclusion. First let’s use one side of Clyde’s “or” for solids:
Per Clyde: “For two reservoirs, in physical contact, at T_1 = T_2, no energy flows.”
Clyde now knows to Clausius heat cannot flow between the two reservoirs because their constituent particles are not exchanged (& this would hold true even if T_1 .GT. T_2). The measure of the total KE of the particles in each reservoir certainly can change though when T_1 .GT. T_2 but per Clausius that measure of the total particle KE does NOT flow or even transfer. Just like an object does not contain work, an object does not contain heat; per Clausius the object does contain particle KE.
Clyde also now has learned the temperature is an average of the KE of the object’s particles. So, if a particle in one solid fluctuates to a higher speed while at same time coming into contact with a lower speed particle in the other solid then energy DOES transfer between the solids (and vice versa) even when T_1 = T_2 thus invalidating Clyde’s statement. Overall during the process net energy does not transfer.
This real energy exchange process also invalidates ALL of Clyde’s discussion about “energy gradients”.
There exists the birth of photons, life of photons, and death of photons. Photons are not subsumed nor incided which also invalidates Clyde’s discussion on that subject.
My IR thermometer works fine reading out ice water at 32F brightness temperature and boiling water at 212F brightness temperature from emission (birth) and absorption (death) of photons with a very short life time.
Where is the link to your reference?
If no energy can flow between 2 object of equal potential how can energy flow from an object with even lower potential to the same higher potential object?
AC 8:57am, good questions. There used to be an easy link found on the internet to Clausius’ 1st memoir for his defn. of heat is a measure but I can’t find it any more. Your own google fu is necessary if you mean linking to a Clausius ref. & if you mean another ref. please advise.
Clyde gets it wrong that no energy flows between two same temperature solids in contact so not sure if your question is to me or Clyde. Energy can transfer on contact from an object with lower temperature to a higher temperature object for the same reasons as I noted since temperature is an average of constituent particle KE & 2LOT allows this since 2LOT applies to mandate entropy increase for the universe in any real process.
I am talking about Radiation transfer of energy.
All the transfer equations say that there is no flow between equally hot oblects and no temperature change in the upward direction.
AC 11:38 am, then refer to Planck (not Clyde’s subsume radiation):
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
“A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B0 at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B0 is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B0 a stronger emitter than A.”
So apply Planck radiation statement to my IR thermometer at room temperature 72F viewing and reading out either 32F ice water or 212F boiling water and see what you get.
The transfer eqn.s are used for calculating net energy transfer.
The sentence immediately preceding the paragraph you quoted:
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
So you are attempting to resuscitate the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, which has long been chucked on the midden-heap of scientific hypotheses. LOL
The Prevost Theory of Exchanges claimed that energy is transferred equally back and forth regardless of energy density, it’s from 1791, it assumes radiation is an actual fluid, and it’s long-debunked, first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics.
My, oh, my, oh, my… that doesn’t bode well for your entire take on radiative exchange and energy exchange in general, your knowledge of physics, your ability to reason, and it absolutely destroys your “energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient” narrative, which destroys your “backradiation” narrative, which destroys your “CAGW” narrative. LOL
Planck correctly stated:
“Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.”
In other words, energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.
Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy gradient), to wit:
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy gradient. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:
“We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T.”
So unless he was speaking strictly of idealized blackbody objects (and not real-world graybody objects), Planck made a mistake. Given that Planck was discussing emissivity in the very paragraph where he mentions Prevost’s principle, that means he made a mistake… he wasn’t discussing idealized blackbody objects.
The image above shows that while idealized blackbody objects do not take into account the energy gradient, real-world graybody objects most certainly do. Of course, idealized blackbody objects are just that, idealizations… they don’t actually exist.
So in the real world, the energy gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.
So Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density, see maths above); and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world objects as though they emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient… even the greats of science make mistakes.
Good thing I’m around to correct them. LOL
It wasn’t Clausius’ “definition” of heat, it was his misattribution to heat the definition of temperature… that you’ve glommed onto it because it supports your narrative, refusing to give that erroneous definition up because that destroys your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient’ narrative, which destroys your ‘backradiation’ narrative, which destroys your ‘CAGW’ narrative.
The ‘total kinetic energy’ is merely the ‘local average kinetic energy’ times the number of atoms or molecules. You’re arguing semantics, without even knowing what you’re arguing about. LOL
Now you’re not only stating that energy can flow willy-nilly even when there’s no energy gradient, but that it cannot flow when there is an energy gradient. You’re so fundamentally confused that you’re diametrically opposite to reality. LOL
And all this while you admit that temperature is a measure of the energy of an object (just as I’ve stated… but you forget that it doesn’t necessarily have to be kinetic energy… a photon gas has temperature but no kinetic energy in the classical sense… remember, under classical physics, the photon is an impossibility… why aren’t you arguing that photons don’t even exist, since you insist upon clinging to classical physics. LOL) and is thus a measure of energy density (because whatever is being measured has a certain volume, hence energy per volume, as the maths show), and while you claim that temperature means ‘energy in motion’… so you must now claim that kinetic energy is necessarily “energy in motion” because you don’t understand that in the case of kinetic energy, it’s not the energy that’s in motion, it’s the atoms or molecules constituting the object in question.
And now you’re talking about ‘birth, life and death’ of photons, in what appears to be some attempt to anthropomorphize them, but you refuse to acknowledge that photons are a component of the EM field (a persistent perturbation above the ambient EM field), and are thus subsumed by the ambient EM field when ambient EM field chemical potential exceeds photon chemical potential; and photons are manifested from the ambient EM field when ambient EM field chemical potential of a region is above zero as compared to some other region or object.
Trick wrote:
“So, if a particle in one solid fluctuates to a higher speed while at same time coming into contact with a lower speed particle in the other solid then energy DOES transfer between the solids (and vice versa)”
So in your classical-physics limit, you must admit that the amount of energy exchanged particle-to-particle can only equalize the kinetic energy between the two particles (ie: atoms or molecules), and thus eventually, barring the extremely rare constructive interference which is nearly immediately smeared out over neighboring particles, all particles constituting the solid come to receive the same kinetic energy, and thus no energy can flow… so you’ve essentially stated that “thermodynamic equilibrium” means there is an energy gradient… you seem fundamentally confused. LOL
You’re arguing from the viewpoint of the classical physics-framed time-averaged statistical probability distribution treatment of an ensemble of quantum interactions of a scale sufficient to exhibit classical behavior. You can’t prove anything about instantaneous per-interaction quantum processes with that. Quantum Thermodynamics has moved beyond time-averaged statistical probabilities.
The only reason classical physics claims that molecules emit / absorb across an ensemble simultaneously is because the Kinetic Theory Of Heat is a classical physics-based time-averaged statistical equilibrium / ensemble probability theory (as Einstein admitted in his writings). It’s merely a statistical model to understand the processes, now superseded by Quantum Thermodynamics. The individual particles and the body they comprise do not operate that way in the real world.
Now let’s analogize that to photons… remember, photons are merely quanta of energy, and we’re talking of the flow of energy.
In reality, each object’s surface atoms’ or molecules’ dipole oscillations set up a surface EM field which manifests a radiation pressure. The energy density differential between cooler and warmer object sets up an energy gradient, and energy can only flow down the energy gradient from warmer to cooler. Energy from a cooler object (lower radiation pressure) does not and cannot ascend the energy gradient toward a warmer object (higher radiation pressure), because warmer objects have higher energy density at all wavelengths than cooler objects.
This app is uses the Schrodinger equation to compute energetic transfer from free space to an object:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/software/BarrierScattering.html
– Set it to whatever energy level you want, as long as ‘Wavepacket Energy’ and ‘Barrier Energy’ are equal.
– Set the ‘Width’ slider to maximum. This will be akin to free space to the left, and an object to the right of the display.
– Set ‘Ramp’ to some arbitrary value (the higher the energy density of the barrier, the wider the energy gradient (ie: the ‘ramp’).
– Select the ‘Density / Phase’ option-box.
If you’re doing it right, you’ll see the free space wavemode nodes are always at the ‘ramp’, and you’ll see the wavemodes set up a standing wave (which will vary in space because ‘Wavepacket Energy’ has an uncertainty added to it). Note that even if ‘Wavepacket Energy’ is equal to ‘Barrier Energy’, no energy is imparted to the barrier (ie: the object). If the code glitches, start with ‘WavePacket Energy’ lower than ‘Barrier Energy’, then ramp it up after it’s running.
This is akin to stating that a particle (atom or molecule) in an excited quantum state cannot absorb energy which is equal to the energy which excited that quantum state, unless the particle has another quantum state available to be excited which is equal to that energy.
The electric field of a non-resonant photon, ~100,000,000 times smaller than the Coulomb field seen by the bound electron(s), slightly changes the phase of the bound electron(s), just as it changes the phase of the incident photon… no energy is exchanged if the photon is not absorbed, only the phase is shifted, altering the vector of the photon. This is how reflection from a step potential works. This is dependent upon the differential between energy density of the photon and atom / molecule. In the case of absorption, the photon constructively interferes with the available resonant quantum states of the atom or molecule. No phase shift.
As Hendrik Kramers wrote:
“Another point which, this time, lies quite within the domain where our formulae are significant refers to the scattering of light by an elastically bound electron. Consider again our assembly of harmonic oscillators of frequencies k which we may imagine to take the discrete but very finely distributed values determined by [ kL – η(k) = π N (N = 1, 2, 3… ) ]. Let all of them be in the ground state (energy 3/2 ħ k) with the exception of one (frequency k’) which has the energy 5/2 ħ k’, the vibration parallel to – say – the x-axis being excited by one quantum ħ k’. In this situation light of frequency k’ coming from all directions is continuously scattered by the electron.
…the light quanta in the external field… which are affected by the presence of the electron through the appearance of the phase shift η. We might also call them phase shifted light quanta…”
In an ideal blackbody cavity (remember that blackbody radiation used to be called cavity radiation) at thermodynamic equilibrium, quantized standing waves are set up. The wavemode nodes are always at the walls of the cavity in this case. Because the walls and the cavity space’s EM field are of equal energy density, photons cannot be absorbed by the walls, nor can they be emitted. The photons in the standing waves are reflected from the walls. If they were absorbed / re-emitted, that would result in double the energy density in the cavity space. This is where the conventional explanation of energetic exchange falls down… it violates Stefan’s Law.
Likewise, between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, each object emits blackbody radiation, which sets up a standing wave between the objects. No energy is exchanged, that’d violate 1LoT, 2LoT, Stefan’s Law, etc. Neither object can do work upon the other at thermodynamic equilibrium, thus no energy can be transferred between them.
Thus, photons from one object won’t be absorbed by the other, they’ll be reflected. This increases the energy density of the standing wave until it equals that of the objects. Thus the objects cannot emit nor absorb photons, they can only reflect the photons still in the standing wave from when the objects were approaching thermodynamic equilibrium.
If one object changes temperature, the standing wave will travel toward the object of lower temperature, with the group velocity of that traveling wave proportional to the temperature differential of the two objects, the operating principle behind it all being radiation pressure.
In this circumstance, the photon has a chemical potential of zero. It can do no work. Free energy is zero. If no work can be done, no energy can flow.
Politician Clyde writes 12:47 am last paragraph his political manifesto and repeats at 2:31 pm that I have a narrative. Sorry, Clyde, I have no narrative other than the narrative & math writings of the thermo. grandmasters.
Like the OP wrote 8:06 am, it’s not going to be fruitful discussing science hard earned by the masters in the field with a politician like Clyde, good luck and happy trails to Clyde.
—–
Some notes before I go:
NB1: “The ‘total kinetic energy’ is merely the ‘local average kinetic energy’ times the number of atoms or molecules.”
No. The particle measure of ‘total kinetic energy’ (heat) is NOT merely the ‘local average kinetic energy’ (temperature) times the number of atoms or molecules as the local temperature may not be the object’s average local temperature. The global earth near surface atm. average is ~289K which will not compute from using the temperature at the S. Pole station.
NB2: “a photon gas has temperature but no kinetic energy in the classical sense…In an ideal blackbody cavity…”
No. Blackbodies do not exist Clyde.
Photons in any opaque cavity at dry ice to superheated steam equilibrium temperatures do not interact with each other, so the equilibrium distribution of a photon gas can come about only because of interactions of photons with the walls of the container. Radiation in politician Clyde’s perfectly reflecting container (which does not exist) would never evolve to the equilibrium distribution if it did not initially have this distribution. These points are made by F. E. Irons, 2004: Reappraising Einstein’s 1909 application of fluctuation theory to Planckian radiation. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72, pp. 1059–67.
NB3: “so you’ve essentially stated that “thermodynamic equilibrium” means there is an energy gradient”
No. Clyde stated those words.
NB4: “photons are merely quanta of energy”
No. An electromagnetic wave is just as much a thing as a photon: both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not, it seems, mass, thus light can exert radiation pressure, that is, transfer momentum to illuminated objects.
NB5: “Energy from a cooler object (lower radiation pressure) does not and cannot ascend the energy gradient toward a warmer object (higher radiation pressure),”
No. See Planck link at 1:49pm: “A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B0 at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B0 is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B0 a stronger emitter than A.”
NB6: “It wasn’t Clausius’ “definition” of heat””
If Clausius defining heat can’t get through to politician Clyde, no one can.
Adios amigo.
‘Politician’… I’ve been called worse by better than you. LOL
You deny the definition of total kinetic energy being the average local kinetic energy times the number of particles! You deny the definitions of ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’ despite being shown mathematically that you are wrong! You deny that photons (which are a persistent perturbation of the ambient EM field above that ambient level) can interact with the ambient EM field! You deny that photons are quanta of energy! You don’t know that an electromagnetic ‘wave’ is merely the tensor product of many singular photons! You deny the precepts of 2LoT! You deny the reality that energy only flows due to an energy gradient! You cling to Planck’s incorrect statement, which is predicated upon the long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges, which assumes energy flows without regard to energy gradient! You deny that the greats of science can get things wrong (Carnot assumed heat is never diminished in producing work, Clausius incorrectly attributed the definition of temperature to heat, Planck used the long-debunked Prevost Principle to assume that all objects emit energy without regard to energy gradient, whereas he correctly stated that conduction of energy can only occur due to an energy gradient)!
And you refuse to amend your incorrect knowledge… because that incorrect knowledge bolsters your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative, which bolsters your ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which bolsters your ‘CAGW‘ narrative.
And now that I’ve shown you your multitude of errors and pinned you down as to why you cling to those errors, you’re running away! LOL
CAGW is well and truly dead… all that remains is unlatching the leeches still feeding off its rotting carcass. LOL
Trick wrote:
“Photons in any opaque cavity at dry ice to superheated steam equilibrium temperatures do not interact with each other,“
Photons are a component of the ambient EM field (a persistent perturbation of the EM field above the ambient level)… so unless you’re claiming that the EM field cannot interact with the EM field (and you’re thus claiming that electromagnetism cannot interact with electromagnetism), you and F.E. Irons (who was a Mechanical Engineering student at School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales under Professor R. K. Duggins (and definitely not a quantum physicist) and who wrote a total of 8 papers) are wrong.
According to you, the weak-measurement double-slit experiment is just a hallucination (in reality, it’s a result of the photon interacting with itself and the EM component of the quantum vacuum… and if a photon can interact with itself, it most certainly can interact with other photons); the sun doesn’t gravitationally collapse because magical fairies sprinkle pixie dust on it (in reality, it is the radiation pressure brought about by photon interaction that prevents its gravitational collapse); photon gas has no pressure (a photon gas most certainly does have pressure, and given that it’s comprised of only photons, that pressure arises due to photon-photon interaction); the speed of light in vacuum is what it is because the flying spaghetti monster just likes it that way (in reality, light interaction with the CMB slows the speed of light from essentially infinity to 299,792,458 m/s). LOL
The photon interaction is with the ambient EM field and its energy density. If the ambient EM field (due to an energy gradient) has higher chemical potential than the photons in that same space, the photons will no longer be persistent perturbations above the EM field ambient, they’ll be subsumed, they’ll disappear back into the ambient EM field.
Trick wrote:
“so the equilibrium distribution of a photon gas can come about only because of interactions of photons with the walls of the container.“
“Interaction” doesn’t necessarily imply “absorption / emission”… electromagnetism is a force, mediated by photons and virtual photons, interaction can take place at a distance… unless you’re now claiming that electrical generators work by smacking the rotor and stator together. LOL
Trick wrote:
“Radiation in politician Clyde’s perfectly reflecting container (which does not exist) would never evolve to the equilibrium distribution if it did not initially have this distribution. These points are made by F. E. Irons, 2004: Reappraising Einstein’s 1909 application of fluctuation theory to Planckian radiation. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72, pp. 1059–67.”
Of course it initially has this distribution… first, do you think thermal and radiative equilibrium just comes about in an instant without equilibration? The standing waves in the cavity space are those that are left as the cavity walls come into thermal equilibrium. Second, photons can interact at-distance, a photon need not incide upon a surface in order to interact, and that interaction need not exchange energy.
F.E. Irons makes a grave mistake… his Section IV statement implies that his closed system is comprised solely of photons, with no matter. It’s well known that radiation sans matter cannot generally equilibrate, but radiation can equilibrate via interaction with matter (and again, that ‘interaction’ doesn’t necessarily imply absorption / emission)… are you now claiming that a blackbody cavity’s walls are not comprised of matter? LOL
The electric field of a non-resonant photon, ~100,000,000 times smaller than the Coulomb field seen by the bound electron(s), slightly changes the phase of the bound electron(s), just as it changes the phase of the incident photon… no energy is exchanged if the photon is not absorbed, only the phase is shifted, altering the vector of the photon. This is how reflection from a step potential works. This is dependent upon the differential between energy density of the photon and atom / molecule. In the case of absorption, the photon constructively interferes with the available resonant quantum states of the atom or molecule. No phase shift.
As Hendrik Kramers wrote:
“Another point which, this time, lies quite within the domain where our formulae are significant refers to the scattering of light by an elastically bound electron. Consider again our assembly of harmonic oscillators of frequencies k which we may imagine to take the discrete but very finely distributed values determined by [ kL – η(k) = π N (N = 1, 2, 3… ) ]. Let all of them be in the ground state (energy 3/2 ħ k) with the exception of one (frequency k’) which has the energy 5/2 ħ k’, the vibration parallel to – say – the x-axis being excited by one quantum ħ k’. In this situation light of frequency k’ coming from all directions is continuously scattered by the electron.
…the light quanta in the external field… which are affected by the presence of the electron through the appearance of the phase shift η. We might also call them phase shifted light quanta…”
In an ideal blackbody cavity (remember that blackbody radiation used to be called cavity radiation) at thermodynamic equilibrium, quantized standing waves are set up. The wavemode nodes are always at the walls of the cavity in this case. Because the walls and the cavity space’s field are of equal energy density, photons cannot be absorbed by the walls, nor can they be emitted (photons are nothing but energy, and energy cannot flow unless work can be done, since at thermal equilibrium, photon chemical potential is zero). The photons in the standing waves are reflected from the walls. If they were absorbed / re-emitted, that would result in double the energy density in the field. This is where the conventional explanation of energetic exchange falls down… it violates Stefan’s Law.
Likewise, between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, each object emits blackbody radiation, which sets up a standing wave between the objects. No energy is exchanged, that’d violate 1LoT, 2LoT, Stefan’s Law, etc. Neither object can do work upon the other at thermodynamic equilibrium, thus no energy can be transferred between them.
You’re so fundamentally confused, your logic so twisted, that you’ve backed yourself into a corner you can’t backpedal your way out of… you’ve claimed that temperature is defined as ‘energy in motion‘, an energy flux (which is actually the definition of heat, but we’ll go with your erroneous definition of temperature for the moment to prove a point).
Now, at thermodynamic equilibrium, since no energy can flow, that would mean both of the objects which are at thermodynamic equilibrium with each other would have an absolute temperature of zero.
Right? Anytime energy cannot flow, absolute temperature must be zero according to your definition of temperature.
Awww, did you think this was my first rodeo? I’ve seen your kind so many times before that I’ve lost count. Refuting your cartoon-science contortionism is so easy for me that I can do it in my sleep.
Say, you wouldn’t have happened to have used the pseudonyms ‘Dave Burton‘ (not the skeptic Dave Burton… the kook who misappropriated his name because the skeptic Dave Burton mortally wounded the poor kook’s fragile little psyche by proving him wrong) or ‘evenminded‘ at any time in the past, would you have? Because your particular brand of blatherskite seems very familiar… or perhaps the scientifically divorced-from-reality all exhibit the same dullardry. LOL
The conversion from kinetic to potential energy in lofting air masses is balanced by the opposite conversion in falling air masses – these things are occurring simultaneously. The net kinetic energy vs potential energy in the system is not changing. The only way for the earth system to lose energy is via radiation to space, so it is the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere that determines the planetary temperature.
I agree that at hydrostatic equilibrium the total amount of potential energy is constant. It also follows that total KE plus total PE is also a constant because KE becomes PE with height.
Anything that attempts to change those constants will destroy hydrostatic equilibrium and the atmosphere will be lost. That is why the radiative theory is a physical impossibility.
What happens in reality is that any destabilising influence from back radiation is neutralised by convective adjustments which are made possible by the changes in lapse rate slopes caused by those destabilising influences. Those adjustments restore hydrostatic equilibrium in the face of massive disruptions such as from volcanoes or meteorite strikes. Radiative imbalances are trivial in comparison.
Convection always changes to balance energy going out with energy coming in.
“Convection always changes to balance energy going out with energy coming in.”
It is not possible for convection to maintain earth’s energy balance with sunlight because convection does not carry energy away from the earth system.
Convection controls the rate at which the kinetic energy from the initial ascent is returned to the surface in descent ready for radiation to space.
Therefore, it does control the rate at which energy flows through the system and can adjust as necessary.
That doesn’t seem right. That would imply that radiation to space does not vary with altitude, wouldn’t it?
If radiative gases are present then there must be radiation to space from within the atmosphere and it would vary with the temperature at the radiating height.
For a largely transparent atmosphere such as that of Earth the vast majority goes from the surface.
I thought it would be implicit in my question that I was talking about 13 – 18 micron wavelength photons and, of course, I’m ignoring water vapor. My question related to convection and altitude, linearity versus logarithmic. I’m trying to learn more about it.
That’s true if you consider 17% to be the “vast majority.”
Do you ever check facts?
Moist warm air rises convectively. At altitude (above lots of humid air and other hothouse gasses) it gives up lots and lots of its heat in a couple HOH phase changes… condensation and freezing)…lots of which is free to radiate into space way up there (actually enhanced by increased CO2 concentrations…collisions add Q to CO2 and other GHG’s which they can then release in radiation).
The air returning to the earth is way colder…and heavier because —> drier (else it wouldn’t be falling)…and the cold liquid rain and frozen solid ice falls.
So, where is there some balance between the energy rising and energy falling from convection?? Rising (and escaping) energy easily exceeds falling energy by at least an order of magnitude… No?
Uh, I’m not sure that “balance between the energy rising and energy falling from convection?” is a physical thing. Pure energy has many ways to go, not just falling. Show me some math.
Convection dampens the day to night side amplitude thereby really “trapping” heat.
The temperature amplitude between day and night times and poles vs. equator decreases by atmospheric mass which can “store” heat due to the pressure-temperature relation given by the ideal gas law.
And that doesn’t even touch the latent heat capacity of the oceans.
“It is not possible for convection to maintain earth’s energy balance with sunlight because convection does not carry energy away from the earth system.”
But it carries energy within the earth system.
If topic energy balance and global temperature- such why we in an icehouse climate v a greenhouse climate. It about the average temperature of the entire ocean which averages about 3.5 C.
A greenhouse climate would would have ocean 10 C or more warmer than 3.5 C
I do not understand why there seems to be an underlying “one or the other” mentality.
Is that just my imagination?
Obviously both processes, and many others, are going on at the same time.
DocSiders said what I was gonna say: The energy that escapes via radiation after lifting processes (convective + orographic + any other lifting mechanisms) move air to altitude is not present when that air descends, obviously.
More moisture in the air when it is lifted by any such mechanism, increases the energy transported aloft tremendously.
The higher air is lifted, the more chance that the energy contained in the moisture as latent heat, will be released by phase changes.
Every gram of water that changes from vapor to liquid droplets releases 540 calories per gram, and each gram of liquid that freezes releases another 80 calories per gram.
This is a gigantic amount of energy compared to the amount of energy it takes to cool or heat liquid water between 0° and 100° C, which is of course 100 calories per gram.
It is also gigantic compared to the amount of thermal energy in dry air.
It is mostly dry air which is descending, after much or most of the latent heat which was in the moist ascending air has been released.
Not all of the latent heat which was released is radiated away to space in any single cycle of lifting and descent, but again, much of it has been.
And these cycles of lifting and descent are repeated over and over again.
The diurnal cycle only adds more layers of complexity to an already enormously complicated set of processes.
Dave Fair,
I think you misunderstood the part of what DocSiders said that you commented on. He was questioning that there is a balance there, as you correctly doubted yourself.
Convection accelerates the radiative process that allows the atmosphere to shed head to space. More heat at the surface adds more moisture to rising air on a global and even a local scale, and so enhances this accelerated transport of energy aloft and so further enhances radiative losses to space.
Ultimately, it is moisture that is responsible for regulating the temperature of the atmosphere.
The warmistas seem to think that there is a tight constraint on heat loss to space, and that CO2 constrains it all the more, but they ignore that at night, there is plenty of excess cooling capacity. We see this every night when cooling slows and then stops long before the following Sunrise starts a new cycle of daytime heating.
Likewise, there is a nearly unlimited amount of cooling capacity at high latitudes, especially during the long polar nights.
Moisture is what keep the Earth from becoming frigidly cold every night.
If CO2 was as important as warmistas claim, it’s effect would be particularly evident in Antarctica, and yet that place has not warmed as CO2 has risen.
I do not understand why, among some who are commenting, there seems to be an underlying “one or the other” mentality.
Is that just my imagination?
Obviously both processes, and many others, are going on at the same time.
DocSiders said what I was gonna say: The energy that escapes via radiation after lifting processes (convective + orographic + any other lifting mechanisms) move air to altitude is not present when that air descends, obviously.
More moisture in the air when it is lifted by any such mechanism, increases the energy transported aloft tremendously.
The higher air is lifted, the more chance that the energy contained in the moisture as latent heat, will be released by phase changes.
And on top of that, the higher it is lifted, the easier it will be for it to radiate away to space.
When air starts out warmer at the surface, or when it starts out more moist, the more buoyant it will tend to be and hence the higher it will tend to ascend.
So as the air near the ground grow’s warmer or more moist, for whatever reason, the more easily this accumulating energy (the energy contained in warmer air or the latent heat contained in more moist air) can be transported aloft and lost to space.
Every gram of water that changes from vapor to liquid droplets releases 540 calories per gram, and each gram of liquid that freezes releases another 80 calories per gram.
This is a gigantic amount of energy compared to the amount of energy it takes to cool or heat liquid water between 0° and 100° C, which is of course 100 calories per gram.
It is also gigantic compared to the amount of thermal energy in dry air.
It is mostly dry air which is descending, after much or most of the latent heat which was in the moist ascending air has been released.
Not all of the latent heat which was released is radiated away to space in any single cycle of lifting and descent, but again, much of it has been.
And these cycles of lifting and descent are repeated over and over again.
The diurnal cycle only adds more layers of complexity to an already enormously complicated set of processes.
Dave Fair,
I think you misunderstood the part of what DocSiders said that you commented on. He was questioning that there is a balance there, as you correctly doubted yourself.
Convection accelerates the radiative process that allows the atmosphere to shed head to space. More heat at the surface adds more moisture to rising air on a global and even a local scale, and so enhances this accelerated transport of energy aloft and so further enhances radiative losses to space.
Ultimately, it is moisture that is responsible for regulating the temperature of the atmosphere.
The warmistas seem to think that there is a tight constraint on heat loss to space, and that CO2 constrains it all the more, but they ignore that at night, there is plenty of excess cooling capacity. We see this every night when cooling slows and then stops long before the following Sunrise starts a new cycle of daytime heating.
Likewise, there is a nearly unlimited amount of cooling capacity at high latitudes, especially during the long polar nights.
And again, when there is more energy in the air, more energy will be transported to polar regions by winds and water currents.
Where it will be far easier for it to wind up being transferred to space.
Moisture is what keeps the Earth from becoming frigidly cold every night.
Weather is the set of processes that transport energy aloft and to higher latitudes within the atmosphere, and climate is the average of this weather in any given location.
If CO2 was as important as warmistas claim, it’s effect would be particularly evident in Antarctica, and yet that place has not warmed as CO2 has risen.
“I do not understand why, among some who are commenting, there seems to be an underlying “one or the other” mentality.
Is that just my imagination?
Obviously both processes, and many others, are going on at the same time.”
Nicholas, I, too seem to detect some kind of muddying the waters in discussions of late. Perhaps this is a new suttle onslaught against the effectiveness of WUWT? Do Wentworth’s recent papers have “strawman polarizing” characteristics, or are they being abused by those muddiers. And the use of unprecedented volume of negative dissing of comments. I think the trashing of Rud’s posting on Lindzen (an obvious target in climate jostling), is a good example.
Forget energy balances for the moment. There are three ways energy moves up through the atmosphere. Radiation, convection and buoyancy. Sadly the latter two get conflated in the literature; but are totally different; the latter not dependent on temperature differential. The energy that arrives, by whatever means, at the Tropopause then relies on Radiation alone for balance, as you suggest. The fact that the Cirrus Clouds have growing ice crystals means that there here we have a net radiation of energy to space; this being alongside other radiation and due primarily to the buoyancy factor.
Attempting to explain matters purely in radiative terms just does not work unless the buoyancy factor is incorporated into the equations. There are large energies involved here which should not be ignored.
Alasdair,
Thank you! At last someone who recognises that solid ice crystal particles in Cirrus clouds at the tropopause are efficient and effective thermal radiators to space (both day and night), while at the same time acting as a daytime albedo control.
Philip, those icy cirrus clouds also add radiation absorbed at the L&O surface above that of clear sky. Dr. Spencer a few years ago showed how to detect icy cirrus moving in overnight with ambient surface water thermometer temperature probes increasing water temperature over nearby ambient water not in view of the icy cirrus radiation.
Trick,
I would need a link please.
A while back we had some observational comments from a crop grower in Florida on the subject of night frosts and cirrus veils.
He reported significant surface temperature variations associated with the advection of high level cirrus.
I would be genuinely interested to know the height and distribution of these jet stream veils and if the surface temperature effect he observed is a mirror reflection of the thermal radiation sourced from the warm surface waters of the adjacent Gulf of Mexico.
Philip, it’s good you are interested to learn, see here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
Hi Phillip.
Here I am.
Yes, glad at least someone saw my recent comments regarding the possibility that the sudden increases that can be observed when cirrus moves in on cold nights, could possibly be due to reflection effects from warmer areas nearby.
It should be possible to get answers to questions such as these, although it would likely entail numerous careful observations over wide areas during conditions that occur somewhat infrequently in any given location.
Infrequently, but repeatedly, I should add.
Or at least the occurrence of such large effects as to be readily apparent may be what is infrequent: It seems to me that such effects may be more common that I observed, just not as dramatic under less optimal conditions for observing the effect.
Or it may be that Florida on cold nights undergoing radiational cooling represents a rather special case, being that the peninsula is surrounded by and contains within it, bodies of very warm water, even on these cold nights.
One way to get at something like an answer might be to quantify the effect on many occurrences, and then look for instances in which the local ground and sky conditions were close to identical, but the water temperature over the Gulf (or other adjacent areas) was substantially different.
If it is indeed a reflection effect, one might suppose that the effect is going to be greatest when the water is warmest.
The effect can be observed during months ranging from October to April, when it can be expected the Gulf of Mexico as well as lakes and rivers and bays would be at substantially different temperatures.
On at least one of the recent occasions when I was talking about this here on WUWT, I did a quick search for media accounts of this phenomenon, and was able to find several mentions of occasions where local meteorologists in various parts of the country noted that cirrus clouds had prevented or lessened the expected occurrence of k i lling frosts.
So this is not something that is unknown, or localized to rural areas of Florida.
Nicholas,
Many thanks for replying.
I think that the circumstances of your observations do support the idea that this winter night time land surface warming is the result of mirror reflection from the base of the cirrus cloud veil. I checked out your location on the west side of Florida and with the warm waters of the Gulf offshore being well above freezing, then direct radiant transmission of heat from sea surface to land surface via an overlying mirror of cirrus cloud seems very plausible.
What is of particular interest is that we know that there is a direct surface to space infrared transmission window thru the atmosphere that causes night frosts. While blocking of this window by the cirrus veil is one explanation for your observations, the reflected mirror hypothesis allows for the rapid transmission of radiant energy from warm surface to cold surface by a mechanism that is in agreement with standard physics.
Here’s an accurate graphic.
This set of equations is used by heat exchanger design engineers to design heat exchangers.
The atmosphere is just an ordinary surface heat transfer problem.
Stephen,
“That process takes time and is slower than radiation so the system must heat up.”
This only matters as a change is talking place. Once a steady state has been achieved, the temperature is what it is and non radiant energy can have no further effects.
Ask yourself the following question:
What effect does convection, latent heat and other non radiant transfers of energy between the surface and the atmosphere have on the steady state temperature, once that steady state has been achieved?
Take a look at Trenberth’s obfuscated steady state energy balance that includes non radiant energy in the radiant balance. If you subtract the return of non radiant energy from the back radiation term, all that’s left are the W/m^2 required to offset the surface emissions. Whatever effect non radiant energy entering the atmosphere has is already accounted for by the steady state average temperature and its subsequent emissions.
To the extent that a Joule of energy emitted by the planet can trace its origin to latent heat entering the atmosphere, a Joule of surface emissions that would have otherwise left the planet must be returned to the surface in order to offset the lost latent heat. The same goes for convection.
Latent heat and convection have a zero sum influence on the steady state radiant behavior of the planet and the subsequent RADIANT sensitivity of the surface temperature and this is another of those physical truths obfuscated by sloppy alarmist pseudo science that calls irrational arguments settled science.
Oh, Christ. The system (Earth and its atmosphere) gets energy (Sun) and releases an equal amount of energy (LW at TOA). The internal machinations of the atmosphere (dynamically and radioactively) both amplifies and reduces energy flows. Radiatively active molecules modulate energy flow within the atmosphere. Convection, conduction and clouds also modulate energy flow within the atmosphere. So called GH gasses retard outward bound LW energy and convection and conduction within the atmosphere affects the outcome.
The TOA is at a lower emissive temperature than that of the surface. Get over it. None of you keyboard cowboys know what the hell is actually going on.
Thank you Rud – I always enjoy your posts.
My previous comment on this subject is excerpted below. I remain surprised by how many commenters find the GHE controversial. I know and have corresponded over the decades with most of the leading climate skeptics in academia, and not one of them has ever raised this question! So I called it a red herring – apparently it is not, at least on this website – but I just don’t care. In my opinion, the GHE exists, and the entire discussion is a diversion.
The real climate question has always been the alleged magnitude of Climate Sensitivity, (CS). Global warming alarmists (aka “warmists”) say CS is large and thus CO2-driven warming is very-scary and dangerous; climate skeptics say CS is small and warming is small and beneficial. There is ample Earth-scale evidence that the skeptics are much more correct – the upper bound of CS is only about 1C/doubling – and the warmists are not only wrong, but know they are wrong and have known that for ~50 years.
As we correctly published in 2002, “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
If one wants to dive into the detail, it is probable that both sides are technically wrong, and that CS does not significantly exist in physical reality – because for CS to exist temperature changes must lag atmospheric CO2 changes, and we know that in fact CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. Cart before horse!
I suspect it’s a scale-up issue – what might exist at a molecular scale (“CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas”) changes entirely when one scales up from molecular to full-Earth-scale. In engineering, we often find surprises during scale-up of processes, and most will agree that molecule-to-Earth is one very large scale-up.
My previous comment, abridged, follows:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/04/mathematical-proof-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3261556
I know many veteran climate scientists and do not recall any of them denying the existence of the green house effect (GHE) – accordingly this paper is a bit of a “red herring”.
Earth’s temperature is warmed and moderated by the GHE. The primary greenhouse gas (GHG) is water vapour; atmospheric CO2 is a bit player – NOT significant – NOT a primary GHG and NOT a significant driver of global warming.
…
Thread invasion – my apologies but this needs to be published, now:
Peter Foster’s National Post take-down of “Marxist-Mark Carney”, former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, now UN climate czar.
MARK CARNEY, MAN OF DESTINY, ARISES TO REVOLUTIONIZE SOCIETY. IT WON’T BE PLEASANT
What Carney ultimately wants is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism
by Peter Foster Jun 05, 2021
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant
MY PREVIOUS SITUATION ASSESSMENT
It’s ALL a leftist scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full lockdown for Covid-19, the illogical linking of these frauds (“to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot USA election scam – it’s all false and fraudulent.
The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
The tactics used by the global warming propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook.
The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.
The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades. Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 80 or so since 1970, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.
There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”
The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.
More, for those who can and do read and think:
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant
Mark Carney was successful at the Bank of Canada because of events that he had no role in – the huge success of the Alberta oilsands carried the Canadian economy through his tenure and made everyone look good, regardless of their lack of contribution to Canada’s success.
Here is what really happened that made Canada so prosperous then, as written by an esteemed colleague, one of the most respected engineers in Canada:
INITIATIVES THAT DROVE MAJOR ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SYNCRUDE CANADA, THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS AND THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, Allan MacRae initiated (or co-initiated) and successfully proposed three of the four major changes that drove the successful growth of the Alberta oil sands. Changes included new income tax terms, new Crown royalty terms and a low-cost 50% production increase that reduced Syncrude unit operating costs by 30%. MacRae also recommended that Syncrude acquire new leases for growth, and technical innovations that improved performance and reduced costs.
MacRae incorporated these initiatives into a comprehensive strategy for Syncrude, which was implemented and was instrumental in the successful evolution and growth of Syncrude and the Alberta oil sands industry.
The oil sands industry became the mainstay of the Canadian economy for 15 years, with over $250 billion in new capital investments and approximately 500,000 new jobs created. Canada became the fifth-largest oil producer in the world, the largest foreign supplier of energy to the USA and the most successful economy of the G8 countries.
IMPORTANT VIDEO – THE BIG PICTURE:
Thanks to Yeonmi Park and Jordan Peterson for telling her courageous story. None of this is surprising to me, because of my strong education and my life experiences on six continents.
Most people do not yet realize that the North Korean model or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) model is what western elitists like Trudeau and Biden etc want for Canada, the USA and the rest of the Western democracies – the end of freedom and the adoption of the brutal, corrupt CCP model – a few princes at the top, looking down on all the poor peasants.
Allan—as is well-known, the climate scientists talk of the ‘E’ adjective: equilibrium CS, which has always troubled me greatly, how could an equilibrium ever be attained, much less measured? This issue also extends to CMoB’s work: although he talks about ECS, it seems like it is really instantaneous (I do realize that he is using the term the same ways climate scientists do).
Any comments?
RE Transient Climate Sensitivity or Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (To TCS or ECS, that is the question).
In short, I don’t care much if at all about the alleged difference between TCS and ECS – I say it is the climate equivalent of the medieval “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”? Why?
Climate Sensitivity CS is an artificial construct based on the ASSUMPTION that CO2 is a significant and measurable driver of global temperature, yet the best evidence and the cutting edge of climate science suggests that CS does not really exist – so who really cares if it is TCS or ECS?
Let me explain further. For clarity, I like and respect Lord Monckton, as I like and respect fellow climate skeptics John Christy, Richard McNider, Nic Lewis and Judith Curry. They have all published about CS (see below), but they are really quantifying an UPPER BOUND for CS based on the aforementioned ASSUMPTION (“that CO2 is a significant and measurable driver of global temperature”). They conclude that their calculated maximum probable CS is very low, approximately 1C/(hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2), such that there is no real global warming crisis, climate emergency, climate cock-up, or whatever the global warming propagandists are calling their favorite scam this week.
In summary, all these esteemed climate skeptics are correctly stating that “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.” (Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae, 2002). This is very good of them – it’s an honest, courageous but high-risk statement in this dystopian world of rampant academic corruption, based on the 50-year-old fraud of catastrophic human-made global warming.
Global Warming (aka Climate Change”) alarmism is a multi-trillion-dollar political and financial fraud, and those who dispute it get vilified and sometimes get destroyed.
The following is the cutting edge of the science:
The huge decline in fossil fuel consumption during the year-plus Covid-19 lockdown had NO impact on atmospheric CO2 increase – more evidence that Ed Berry’s latest book and paper are correct – see below.
My friend Ed says the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not man-made. The smartest people on the planet think he is correct.
More evidence supporting Berry:
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae, 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion.
Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored.
IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would lead temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes lag temperature changes.
Think about that: Kuo was correct in 1990, and for 31 years climate science has ignored that conclusion and has been going backwards!
Climate Sensitivity (CS) to CO2 is a fiction – so small, if it even exists, it is practically irrelevant.
“The future cannot cause the past.” Here is the proof, from my 2008 paper:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
In the modern data record, the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months. This is an absolute disproof of the CAGW hypothesis, which states that increasing CO2 drives temperature. “The future cannot cause the past.”
In my 2019 paper below, I explained why the lag is ~9 months – it is basic calculus, the 90 degree (1/4 cycle) lag of the derivative and its integral, which is the ~3 year ENSO period.
My 2008 paper remains very important. My 2008 conclusion was confirmed and expanded by Humlum et al in 2013, for which I am grateful.
My 2008 paper has been cited by Ed Berry in his 2020-21 book and related paper, which is at the cutting edge of climate science.
“CLIMATE MIRACLE: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – NATURE CONTROLS CLIMATE”
amazon.ca/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls-ebook/dp/B08LCD1YC3/
“CARBON CYCLE MODEL SHOWS NATURE CONTROLS CO2 LEVEL”
edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
All warmists and most skeptics argue about the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2, and whether the resulting CO2-driven global warming will be hot and dangerous or warm and beneficial. Both groups are probably wrong.
There is a high probability that the mainstream climate debate about the magnitude of CS is wrong – a waste of decades of vital time, tens of trillions of dollars of green energy nonsense and millions of lives. Vital energy systems have been compromised, damaged with intermittent, unreliable wind and solar generation – a debacle.
It is important to note that Global Cooling is happening now, even as CO2 concentrations increase – another disproof of the global warming fraud.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple. The green sabotage of our vital energy systems, whether innocent or deliberate, has cost lives and could cost very many more.
Scientific details here:
“CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019”
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Repeating, “The future cannot cause the past.”
__________________________
Reference:
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
[excerpt]
CATASTROPHIC: THE ALLEGED WARMING IS NOT CATASTROPHIC.
Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is relatively INsensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – climate computer models greatly exaggerate future CO2-‐driven warming and there is no catastrophic global warming crisis.
Both Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming. To calculate an upper-‐bound on climate
sensitivity to CO2, both papers made the same very conservative assumption:
Both papers assumed that ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, and then calculated the maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 of only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
1. Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
“Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures As A Metric For Climate Sensitivity” By John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
Asia-‐Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-‐518, 2017
2. Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
“The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity”
By Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of catastrophic global warming.
__________________________
Allan,
I agree with you that CO2 lags temperature on all time scales from decades to Millenia.
When faced with this conundrum, warmists try to counter with Shakun et al (2012).
The paper acknowledges that whereas temperature normally leads CO2, during the interglacial which commenced some 20,000 years ago, CO2 from the warming oceans kicked in and led the distinct warming that followed.
Put directly, the claim is “Temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2”.
Ergo, CO2 rules the climate system.
Further the assertion is that without CO2 the normal climate forces were insufficient for the planet to escape the last Ice Age.
This paper fails to be convincing,in my opinion, because the claim that they know that the Ice Age would have continued without strong greenhouse gas accretions seems to be the rankest speculation.
Do they really know how Ice Ages terminate?
One does not need to examine every paper by warmists and individually refute it – warmists are serial bullsh!tters, and they can fabricate new lies faster than you and I can refute them
Based on their dismal predictive track record. we can safely dismiss everything the warmists say and write.
Warmists have made 48 consecutive very-scary climate predictions to end-2020, and all have failed to happen. At 50:50 “idiot odds” for each prediction, the probability against that happening is 281 trillion to one! Serial bullsh!tters!
I published this new Law in early 2020. Edit: Please delete the word “Virtually”.
“MACRAE’S MAXIM”:
“VIRTUALLY EVERY SCARY PREDICTION BY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS IS FALSE.”
Best regards, Allan
Can you explain how they arrived at an “upper bound” of climate sensitivity of 1C when CO2 is doubled? Or point to an article that explains it. Climate alarmists increase CS with positive feedback. For example they theorize that if global temperature increases 1C, reduced glacier size reduces reflected sunlight further adding some amount to warming. It’s this fudge factor that gives them latitude to make scary claims. So far their fudge factor in the climate models has resulted in predicted warming that is far greater than measured. I’d like to see experimental evidence that doubling CO2 increases warming by (no more than? ) 1C.
Experimental evidence of what would happen to an entire planet if xyz occurs instead of abc?
How?
These authors both used full-Earth-scale observations to calculate their upper-bound CS. Repeating, see underlined below:
Both Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming. To calculate an upper-‐bound on climate sensitivity to CO2, both papers made the same very conservative assumption:
Both papers assumed that ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, and then calculated the maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 of only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
1. Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
“Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures As A Metric For Climate Sensitivity” By John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
Asia-‐Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-‐518, 2017
2. Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
“The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity”
By Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of catastrophic global warming.
____________
That approach is as good as it gets – full-Earth scale so no scale-up errors, and a conservative assumption that ALL observed warming is due to increasing CO2 – so it is an upper bound solution for CS. If NO warming was due to CO2. calculated CS would be zero. Theoretically, CS could be zero or even negative, but it is highly improbable that it is more than ~1C/doubling.
More extreme/esoteric arguments are possible, but not that credible.
“CS could be zero or even negative, but it is highly improbable that it is more than ~1C/doubling.”
That just about sums it up Allan. Well said.
NB the word “Theoretically”. I wrote:
“Theoretically, CS could be zero or even negative, but it is highly improbable that it is more than ~1C/doubling.”
My best guess is CS does not even exist – because the whole concept of CS relies upon “cart before horse”” – that is, CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales – in the ice core record, and in the modern data record, as I proved in 2008.
For simplicity, consider that CS = 0.
Allan: “CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales”
This literally would mean global temperature goes up today because I am going to drive my V-8 gas SUV tomorrow. You really may need to rethink your position on this subject. .
Trick – take a reading comprehension course.
Then read the background papers before you comment.
Something wrong with my reading comprehension Allan? Please advise. And which background papers do you recommend? I may already have them in inventory.
Trickster – I doubt that you are acting in good faith.
For those that are, this paper is a good starting point.
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
Allen, in good faith, I’ll prefer to learn from original published papers and text books traceable to them, not blogs.
Trickster, please do – you’ll be 10-20 years behind the state of the art, mired down in the fraud of the IPCC and its minions.
Allan, thermodynamic principles withstand the test of time you mention; for accuracy find them in the original research not second hand on blogs.
The IPCC doesn’t do original state of the art research, it’s a United Nations body not a university research effort & its objective is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information (developed by others) that they can use to develop climate policies.
More specious nonsense from Trickster.
The IPCC and its minions are global warming fraudsters, who have made 48 failed, full expired very-scary global warming predictions to end 2020, all of them false.
The probability of that being random stupidity by warmist scientists is ~281 trillion to 1.
These warmist fraudsters were not just being exceptionally stupid, they were lying to us from day 1, and they knew it.
Global warming alarmism is a fifty-year-old fraud. long past its due date.
The IPCC’s expression of the climate sensitivity as a function of CO2 emissions is a smokescreen to isolate the sensitivity from the laws of physics. The non linear physical metric they obfuscate is W/m^2 per degree of surface temperature while the linear physical metric obfuscated by this non linear metric is W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. There are 2 levels of indirection between the linear physical relationship that matters and how it’s been characterized and which comprised an obvious misdirection.
The lower bound of 0.4C per W/m^2 (2.2 W/m^2 of emissions per W/m^2 of forcing) was established by the IPCC at their inception as a value below which, their agenda to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the developing world using climate reparations can’t be justified.
The upper bound of 1.2 C per W/m^2 (8.8 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing) which corresponds to the worst case projections of the alarmists was clearly pulled out of someones ass by adding enough uncertainty to make the lower bound seem unreasonably low, while the facts show that the actual physical sensitivity is less than the presumed lower limit.
The measured sensitvity to solar W/m^2 (and all W/m^2 are the same) is 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of non reflected solar input corresponding to 0.3C per W/m^2 and significantly below the IPCC’s lower bound. This can b calculated EXACTLY as the slop of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law given as 1/(4eoT^3) where T is the average surface temperature, o is the SB constant and e is the ratio between the emissions at TOA and the RADIANT emissions of the surface.
Allan,
You said, “…the entire discussion is a diversion.”
And I could not agree more.
I remain conflicted on the question of what to do about it…ignore it, or keep trying to settle it.
“Neither you nor Bob Wentworth have successfully rebutted a GHE from convection.”
Nor can anyone.
“Convection does not just move energy around.”
But this moving energy around is important aspect of related to global air temperature
“It converts kinetic to potential in uplift and converts potential to kinetic in descent.”
Or there lapse rate, and due to kinetic energy of gas molecule and gravity- if air warms at surface by say 5 C, the air above it, is also warmed. And if surface air cools, the air above likewise cool. A thinner atmosphere would more quickly warm and more quickly cool.
Our atmosphere has a lot thermal mass and the whole column of air warms and cools.
But I say Earth is warm because it’s water planet. The atmosphere is about 1/2 the story.
Pleas logically construct a mathematical formulation describing your epiphany.
Nothing I can think of which Richard Lindzen has said, that I disagree with- he probably got some mathematical formulations for you look at.
But a lot he talks about is just commonly accepted stuff.
A WUWT blog post: Ie:
“The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least controversial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the description. I will also try, despite Snow’s observations, to make the description intelligible to the non-scientist.
The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and oceans) interacting with each other. By ‘turbulent,’ I simply mean that it is characterized by irregular circulations like those found in a gurgling brook or boiling water, but on the planetary scale of the oceans and the atmosphere.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/09/richard-lindzen-lecture-at-gwpf-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/
But anything I have said, which anyone disagree with, I am very interested in being corrected. Let make a short list:
We have cold ocean and that why we have low CO2 levels and why in
a 34 million year Ice Age.
Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C {which is commonly said/cited]
Average land surface air according to Berkeley Earth analysis is about 10 C
3.5 C or 90% or more ocean less than 3 C, is said everywhere.
Why enter glacial and interglaciation is somehow related the Milankovitch cycles.
IPCC correctly says all models can’t predict future.
And have yet to find anyone who seriously believes in CAGW.
Most blame idea of false media news stories that ill informed and are hyping things {which is what they do with everything}
My recent post does, in a sense, disprove “GHE from convection.” In particular, the argument rigorously establishes that, in the absence of LW-absorbing/scattering materials in the atmosphere, and given the same planetary albedo and emissivity, the average surface temperature would need to be at least 24℃ colder—no matter how much convection happens, and no matter what other processes are occurring in the atmosphere.
It’s a valid rebuttal, even if not a successful one (in the sense of persuading you).
There are many problems with this.
But in terms of global temperature it is related to the average temperature of our Ocean. And entire ocean average temperature is about about 3.5 C.
And much higher global temperature occur in greenhouse global climates which have a much warmer ocean then we have have during the last 34 million years.
But within our Ice Age the ocean temperature has been about 5 C, and this has large effect upon global average temperature. All interglacial periods which are warmer have ocean temperature closer to 5 C
The pseudoscience here at WUWT is stronger than ever isn’t it?
Proclamations such as “(ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down).” show how ignorant the dogmatic defenses of the pseudoscience GHG back radiation hypothesis are.
I suppose they think the magic unicorns “pumped up” the atmosphere 4.5 billion years ago and left the system is magic thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not the sun and the sun’s heating isn’t continuously “pumping up” the atmosphere. NA, if the sun stopped shining the perpetual motion machine of the second kind that is the GHG back radiation would keep things going.
I have shown time and time again how the hypothesis has been refuted for over 100 years and that conversation lead to Dr Wentworth coming back with:
“Are you thinking that the momentum transferred by photons to molecules will warm and cool and equal number of molecules?
If so, then I agree with that assertion.
But, momentum change is not the only effect that photon absorption has.
It also has the effect of exciting a molecule into a flexing vibration. This happens regardless of whether the molecule was moving in the -x or +x direction.
The energy in this flexing vibration can and will be transferred to other molecular modes, in that molecule or other molecules, via collisions.
Thus, photon absorption contributes to heating, even if the momentum transfers do not lead to any net heating.”
So now we see that the mental gymnastics of the GHG back radiation cult are now leading to violations of 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Dr Wentworth is now admitting that the quantum theory of radiation is correct, and that gas molecules are equally warmed and cooled when a gas is in random isotropic motion, but then goes on to claim that there will always be warming even when there is no warming. This must be the missing heat, the heat created out of the ether when incident radiation causes a gas to cool via stimulated emission rather absorption, but the gas molecule increases in temperature regardless.
That is not what the quantum theory of radiation says.
I agreed that momentum transfer will cause equal warming and cooling.
However, momentum transfer accounts for only one trillionth of the energy delivered to a gas by photons.
So, your analysis claiming “equal warming and cooling” is ignoring 99.9999999999% of the energy involved in photons interacting with gas molecules.
I did not agree that the net effect of photons being absorbed is that they are equally warmed and cooled. I only agreed that that was the net effect of the—negligibly important—transfer of momentum by photons.
There only appears to be a contradiction if you selectively ignore half of my words.
99.9999999999% of the energy absorbed by photons contributes to warming.
0.0000000001% does not contribute to warming.
You are focused only on a part of the phenomenon that is of negligible importance.
There is always more absorption than stimulated emission, for any gas at a finite positive temperature.
It’s useless for you to read Einstein if you don’t understand what he’s saying.
The quantum theory of radiation doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.
” But for the theoretical considerations, this small effect is on an equal footing with the energy transferred by radiation because energy and momentum are very intimately related to each other; a theory may therefore be considered correct only if it can shown that the momentum transferred accordingly from the radiation to the matter leads to the kind of motion that is demanded by thermodynamics.”
It is a violation of the 1st LoT for a gas molecule to increase in temperature from absorption of a photon travelling in the opposite direction.
Yes, Einstein writes that. However, it is important to see what Einstein does with this idea. He writes:
In other words, Einstein concludes that as long as the radiation to which molecules are exposed satisfies Planck’s radiation formula, then “the momentum transferred accordingly from the radiation to the matter leads to the kind of motion that is demanded by thermodynamics.”
Einstein uses the idea that the velocity distribution must be of the sort demanded by thermodynamics as a constraint, to determine what must be true of the distribution of radiation to ensure that this idea is satisfied.
He uses his considerations about momentum to re-derive the Planck radiation law.
Einstein concludes that his concerns about momentum will automatically be satisfied, so long as radiation obeys the Planck radiation law.
Einstein does not use the idea that the velocity distribution must be of the sort demanded by thermodynamics to say “radiation can’t warm a gas”, as you seem to erroneously conclude.
I’m deeply puzzled as to why you would claim that this conclusion follows from 1st LoT, i.e., energy conservation.
That conclusion certainly does not follow from conservation of energy.
All that conservation of energy requires is that the amount of energy transferred to a molecule must equal the amount of energy carried by the photon, h𝝼.
Of course, the momentum carried by the photon, h𝝼/c, must also be transferred.
If a molecule has mass M, and an initial velocity v0 and final velocity v1, in the direction the photon was traveling, then momentum conservation requires that:
M⋅(v2 – v1) = h𝝼/c
or
v2 = v1 + h𝝼/Mc
The change in kinetic energy experienced by the molecule will be
∆KE = (1/2)M⋅(v2² – v1²)
Applying our result for v2 to this leads to:
∆KE = (1/2)M⋅h𝝼/Mc⋅(2⋅v1 + h𝝼/Mc) = h𝝼⋅(v1/c + h𝝼/2Mc²)
Thus, energy will be conserved as long as the amount of energy used to excite the molecule’s vibrational mode is:
∆Evibration = h𝝼 – ∆KE = h𝝼⋅(1 – v1/c – h𝝼/2Mc²)
Thus, it is straightforward to arrange for energy to be conserved.
This works even if the gas molecule and photon are traveling in opposite directions, i.e., if v1 < 0.
What, exactly, is the problem you perceive in all this?
I don’t claim that a photon can’t increase the temperature of a gas molecule, e.g. increase its total partitioned kinetic energy, which happens when a photon is absorbed without subsequent stimulated emission.
The problem I see is, when travelling in opposite directions, a photon must decrease the total partitioned kinetic energy of a gas molecule through stimulated emission. A decrease in velocity of the gas molecule must occur and therefore a decrease in the internal vibrational and rotational must occur according to Kinetic Theory.
To have a gas molecule increase in velocity (increase in temperature) from the absorption of a photon travelling in the opposite direction would be akin to the velocity of a vehicle increasing as a result of smashing bugs while driving down the highway. Doing so would be creating energy.
You can’t increase/decrease the translational kinetic energy of a gas molecule without also increasing/decreasing the internal vibrational and rotational energy of that molecule. There will always be vibrational and rotational kinetic energy for all molecules above absolute zero and therefore there will always be the potential for stimulated emission and a subsequent change in velocity of gas molecules.
The states of any matter at temperature T are populated according to the Boltzmann distribution, so that the ratio of populations of two states is given by exp(-∆E/kT) where ∆E is the energy difference between the two states. For CO₂ at 0℃ and for its 15 micron vibrational transition (with a photon energy 1.3e-20 Joules), this works out to a ratio of 0.03. That means that only three percent as many molecules are in the excited state as are in the ground state.
This means that for every 3 photons that produce stimulated emission, another 100 photons will be absorbed. 97% of the time, a photon will be absorbed rather than stimulating an emission.
This is true independent of the direction in which the molecule is moving relative to the photon.
No. As I’ve said, the probability of stimulated emission vs. absorption is unaffected by the direction in which the molecule is traveling.
No matter what direction the molecule is traveling, only a tiny minority of interactions result in stimulated emission.
You seem to be muddling together a number of ideas.
A moment ago you were talking about stimulated emission. Now you’re talking about change in velocity, presumably due to momentum transfer?
If there were a stimulated emission that stimulated emission would actually increase the velocity of a molecule moving opposite to the photon.
In the more common case where absorption happens, there would be a slight decrease in velocity, yes. But, there are two distinct ways the energy of the molecule changes:
However, effect #1 involves a trillion times as much energy as effect #2.
What typically happens is that after the photon has been absorbed, imparting vibrational energy to the molecule, the molecule with then collide with another molecule.
That collision will “thermalize” the energy, turning much of the added vibrational energy back into translational kinetic energy or rotational energy.
Overall, the net vibrational, rotational, and translational kinetic energy must increase in response to the absorption of a photon. This result is independent of the relative directions of motion of the photon and molecule.
This is a misleading analogy.
A more quantitatively accurate analogy would be to look at in-flight refueling of an aircraft.
Suppose that a tanker aircraft produces turbulence that increases drag on the aircraft it is trying to refuel. (I don’t know if it works that way.)
Would you then say “In-flight refueling cannot possibly increase the flight range of an aircraft because the drag of the tanker forces the aircraft to burn additional fuel?” Of course not. The amount of fuel transferred by the tanker vastly exceeds any increased fuel use associated with overcoming drag during the refueling operation.
Or, in the “smashing bugs” example, it’s as if those “bugs” contained bits of enriched uranium that one could gather and add to the nuclear reactor powering our vehicle. The slowing that occurs as a result of smashing into them is insignificant in relation to the total energy content that they are carrying.
They increase/decrease together on average, but this need not be the case within an individual event.
Translational kinetic energy and vibrational/rotational energy need not change in the same direction in any one event. In the event of a photon absorbed by a molecule moving in the opposite direction, the translational energy decreases by a little while the vibrational energy increases enormously.
Subsequent collisions ensure that, on average, both translational and vibrational/rotational energy have increased.
I’m quite puzzled by the way you jump back and forth between the topic of photons and molecules moving in opposite directions, and the topic of stimulated emission. Do you think these topics are in some way connected? They aren’t, not in any way that I can discern.
As I calculated above, in CO₂ at 0℃, stimulated emission will be only 3% as likely as absorption. (At 20℃ the ratio is 4% and at -20℃ the ratio is 2%.) So, yes, occasionally stimulated emission happens, but most arriving photons will warm the gas rather than cooling it.
* * *
In summary:
When a photon arrives at a gas molecule it is always more likely to be absorbed than it is to stimulate an emission. This means that, on average, arriving photons will add energy to the gas, warming it.
When a photon is absorbed, the momentum transfer might increase or decrease the translational kinetic energy of the molecule depending on the relative directions of motion. However, the magnitude of this change in translational energy is insignificant compared to the increase in vibrational energy that results from the absorption. (The change in translational energy is about a trillionth of the change in vibrational energy.) Thus, absorption of a photon increases the net energy of the molecule, regardless of the direction of motion of that molecule.
* * *
Do these explanations make any sense to you?
Are there remaining concerns?
I have two contentions.
How can the vibrational mode of a molecule be in a ground state of zero when it’s above a temperature of absolute zero? The concept of a ground state of zero is easy to understand for electronic energy transitions, but what exactly is the difference in the kinetic energy of a harmonic oscillator in the ground state 0 and in an energized state of 1?
Second, how can the kinetic theory of gases closely approximate the kinetic energy ratio partitioned between translational and vibrational/rotational kinetic energy as a function of temperature and number of atoms when the translational energy changes opposite of vibrational kinetic energy in nearly half the instances a photon is absorbed?
Well, one could read up on quantum harmonic oscillators. The energy levels of a quantum harmonic oscillator have energies (n + 1/2)⋅h𝝼 where 𝝼 is the resonant frequency of the oscillator.
That’s not the kinetic energy; that’s the total of kinetic+potential energy. But, I don’t know why one would want to look at kinetic energy alone.
The Boltzmann distribution is the heart of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
It says that the probability of any energy state at energy E being populated is proportional to exp(-E/kT) where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the absolute temperature.
Obeying the Boltzmann distribution for temperature T is what it means for a material to be at temperature T.
For all finite positive temperatures, lower-energy states will always have a higher probability of being populated that higher-energy states, which will be less populated.
However, at higher temperatures, the rate at which occupation probability declines with increasing energy will be reduced.
In the case of the CO₂ 15-micron vibrational transition, all you need to do is to plug the transition energy h𝝼 = 1.3e-20 Joules into the formula exp(-E/kT) and you can compute the population ratio of the states.
When I talked about the ratio of the population of the excited state to the ground state being 0.03, I was oversimplifying a bit. This is actually the ratio of the populations of each pair of successive excitation states in the oscillator.
For level n, the population probability will be exp(-(n+1/2)⋅h𝝼/kT). So, the population probabilities for n=0, 1, 2, 3… will form a sequence given by some constant times 1, 0.03, (0.03)², (0.03)³, etc.
A 15-micron photon can interact with any two adjacent energy levels in this oscillator. But, in every pair of adjacent energy levels, the ratio of populations between the more and less energetic states is about 0.03 for a temperature of 0℃ (273.15 K).
Does this make sense?
At any given temperature, T, each degree of freedom is expected to have an average energy kT/2, whether that mode is a translational, rotational, or vibrational mode.
I guess you’re asking about how this equipartition of energy is maintained when a photon is absorbed by a molecule?
The answer is that instantaneously it’s not maintained by the photon absorption process itself (and does not need to be), but the proper ratios of energies in different modes is rapidly re-established by subsequent collisions.
This can be unpacked in a bit more detail.
When a 15 micron photon is absorbed by a CO₂, the energy in one of the molecule’s vibrational modes is increased by 1.3e-20 Joules.
The absorption of the photon also leads to a momentum transfer. Depending on the direction of motion of the molecule, this results in a change of translational kinetic energy ∆TKE somewhere in the range (-1.3e-32 J) ≤ (∆TKE) ≤ (+1.3e-32 J).
The energy change in the translational kinetic energy is very, very small compared to the change in the vibrational energy.
Instantaneously, the partition of energy between the vibrational mode and the translational/rotational modes has been brought out of balance, with respect to what would be expected in thermal equilibrium. The vibrational degree of freedom has an excess energy of 1.3e-20 J.
However, in gases at the pressures and temperatures characteristic of most of the atmosphere, molecules collide many times each second.
Each collision redistributes energy. After a few collisions, the equipartition of energy between various modes will be more or less fully restored.
The fact that the transitional kinetic energy was initially changed by a tiny amount (∆TKE) in the positive or negative direction is utterly insignificant to the end result.
Does this make sense?
* * *
You might wonder why, then, in his paper, Einstein seemed concerned to ensure that photon emission and absorption would not alter the distribution of translational velocities in a gas.
I think this makes a little more sense if one reads the entire paper and looks at what Einstein was trying to accomplish in that paper.
He was proposing a quantum theory of radiation, describing the way that radiation couples to a quantum state transition between two energy levels m and n. He proposed that this coupling could be described in a simple fashion using fixed coefficients Aₘₙ, Bₘₙ and Bₙₘ. He wanted to show that this simple model could yield predictions that corresponded to prior theory in a satisfying way.
To that end, he essentially posed the question “What must be true of thermal radiation such that momentum transfers between that radiation and the molecules of a gas will not change the statistical distributions of the velocities of gas molecules (assumed to be distributed according to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with temperature T)?”
Based on that premise, Einstein used his proposed quantum theory to re-derived the Planck radiation formula for thermal radiation associated with a temperature T. In so doing, he proved that momentum transfers from radiation distributed in that way (i.e., in a Planck distribution for temperature T) would not alter the velocity distribution of gas molecules (at temperature T).
This served to demonstrate a kind of self-consistency between his new theory and prior theoretical results.
That’s what Einstein was focused on. He wasn’t thinking or writing about radiative heat transfer to gases. He was trying to show that his quantum theory was self-consistent, under the assumption that everything is at the same temperature.
Looking at the paper overall, I notice a few things…
Einstein is considering both radiation absorbed and radiation emitted in order to achieve the end result of no net change in the velocity distribution of molecules.
Einstein doesn’t talk about the energy that goes into the vibrational mode, and how this affects the partition of energy in the gas. (Or maybe he did, and I just haven’t noticed that part yet? Hmm… I ought to look for it.) Regardless, it can be shown that, if radiation obeys the Planck radiation law for temperature T, then that radiation, combined with emitted radiation, will not, on average, change the vibrational energies of a gas at temperature T. The amount of energy absorbed will be precisely balanced by the amount of energy released via spontaneous and stimulated emission.
So, basically the paper is about verifying that black-body radiation associated with temperature T neither warms nor cools a gas at temperature T. That this checks out validates Einstein’s quantum theory of radiation.
Einstein does not address at all the question of what would happen if the radiation temperature T1 is different than the gas temperature T2.
But, if you follow the logic implicit in his calculations, one can work out that a temperature difference would lead to net heating or cooling of the gas, depending on the sign of the temperature difference.
Everything Einstein wrote about it not mattering what the resonant frequencies of the vibrational modes are was written entirely in the context of assuming that T1 = T2.
Einstein didn’t assert that these don’t matter in the more general situation where T1 and T2 are different. He didn’t write about that more general situation at all in this paper.
Does any of this make sense?
* * *
Are there additional contentions/concerns?
Note: Upon further examination, yes, of course Einstein addressed the issue of thermal (Planck) radiation of temperature T not disturbing the population of vibrational energy levels in a gas at temperature T, when absorption and spontaneous and stimulated emission are all taken into account.
Yes it makes sense from a pure statistical explanation when considering the molecule as a quantum harmonic oscillator instead of a pure mechanical system, but there’s still the curiosity of what physical anomaly actually exists between the oscillator in the quantum ground state and non-ground state. I suppose Einstein himself was always slightly perturbed by the apparent “chance” involved in quantum systems.
Perhaps the clue is that,
which at first seems paradoxical to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution until momentum transfer from radiation is considered.
…
Right, this seems to confirm a major contention of the violation of the 2nd LoT with the GHG hypothesis.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276048562_Scrutinizing_the_atmospheric_greenhouse_effect_and_its_climatic_impact
I’m not sure what you mean by “physical anomaly” here.
I don’t see how this is any more mysterious than the general non-intuitiveness that applies to all of quantum mechanics. Despite being non-intuitive in some ways, quantum mechanics has been one of the most successful and well-verified theories of all time.
How does this seem “paradoxical to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution”? I’m not perceiving anything at all paradoxical.
There was an unanswered question, perhaps, about how the various aspects of the situation related to one another—a question which Einstein ultimately answered.
But, the idea of things being “paradoxical” suggests an expectation that it “wouldn’t be expected to work out.” I suppose that’s more a matter of individual perspective, rather than relating to any objective characterization of the situation.
I guess it’s ok to differ at this level of subjective impressions. 🙂
Why would you believe this?
Yes, thermal radiation always yields a net heat flow from warm to cool.
All physicists agree with this premise.
Just as physicists generally agree that the GHE is real.
The GHE phenomenon is entirely compatible with the requirement that thermal radiation leads to a net heat flow from warm to cool. There is no violation of the 2nd LoT involved in the GHE.
* * *
It is only a straw-man misinterpretation of the GHE that involves heat flowing in any forbidden direction.
The argument of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, your first reference, relies entirely on such a straw-man misinterpretation. G&T assert that the GHE model claims something which it does not claim, then refute this mischaracterization of the GHE model, and thereby falsely assert they have shown the GHE to violate the 2nd LoT. I unpack this in a critique of G&T’s paper.
As far as I can tell, your second reference, Kramm and Dlugi, does not make any independent assertion of a violation of the 2nd LoT, only mentioning G&T’s assertion of this. (If I’ve missed such an allegation, let me know. K&D make other assertions, which I have not yet had time to analyze.)
* * *
I hope I’ve been able to put to rest the idea that Einstein’s 1917 paper offers any commentary that is directly relevant to “debunking” the physics of radiative gases which underlies the GHE.
As for the assertion that the GHE somehow violates the 2nd LoT, I’d be happy to talk this through, if you have concerns about this.
Stephen: What your describing is the ideal gas nature of the atmosphere. Just because what you say is true about the isotropic nature of the atmosphere does not contradict the Green House Gases both retain heat and radiate heat into space. The real world of physics is much more complicated and interesting than simple convection.
“It converts kinetic to potential in uplift and converts potential to kinetic in descent.”
So, descending cold air blowing on a hot surface makes it warmer?
Then why does a fan cool you as it blows air on your skin?
I read all of both posts. Perhaps I’m in the minority on this one as well. Thanks.
Grumpiness about “green house” metaphors does not signify dissent.
I do believe that the greenhouse effect exists. It is just that I am not satisfied with Bob Wentworth’s “mathematical proof”.
Damnit! Provide your own “mathematical proof” that the GHE doesn’t exist! Otherwise, STFU. I’m getting tired of keyboard cowboys.
This has been done before.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276048562_Scrutinizing_the_atmospheric_greenhouse_effect_and_its_climatic_impact
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Robert’s “This has been done before” is another name for a “supremely important law of the history of science” in “the Infinite Chain of Priority: Somebody Else Always Did It First” (Tony Rothman, 2003: Everything’s Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology, John Wiley & Sons, p. xiii.
Regarding the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, it is, regrettably, the most badly argued “scientific” paper I have ever read. Please consider reading my response to that paper.
Dave, please re-read the “mathematical proof”. And please re-read my comment. Why should I contradict myself?
Linear analysis fails in its application to the global energy balance.
There is no “GHE”. Easily provable by looking at how emissivity and albedo respond to surface temperature.
Emissivity of water at 271K reduces from 0.96 to 0.3 after 50 days without any surface insolation because ice is an insulator.
10mm of water in the atmosphere below 273K reduces heat loss. The same water above 273K reduces energy input. Earth’s albedo over tropical oceans goes from 0.1 to 0.9 depending on where that water is located.
Linear analysis simply does not handle these complexities.
Both albedo and emissivity are complex functions of surface temperature. No linear analysis can handle these non-linear effects.
The nearest analogy for water on the surface and in the atmosphere are diodes for an electrical circuit or a non-return valve in a flow circuit. Anyone using linear analysis on such a system demonstrates their poor understanding on the system realities.
Yes and sadly, although I’m most definitely not averse to being educated, I don’t feel that I have been by this thread. For example, there’s no discussion, unless I missed it about radiation with respect to altitude of the greenhouse gas molecule, and convection.
Also, I would add that linear effects of convection (i.e. not even feedbacks, positive or negative) can wipe out the logarithmic-reduced purported effects of CO2, and also remember this also has to be calculated for at least above 280ppm for it to be again purportedly man-made. There’s a lot missing here in this discussion, with the latter point being strangely and ubiquitously missing..
Show your work! [The math.] Phil, otherwise you are BSing.
I have no work. I was asking questions of people who know more than me.
Furthermore, what else are Sunday’s for, that and watching International cricket? That’s when I get my best bullshitting done. As a very good friend from the University of Georgia told me “The only thing you get better at as you get older is bullshitting”.
I could go one, but I’m trying to develop something more concrete regarding things that aren’t feedback, but are intrinsically linear from the get-go (correcting people on the linearity of the Calvin Cycle wrt CO2 started it).
…. and, as ever, I would like to start above 280ppm CO2.
I am better at resting, personally.
I used to be very restless, but no more.
When I was younger, I had to contend with a very strict dad, who seriously cramped my style.
He was very sharp, too, and had a saying that “You cannot bullshit a bullshitter.”
I had a daily exercise in disproving that maxim.
But at some point I decided to focus on things that are true, and so have had not a lot of bullshitting practice time in recent decades.
But I am pretty sure my experience from younger days has given me a real nose for malarkey.
I can smell that crap from a long ways off.
You are jumping from claiming that there is a flaw in my analysis to concluding that this “proves” there is no GHE. Even if you were 100% correct about having identified a flaw in my argument (you haven’t), that wouldn’t constitute your having “proved” anything.
Identifying a flaw in a proof of “A” does not constitute a proof of “not A”.
You are totally misinterpreting the nature of the analysis when you call it “linear.”
Bob claimed:
When you can show me where your values for emissivity and albedo are functions of time and temperature with non-linearities then you will having something worthwhile.
I know you were surprised to see that the water surface does not get colder than 271K. You are similarly surprised that the water surface does not exceed 303K.
Any analysis has to have these hard limits. Once included you will realise there is no “GHE”. It is a myth for people unable to accept non-linearities.
None of your equations have the hard limits. This is the average temperature function for the global oceans:
TLat >-80<80 = 271.3K
For Lat -80 to +80, TLat= 271.3 + 32/80*ABS(80 – Lat)
The temperature is non-linear.
The ocean temperature only exists in the range 271.3K to 303K because hard limits prevent it from going beyond it.
Two easily demonstrated non-linearities.
If there was no atmosphere then the ocean temperature would be higher – easily verified.
Nor do they need to have these hard limits.
The conclusions drawn are in a context of “if albedo and emissivity are unchanged.”
The conclusions are in the context of a “thought experiment.” It doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to change the Earth in a way that wouldn’t change the albedo and emissivity. The thought experiment remains equally valid (no less, no more).
There are way too many commenters here who fall into the category of people whose comprehension of math and science is fully constrained by politics and preconceived notions.
Can you share your data showing that?
Thanks.
Just read them…
The raw data exists in the comments which I have no way to compile and analyze, but it is there for all to see.
The vast majority of posters here,when discussing “the science ” discuss the science theres very little prejudice on the science, political opinion will of course be discussed when climate change is the topic,the two can not be separated, when politics is the main driver of climate science, when climate science is funded by governments with agendas ,when the IPCCs main function is to prove global warming. There is two sides to a debate ,there are two sides to a argument, unfortunately in climate science,( the science is settled) according to the MSM and politicians, here on WUWT no one is barred from thier opinion nothing is settled and opposing views are welcomed in open debate , you are fortunate to be able to discuss here,what ever the outcome.
“There is two sides to a debate ,there are two sides to a argument”
Actually, there are 3 sides to a debate or argument. My side, your side and the truth or facts of the matter. But humor aside, it never hurts to have more discussion on some matters, but I thought the GHE was established science here at this blog…the only issue up for real debate is what are the feedbacks, whether they be positive or negative. IMHO, it is the ECS that needs debating until the cows come home, not the existence of a GHE, which might be moot if ECS is negative. But it would still be incorrect to say there is no GHE, even if it ultimately causes cooling in the final analysis.
I don’t decide the debate, l don’t believe the science is settled,
Hence the debate,sounds like you have a lot to add to the debate.
I think there are many other issues up for debate.
-For example, what factors are responsible for all of the huge changes in GAST and/or local climate regimes, prior to the industrial revolution?
-What are the relative magnitudes of these factors?
-Do they or do they not overwhelm any possible effects from humans, including changes in land use, the effect of the actual energies we release into the environment, etc?
-Is net warming really something that will have negative consequences, regardless of the cause or causes?
-Are we or are we not reaching the end of the interglacial, and can we possibly do anything about it if we are?
-How much benefit will adding CO2 to the air have in the biosphere, crop growth, health, and yields?
-Will having more CO2 continue to cause global greening, including shrinking of marginal desert/arid regions by drastically lowering how much water plants need to grow and thrive?
What you’re describing is merely your own unsupported opinion. If there is “raw data” observable to all, it can be compiled and analyzed by anyone with the time patience and will to do it. Hell, the entire idea of a “climate crisis” and the AGW position “is fully constrained by politics and preconceived notions”. Those is bound infiltrate any discussion of climate.
FU, too. My response is about the level of your comment. Your comment is similar the level of the “racist” epithet. I have far more intellect, education and experience than many of the asshole on this Thread. The GHE is real and dipshit deniers are idiots.
Hey! Rereading that really felt good!
Two observations:
First, mechanical engineers have been designing furnaces and boilers for a very long time. Heat transfer within those devices depends on radiation transfer in an atmosphere of CO2 and water vapor, which are the residuum of combustion within them. The physics of the process is essentially the greenhouse effect. Engineers do not employ the exact physics but rather a workable approximation.
Second, I have heard no one here dispute the correctness of the transfer equation (here) and so how is it that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist even though the transfer equation demands that it does, and enables one to calculate its effect?
There are several bits of magical thinking that pop up here from time to time and which seem to be impossible to snuff out — non-existance of the greenhouse effect and PV=nRT determines gas temperature independently of any other factors are two of them.
Re “Second, I have heard no one here dispute the correctness of the transfer equation”.
First of all gases are not Black Bodies.
Second if you do the transfer function in the direction of Cold Object to Warm Object you get a massive NEGATIVE number which say’s that the Warmer Object has been COOLED.
How do you explain that?
Take 2 bodies one at 200K and one at 280K, transfer from hot to cold = + 4546560000
transfer form cold to hot = -4546560000
Explanation please.
First, Those are some pretty big numbers you have there — what are they? What units?
Second, the transfer equation does not depend on the ” total blackness” of the medium which is radiating and absorbing. Most of the time we think of the gaseous medium as being “grey”. That is, described by an emissivity.
Third, a warm body in the presence of a cool body does cool — it transfers net energy to the cool body. You cannot just use the stefan boltzmann law to calculate the transfer as you also need 1) the true angular distribution of radiated energy from both bodies (an emissivity < 1.0 is just the first order approximation), and 2) you have to employ a view factor between the two unless one body is completely enclosed by the other. If the total view of the world of either body is not solely of the other body, then you had better take into account what else is in the view or your calculations are incomplete.
In his heat radiation lecture notes Planck observed that for heat radiation to interact with stuff they had to have similar dimensions.
Short wave x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. are high energy and short wave. They go together.
UV waves are shorter and cause minerals to fluoresce.
LWIR are , well, long wave and low energy and are too large too interact at the molecular level.
The radio antenna on my car “interacts with” radio waves that are hundreds of meters long and have a tiny fraction of the energy of LWIR.
So, every scientist and engineer who has ever measured the absorption and emission properties of matter composed of molecules was lying? And the industrial processes that depend on these interactions don’t really work?
Nick,
Please examine the particle-wave duality of EM radiation. Is a photon of LWIR “long” or “short”?
Microwave radiation has “wavelengths” longer than that of IR and LWIR, yet it clearly interacts with water at the molecular level. Why is that?
AC Osborn,
You asked for an explanation.
First, your example of two bodies, one at 200 K and the other at 280 K is nonsense for reasons of missing units, emissivity values, radiating areas, and separation distances.
Second, any physical body with a surface temperature above absolute zero will emit thermal radiation (although such radiation does not have to conform to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law for ideal black bodies). For a uniform body surface, such radiation will be isotropic and will be unaffected by the presence of other bodies that may intercept some of this radiation. Ask yourself, how is it possible that one body physically separated from another body would “know” that there is/are one or more external object to which radiation should be directed?
Third, the steady-state radiative power shift at one object caused by receiving radiation from a second separated object, both with temperatures above absolute zero, is simple to calculate: new power radiated by object 1 = old power radiated by object 1 + power newly received from object 2.
In the above case, the fact that object 2 also happens to be intercepting radiation from object 1 only comes into play to the extent that such radiation happens to also increase the steady-state radiating power of object 2. Yes, it is an iterative process that converges to a final steady-state equilibrium for both bodies in this given gedanken experiment.
I appreciate your comment, and I wonder about this particular claim.
Recently, it was pointed out to me that reflectivity is a function of angle of incidence, so absorptivity and emissivity would also need to be a function of angle of incidence.
Wikipedia seems to support this idea “[Directional spectral emissivity] depends upon the wavelength and upon the angle of the outgoing thermal radiation. Kirchhoff’s law actually applies exactly to this more complex emissivity: the emissivity for thermal radiation emerging in a particular direction and at a particular wavelength matches the absorptivity for incident light at the same wavelength and angle.”
Bob.
“reflectivity is a function of angle of incidence, “”
Yes
Bounces off so not absorbed.
–
“so absorptivity and emissivity would also need to be a function of angle of incidence.”
No.
–
Absorption can occur from any direction.
Emission can go in any direction.
The issue is that Kirchoff’s Law requires that:
absorptivity + transmissivity + reflectivity = 1
and
absorptivity = emissivity
These rules are relevant at any given wavelength and in any given direction.
So, if reflectivity becomes large at some angle of incidence, that reduces the maximum possible emissivity at that angle.
The issue is that Kirchoff’s Law requires that:
absorptivity + transmissivity + reflectivity = 1
–
I would take this to mean energy in equals energy out.
–
That the incidence of the rays reduces absorption because more is reflected at large angles of incidence is quite logical.
Applies to the Arctic and Antarctic.
–
The assumption that the energy absorbed from a certain direction must be emitted as the same amount of energy is conservation of energy.
There is no directional requirement on emission.
–
In fact you state
“These rules are relevant at any given wavelength and in any given direction.”
Hence
“For a uniform body surface, such radiation will be isotropic”
–
I was concerned you were disagreeing with Gordon but apparently not. My bad.
–
Hence this Wikipedia statement is potentially misleading depending on how it is interpreted
–
“the emissivity for thermal radiation emerging in a particular direction and at a particular wavelength matches the absorptivity for incident light at the same wavelength and angle.”
–
In that the emissivity must match the absorption but there is no compelling reason for any particular direction for that emissivity to go.
The amount of energy absorbed at a particular angle is specified by how much is reflected and how much absorbed.
.
The emission however can be and must be in any direction it likes.
If post facto you observe the same amount of energy coming out back in the direction it came in then Kirchoff is trivially right.
Given you have already specified the angle and the amount of energy.
–
God does not pay dice with the universe.
If Kirchhoff means that the only way for a hot body to emit is directly back at its incoming source this would be very interesting.
And wrong for a lot of thermodynamic reasons.
–
Yes, that rule does guarantee conservation of energy.
No, that’s not what I said or meant. And, it’s not conservation of energy.
The rule is: absorptivity = emissivity
That’s not a rule about the amount of energy. The energy absorbed is (energy incident) ×(absorptivity).
Energy emitted spontaneously is (emissivity) × σT⁴
It’s perfectly possible that the amount of energy incident is ZERO while the energy is being emitted.
These are NOT the “same amount of energy” and there is no reason that they should be.
The reason “absorptivity = emissivity” is for deep thermodynamic reasons, not for reasons of energy conservation.
That might be true if “absorptivity = emissivity” was about energy conservation, but it is not.
No. Your “hence” does not follow at all.
Because the rules are relevant “in any given direction” it follows that
ff absorptivity depends on angle, then emissivity must also depend on angle.
Note that none of this is an argument I came up with. Someone in these comment threads made the claim, then I realized it seemed to be correct, and my subsequent research has backed up the claim.
Another Wikipedia article says “the emissivity and the absorptivity, if they happen to be dependent on direction, must again be equal for any given direction.”
That appears to be wrong. Emission is isotropic for an ideal black-body, but not necessarily for real matter.
You seem to be misunderstanding what the term “emissivity” means. There is no “direction it came in.” Emissivity is about radiation that is emitted even when there is no external radiation “coming in.”
There is no “incoming source.” If you think there is, you are misunderstanding the idea of emissivity.
“you are misunderstanding the idea of emissivity.”
Emissivity does not require an incoming source.
However we are discussing Kirchhoff as well as emissions.
–
(Gustav Kirchhoff‘s 1859 law of thermal radiation) that equates the emissivity of a surface with its absorption of incident radiation (the “absorptivity” of a surface)
–
Kirchoff’s law requires an incoming source, else there is no law.
–
“emissivities are the total hemispherical emissivities from the surfaces.a more complex “directional spectral emissivity” can also be measured. This emissivity depends upon the wavelength and upon the angle of the outgoing thermal radiation. Kirchhoff’s law actually applies exactly to this more complex emissivity: the emissivity for thermal radiation emerging in a particular direction and at a particular wavelength matches the absorptivity for incident light at the same wavelength and angle. The total hemispherical emissivity is a weighted average of this directional spectral emissivity;”
–
My takes from this.
Emissivity is the transfer back to space of all the energy that came in minus the reflectance.
Hence the surface temp for a blackbody at an emissivity of 1 is the same temperature for a greyer body at 0.94 if they have absorbed and emitting the same amount of energy per surface area.
The energy exiting the earth is after all what it absorbed regardless of its colour.
As you said a lower emissivity object would have to heat up more to get rid of that same amount of energy at its lower emissivity.
It does not retain energy.
–
Kirchoffs law is just stating that a hemisphere heats up at different rates dependent on the angle of the light on the hemisphere. Therefore it will emit at different temperatures exactly proportional to the amount of incoming energy it was able to absorb.
-Thank you for getting me to investigate it a little more and trying to sort out the problem of the outgoing radiation more clearly
I’m glad you’re trying to make sense of all this.
The generally idea that there is a relationship between what a material can absorb and what it can emit, is, indeed, what Kirchoff’s law is about.
You’re right at that level, but a lot of the detailed ideas you have continue to seem a bit garbled.
No. Your apparent misinterpretation of Kirchoff’s law requires an incoming source. The law as normally understood does not.
The law says that emissivity (which relates to spontaneous radiation independent of any incident radiation) is numerically identical to absorptivity (which relates to incident radiation).
It does NOT say that emissivity relates, in any way, to incident radiation.
As a metaphor… Suppose there it turned out to be true that the number of pizzas delivered to colleges per day is equal to the number of dogs adopted at animal shelters. That doesn’t mean pizzas are being taken to dog shelters.
The things involved are simply numerically equal.
Kirchoff’s law is NOT an expression of energy conservation.
No. Look at the definition of emissivity. It’s about the ratio of power spontaneously emitted to the amount that an ideal blackbody radiator would emit. It has nothing to do with “all the energy that came in.”
You cannot change the definition of emissivity just to make Kirchoff’s law make sense to you.
No. That’s actually contradicted by what you quote a bit later, i.e.,
Yes.
To see this, suppose the power emitted per unit area is P. We know P = 𝜀𝜎T⁴, so T⁴ = P/𝜀𝜎.
So, an object with a lower emissivity, 𝜀, will have a higher temperature, given the same power P.
Mmm… not exactly.
I know it’s not so satisfying, but I think you’d be better off accepting Kirchoff’s law (emissivity = absorptivity) as a mysterious truth, that two quantities happen to be numerically equal.
It’s nice to have an explanation, but the real explanation is very subtle, and your explanation isn’t quite right.
thanks
From Planck’s thesis on heat radiation.
Bob Wentworth posted: “The issue is that Kirchoff’s Law requires that: “. . . and absorptivity = emissivity. These rules are relevant at any given wavelength and in any given direction.”
Well, that may be Kirchoff’s law as applied to an ideal black body, but it is certainly not generally applicable to the real world, with the understanding that radiation energy that is not absorbed is “lost” due to reflection.
Some everyday examples of the ratio of absorptivity/emissivity over the solar spectrum:
— 11.0 for nickel-oxide coated stainless steel
— 9.7 for plated black chrome metal
— 3.0 for aluminum foil
— 2.1 for dull brass, copper, galvanized steel, aluminum
— 0.68 for red brick
— 0.68 for concrete
— 0.37 for snow, ice granules
— 0.24 for light colored paints, firebrick, clay, glass
— 0.17 for anodized aluminum
— 0.16 for fresh snow having fine particles
— 0.10 for magnesium oxide paint
(source of the above listed values versus materials: http://www.redrok.com/concept.htm#emissivity )
Ooops . . . my bad: I should have stated in my second paragraph above “. . . as applied to an ideal grey body . . .” and not a have referenced an “ideal black body”, which by definition has an absorptivity = emissivity = 1.
Kirchoff’s law is trivial for “an ideal blackbody” since for an ideal blackbody reflectivity = 0 and emissivity and absorbtivity are both 1.
Kirchoff’s law is specifically meant to be applied to things that are not black bodies, and is always valid.
You are failing to pay attention to the essential constraint “at any given wavelength.”
The reason that the quoted ratio of absorptivity/emissivity of materials is frequently not 1 is that these absorptivity/emissivities are reported for different wavelengths.
In particular, absorptivity is generally quoted for the shortwave (SW) wavelengths characteristic of sunlight.
Emissivity is generally quoted for the longwave (LW) wavelengths characteristic of the thermal emissions of the material within the expected range of typical temperatures.
So, it is both true that emissivity = absorptivity for a given wavelength AND that emissivity and absorptivity figures quoted without reference to wavelength will rarely be equal.
There is no contradiction. One just needs to understand the conventions about wavelength that are implicit in these quoted numbers.
Bob, you stated: “So, it is both true that emissivity = absorptivity for a given wavelength AND . . .”
If that is true, then it is trivial to conclude that must necessarily mean that emissivity = absorptivity across a given range of wavelengths, such as that encompassing 99.99% of Earth’s incident solar radiation that is not reflected.
For the various values of absorptivity/emissivity numbers I provided in my previous post, I stated that they were measured over the solar spectrum, which comes directly from the cited URL that provided that data.
Please note that nothing in the above implies that emissivity (or absorptivity) must be constant across the solar spectrum for any given substance.
One of the conditions that Kirchoff stated for his law that emissivity = absorptivity at a given wavelength is that the absorbing/radiating body is inside a cavity with a non-transparent walls and that these walls have the temperature of the absorbing/radiating body. This condition is almost never realized in the real world.
For a more detailed explanation for why the ratio of absorptivity/emissivity can depart from 1, I suggest looking at “On the validity of Kirchhoff’s law” by Kraabel et al (available at http://bkraabel.free.fr/publications/white_papers/Kirchhoffs_law.pdf ), with specific note of the Figure 1 graph therein of the Baltes inequality function for temperatures of 20 °C and 100 °C.
Agreed.
Yes, I noted that, and assumed the statement must be erroneous, with regard to emissivity.
As far as I can tell, your reference doesn’t say emissivities are for the solar spectrum.
It seems clear to me that the emissivities reported cannot possibly be measured relative to the solar spectrum.
To do such a measurement, you would need to raise your sample to about 5000 K and measure the emissions. That would destroy many of the materials being discussed.
Alternatively, one could heat the sample to a lower temperature, measure the short wavelength emissions, and do a calculation to infer the emissivity at solar wavelengths. But, the emissions at such wavelengths would be so insignificant as to render such a measurement impossible, for practical purposes.
More fundamentally, measuring emissivity at the wavelengths of the solar spectrum would not be useful for the purposes that your reference is trying to serve.
To be useful, an emissivity must be measured at the temperature at which the material will be used. The reference relates to materials for use in solar collectors.
Those materials are not going to be used at temperatures of around 5000 K, emitting a spectrum similar to that of the Sun.
They are going to be used at much lower temperatures, emitting LW rather than SW radiation.
Your reference does say that emissivities are often measured at temperatures lower than the operating temperatures inside solar collectors, and that this is a problem, because the measured emissivity values aren’t accurate for those operating temperatures.
But, regardless of what the temperatures inside a solar collector are, they are going to be way, way lower than 5000 K.
So, the relevant emissivities are not going to be measured over the same range of wavelengths as the solar spectrum.
As your reference indicates, this assumption may relate to the two different definitions of emissivity. In situations where the two definitions produce similar results, this condition may be moot.
While the condition may not be rigorously valid in the real world, the two definitions do seem to produce similar results under a pretty wide range of practical conditions (per the discussio of Figure 1 below). So, Kirchoff’s law would seem to be approximately valid under a wide range of practical conditions.
Thanks for that fascinating reference! I’m by no means an expert on Kirchoff’s law, and I appreciate the support for learning more about some of the nuances.
I see from that reference that one of the issues is definitional, so that Kirchoff’s law applies more for one definition of emissivity than for the other.
Figure 1, which you point out, suggests that the definitions are likely to agree reasonably well (if not perfectly) at the wavelengths characteristic of thermal radiation. (The Figure shows more validity at shorter wavelengths, and reasonable validity at the peak emission wavelength characteristic of each temperature. For example, at 20℃, peak emission is at 10 microns.) So, Kirchoff’s law seems likely to apply, at least approximately, for thermal radiation under most practical circumstances, regardless of which definition of emissivity one uses.
It’s good to know that there are conditions under which Kirchoff’s law might not hold.
At the same time, those situations seem likely to be relatively uncommon (and in some cases involve engineered materials or situations unlikely to be found in nature).
Far more common is the case where emissivity and absorptivity numbers don’t match because they are not measured in the same range of wavelengths.
Whatever fame Kirchhoff may deserve for his law, which has been disputed as Gordon notes, Kirchhoff likely has the dubious honor of having his name misspelled more than that of any other scientist in history (Snel of refraction fame is another close competitor). A resurrected Kirchhoff, upon seeing his name in hundreds of textbooks and thousands of papers, might exclaim, “Where’s my h?”
.
Kirchhoff’s law was derived for a body illuminated by equilibrium radiation. This naturally leads to the question, does this law still hold for arbitrary illumination? Although couple decades ago, this question generated some controversy, it now seems safe to say that the dust has settled and you should not hesitate to apply Kirchhoff’s law to bodies even when they are not illuminated by equilibrium (blackbody) radiation.
Yes, the controversy over the validity of Kirchhoff’s law is reviewed by H. P. Baltes, 1976: “On the validity of Kirchhoff’s law of heat radiation for a body in a nonequilibrium environment.” Progress in Optics, Vol. 13, pp. 1–25.
Thanks for the added clarity.
Bob, the general thrust of your above comments is correct.
The absorptivity/emissivity ratios that I previously provided obviously (at least to me) could not possibly have been associated with measurements of the materials being at temperatures of the solar photosphere, where incoming solar radiation originated. As you noted, most of the materials I listed as having absorptivity/emissivity ratios different from 1, simply cannot exist at a temperature of around 10,000 F (5,800 K), the average temperature of the Sun’s photosphere.
And this simple fact is a huge problem/misperception of applying Kirchhoff’s Law to common real world experience. In the real world, for a given material exposed to the solar spectrum—and independent of the absorptivity and emissivity values both being measured on a planar (i.e., vector normal to surface) or both being measured on an integrated total hemispherical basis—absorptivity will based in incoming photons from the Sun whereas the emissivity will be based on the (mostly) LWIR photons coming off the material in question. This is THE major reason for the list of materials that I provided having ratios of absorptivity/emissivity different than 1.
So, yes, in the real world the wavelength range for “emissivity” for a given object is almost never the wavelength range for radiation “absorptivity” received by that same object
Kirchhoff’s Law(s), in particular asserting that absorptivity always equals emissivity (without regard to both being at the same wavelength), are fine theoretically . . . one just has to been very careful in extending them to the real world.
OK, Mr Dressler.
What happens when the 2 bodies are at identical temperatures?
Well, that depends on spherical angles subtended by one body from the viewpoint of the other body, and vice versa.
And, related to the above, it depends on whether on not the distance between the bodies is constant.
And it depends if the bodies are in steady state temperature equilibrium, or just happen to be at a moment of identical temperatures.
And it depends of the emissivities of each body.
And it depends on the reflectivity (aka albedo) of each body.
And if you are referring to temperatures when you ask about “what happens”, that depends on many additional factors, such as:
— do one or both of the bodies have an atmosphere
— if a body has an atmosphere, are you defining “temperature” as top of atmosphere, land surface, ocean surface, or a grey body-derived average?
— how large the heat capacity of each body of each body may be
Or are you perhaps referring to radiative flux balances (e.g., watt/m^2 absorbed or radiated, as used by Kevin Trenberth, et al) when you ask about “what happens”?
A more precise question may lead to a more precise answer.
2 Identical 1 metre square plates of the same material and emmissivity in close proximity in a vacuum or atmosphere at identical starting temperatures of say 300K.
What happens to their temperatures according to S&B and Radiative Transfer Equations.
And according to flow and absorption of Photons.
Also the same size plates.
On the left a plate at 4K in the middle a plate at 300K and on the right a plate at 280K.
According to transfer equations the heat transfer to the left plate from the middle plate is 459W/m2
From the middle to the right plate is 111W/m2
According to what everyone says an object emits photons equally in all directions at the frequeny set by the temperature of the object.
So how do you calculate how many photons go to the left and how many go to the right to achieve the difference in transfered energy?
I assume that Watts are Jouels/second.
Use this:
CalcTool: Power to photon rate calculator
The key here is to know the freqency/wavelength since a photons energy is dependent on wavelength.
Jim, thanks for that, I am not sure how it would handle the “split” between hotter<cooler>colder, but at least it is a start.
AC Osborn,
At 1:33 am you posted “2 Identical 1 metre square plates of the same material and emmissivity in close proximity in a vacuum or atmosphere at identical starting temperatures of say 300K“ (my underlining emphasis added).
However at 2:33 am you posted “On the left a plate at 4K in the middle a plate at 300K and on the right a plate at 280K.” (again, my underlining added).
So, assuming you are now requesting answers to two different gedanken experiments:
1) for the 1:33 am case, assuming the plates are in vacuum and have equal mass (i.e., equal thickness), both will cool down at identical rates since their radiation exchanges with each other and with deep space will be identical. Calculating the number of photons going “left and right” between the two plates (which would be identical in this special case) would require the quadruple integration of radiation energy (where photon E = h*frequency) over the full EM spectrum frequency range, over the full range of body temperatures from 300K to 4K, over the integrated area of one plate, and over the time interval that it takes to cool down from 300K to 4K, the last of which is indeterminate since you failed to provide the mass and specific heat for each plate. (Note: the case of both plates being in an atmosphere cannot be answered since you have not described the many necessary parameteres—including temperature, mass, conductivity, spectral absorption & emission coefficients—of that “atmosphere”).
2) for the 2:33 am case, again assuming the three plates are in vacuum and have equal mass (i.e., equal thickness), it becomes a three-body heat transfer problem requiring the same quadruple integration, with the added complication that it probably has to done stepwise, with intervening calculations (say every 10E-12 seconds) that derive correct radiation power balances between the three plates and their radiations to deep space. But again the solution (number of photos flowing left and right between the 300K starting-temperature plate and the 280K starting-temperature plate is indeterminate since you failed to provide the mass and specific heat properties for these plates, as well as those for the 4K starting-temperature plate.
Finally, your calculation for 459W/m2 power flux (not heat transfer) for the “heat transfer” to the left plate from the middle plate is true only for the instant of these plates having these temperatures and is based on both plates having emissivity = absorptivity = 1 (e.g., ideal black bodies) . . . they will both have continuously declining temperatures due to radiation to deep space. Same comment for the calculated 111W/m^2 power flux from the middle to the right plate. Note that there is no such thing as a perfect insulator and you did not specify that the “backsides” of each 1m^2 plate could not radiate to deep space.
I can’t imagine why you are particularly interested in calculating the number of photons going in particular directions in the above hypothetical scenarios, but there you have it.
Well it should be obvious.
Everybody says that when photons hit CO2 molecules roughly 50% of re-emitted photons go to space and 50% go to the surface.
But how does that fit with the transfer of energy of 459W/m2 in one direction and only 111W/m2 in the other direction.
If the quantity of photons = the energy transferrred then 4 times as many go to the cold object as go to the warm object.
So the split is 75% to space and 25% towards the surface.
Or is the logic wrong?
The logic is wrong because the total energy transferred is not just equal to the number of photons exchanged. The total is the number of photons exchanged accounting for the energy carried by each individual photon.
The energy carried by a given photon is based its frequency, in accordance with E = h * frequency, as I previously posted, where h is Planck’s constant.
Relatively higher temperature objects will emit more high frequency photons than relatively colder temperature objects, all other factors being equal.
BTW, not everybody “says that when photons hit CO2 molecules roughly 50% of re-emitted photons go to space and 50% go to the surface”. The people knowledgeable about the underlying physics of thermal energy transfer in the atmosphere know that a CO2 molecule that absorbs a LWIR photon has many-orders-of-magnitude higher probability of exchanging that extra energy via collisions with other atmospheric gases (overwhelming that means either one or more nitrogen molecule or one or more oxygen molecules) before it has the “relaxation time” associated with re-radiation of the previously-absorbed photon energy.
The above-described process of exchanging thermal energy via collisions is known as “thermalization”. It explains why the greenhouse molecules (H2O, CO2 and CH4) on average do not have temperatures significantly different that the non-greenhouse molecules N2 and O2.
Very simple. You’re making the wrong analysis. GHE says the colder object would be COLDER (than otherwise) if there were no radiative feedback because the 280K surface would be “facing” an object at 3K (outer space—i.e., atmosphere transparent to IR) instead of one at 200K which is NOT transparent to IR. “Greenhouse” is comparing surface temps as they are versus what they would be if radiating directly from the surface to a 3K outer space. Is that so hard to understand?
Wrong answer, I have no idea how you got 5 up votes.
It is not “GHE says the colder object would be COLDER (than otherwise) if there were no radiative feedback”
It says the warmer object would be warmer due to Back radiation from the colder object compared to open space.
The colder object gets warmer from direct radiation from the warmer object.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Those narratives sound pretty much equivalent to me. What am I missing?
That’s true. But, that’s not the interesting part of what happens.
What’s interesting is that the warmer object also gets warmer, because it no longer has to face the cold of open space.
In case it helps, see my explanation below.
What does direct one to one radiation transfer have to do with GHE?
GHE may result from the direct radiation from warm to cold making the cold object warmer, but that warming happens under any circumstances, it does not require any kind of GHE.
The GHE says the earth without atmosphere would be 255 and that the GHE, primarily due to CO2, adds 33 degrees to the surface temperature. BTW, that is a claim that the already warmer body, the earth, is warmed by colder CO2.
This can be explained by a model involving 3 flat plates, in the order A – B – C. The plates are surrounded by a box which is perfectly insulating.
Plates A and C are assumed to have emissivity 1.
Plate A has an electric heater which supplies 240 W/m² of heating.
Plate C is at 3 K and radiates 4.6e-6 W/m² towards Plate B.
Transparent-C Version
Initially, we’ll assume C is transparent to all radiation.
Plate A is receiving a total of about 240 W/m².
Plate A comes to an equilibrium temperature of 255 K radiating 240 W/m² towards plate C.
Opaque-C Version
Now suppose Plate B is opaque at 227 K radiating 150 W/m² towards Plate A.
Plate A is receiving a total of about 390 W/m².
It comes to an equilibrium temperature of 288 K radiating 390 W/m² towards Plate B.
Discussion
When we changed scenarios, bringing in a black-body at 227 K caused Plate A to warm from 255 K to 288 K.
Note, however, that plate B at 227 K blocked the view of Plate C at 3 K.
* * *
Imagine that you’re standing next to an enormous block of ice at 0℃. You’ll feel cold.
Now, put a wall at 20℃ between you and the block of ice. You’ll feel warmer!
But, how is that possible? That ice at 20℃ is colder than your body at 37℃. It shouldn’t be able to make you feel warmer, should it?
It can make you warmer because the alternative is to be facing something that is even colder.
That is how a cool atmosphere can warm a warmer surface. The atmosphere is way warmer than space, which the surface would otherwise be seeing.
My depression era parents knew a quality education was a good investment, so I earned my BSME from CU in ’78. I then retired after 35 years of applying that education in the power generation industry, 25 involving O&M, testing and design of fossil fired power boilers. Was also lucrative, btw.
Radiative heat transfer plays a major role between that bright orange fireball and the furnace walls.
But once flue gas begins to cool and exits the furnace radiation plays a rapidly diminishing role and conduction and convection an increasing share. Fourth power, ya’ know.
There seems to be a contingent that assumes radiation operates independently from the molecular non-radiative processes.
They are mistaken.
This is why the K-T and other diagrams have a non-radiative component leaving the surface (sensible + latent) and then a separate BB radiative component. This effectively doubles the energy in the system out of S-B calculated thin air.
That is incorrect.
And without it the entire RGHE house of cards collapses.
Do you even understand the K-T diagram? The radiative component only depends on the temperature of the surface. Conduction and convection are entirely separate quantities and have nothing to do with the radiative properties of the surface. The atmosphere is the mediating medium between the surface and outer space. Stop “thinking” and read and understand science. And CliSciFi is not science.
I dare you to find a single credible text on thermodynamics or heat transfer that supports your contention that radiation depends in any way on molecular non-radiative processes.
You are mistaken.
No, that’s not why the diagrams who two different energy transfer processes for energy leaving the surface. That show two different components because there are two different components, radiative and non-radiative processes.
There is no implication that one somehow depends on the other.
No, it doesn’t. This demonstrates that you haven’t payed any attention to the mathematics of energy transfer within the system.
Kevin kilty posted: “First, mechanical engineers have been designing furnaces and boilers for a very long time. Heat transfer within those devices depends on radiation transfer in an atmosphere of CO2 and water vapor, which are the residuum of combustion within them. The physics of the process is essentially the greenhouse effect.”
The second sentence quoted is only minimally correct. Thermal conduction and thermal convection are very important physical heat transfer processes that occur in both furnaces and boilers. In fact, radiation transfer (of thermal energy) is basically INSIGNIFICANT in (water) boilers, which invariably operate at metal-liquid interfaces below “burnout” point for maximum heat transfer capability.
The third quoted sentence, “The physics of the process is essentially the greenhouse effect.” , is flat out absurd.
Nowhere do I say that radiation is the sole heat transfer mechanism.
My long ago graduate school textbook on heat transfer written by Alan Chapman treats radiant transfer in Chapter 11, and looks extensively at transfer in enclosures with high temperature walls. 10% of the problems at chapter end deal with furnaces explicitly. Section 11.9 of that chapter covers transfer in enclosures with IR active gases inside. Sounds like a furnace to me. This section begins with the transfer equation. Sounds like equivalent of greenhouse effect to me.
The book I taught from four times, Incropera and deWitt, contains two chapters on radiant transfer. Dozens of the end of chapter problems deal explicitly with furnaces, processing ovens, boilers, heat recovery units, tube boilers in thermal power plants, and with transfer in enclosures containing IR active gases. Sections 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 deal with the transfer equation.
Sometimes these arguments are absurd, as there should be no argument in the first place.
“Heat transfer within those devices depends on radiation transfer in an atmosphere of CO2 and water vapor . . .”
Thank you, Kevin, for shaming the poseurs. The poseurs seem to have the need to beat-up others to prove their own worth. Stick with modern physics and mathematical textbooks and one may become educated. CliSciFi is not of the same caliber.
A lot of heat transfer in a boiler is due to convection of the combustion gasses into the heat exchanger tubes, not just radiative heat transfer.
Did I ever use the word “just”?
Kevin kilty asked: “Did I ever use the word ‘just’?”
Well, in fact in this particular thread, in a reply to AC Osborn posted at 7:29 am on June 6, Kelvin kilty stated: “You cannot just use the stefan boltzmann law to calculate the transfer as you also need . . .”
The first graph of absorption and emission spectra explains everything. CO2 has only three absorption peaks, equivalent to IR radiation temperatures of 800,400 and -80 deg C objects. In daylight, all of these frequencies would be active, both absorbing and emitting EM energy and emitting IR. These frequencies would be saturated and have no net effect on downwelling insolation other than to divert a little solar energy back to space, a tiny cooling effect.The same is true for water vapor.
It is during night time, with no solar energy input, that CO2 and water vapor actively convert thermal energy in the air to IR. The upper two absorption frequencies of CO2 would be inactive, without any sunlight input, and the remaining -80 deg C band would emit IR constantly. CO2 thus is constantly trying to cool the air to -80 deg C. It has an effect but night is too short. There is something to the saying that, “It is always coldest just before dawn.”
This is why the air cools so rapidly after sundown and little breezes kick up so quickly in the shadows of cloud on a sunny day with scudding clouds. These gases, properly called “radiative gases” simply do not warm the climate, but instead cool the climate.
The GHE was cobbled up and does not exist, but some twist into pretzels to make it work. The warmist stand is that it is the upper tropical troposphere that is warming the fastest and then warming the surface. This warm region is never been observed after years of searching (it does show up in climate models, but not the real world). In fact, NASA has found that this region has been cooling gently for decades. Again, this does not exist and is junk science.
Indeed, having an atmosphere has a real cooling effect during the day and a warming effect at night, which prevents our surface from being the same as on the Moon, with only IR radiation as a means of losing solar heating energy. The atmosphere carries solar energy from the surface very efficiently by conduction and convection (~85%). At night, the cooling air down convects and serves to slow down that cooling of the surface by lowering the temperature differential.
If there were in fact no GHE, it would be a simple matter to prove it experimentally. Have you evidence of such experiments?
The whole beauty of claiming CO2 controls the climate WAS that it was a presumptive theory that could not be proven right or wrong, Feynman’s “vague theory”. This was the case when it was carefully planned and self identifying “climate scientists” were created and funded by IPCC money to “prove” this presumption right with models, rather than test it with observations. But then came proxy temperatures, from ice cores to tree rings, tree lines, etc. And universal satellite coverage of global temperatures from consistent repeatable instruments with universal coverage, New we CAN check what is normal – by observation of past climate change cycles, short and long, that allow anomalous behaviour to be identified.
?dl=0
If there was a significant anomaly then it would show in the overtly cyclic records of the interglacial conditions with a tropical saturated region region that we currently enjoyed for 10Ka. It does not. There would also be a monotonic signal associated with any AGR There is not.
?dl=0
Even without the frequency analysis the range and rate of the current variations are overtly almost identical with those in past interglacial warming cycles, cooling from a maximum at 8Ka BP, and most recently rising ina normal rate and range from the coldest minimum this interglacial period. Clue there.
So where is the claimed anomaly? To claim CO2 is a cause because it is rising as temperature rises when the warming phase of this cycle is observably in line with past warmings in fact proves it has no detectable effect. To add to this, you can examine the change of CO2 with Interglacial warming and cooling cycles. It is very clear CO2 lags the temperature decline towards the glacial phase, as well as the temperature rise to the interglacial. CO2 levels are an effect that lags temperature change in natural past. They are not a cause of change then..
Of course GHE is real, but how much is there? The claims for CO2 within the overall GHE as a control of climate, or significant contributor to the lapse rate, are both clearly false on the observed science fact – that is not debated by those expert on either side of this debate. The actual contribution of GHE to the overall lapse rate is small and diminishing exponentially with concentration. I also cover that elsewhere.
?dl=0
LAPSE RATE: Meteorology 101 teaches how what Maxwell described as the adiabatic convective equilibrium occurs. Convection of water vapour by the atmosphere, heated by the surface, from the ocean to the troposphere, is the dominant control of climate, and also the determining factor in the Lapse rate from the surface to 0.1 Earth Bars, driven purely by surface heating of the atmosphere that drives convection, plus gravity that controls the atmospheric density gradient to space by pressure. This happens on all the planets studied to date with a surface where there is a liquid, gas and solid substance in equilibrium around its Triple Point, be it Water, or Methane or Ammonia in colder places.Just is. Physics 101. The lapse rate on such so;ar system Moons and Planets can be modelled very simply with two variables, using orbital diameter and pressure as a surrogate for density.
?dl=0
THE EFFECT OF RADIATIVE HEAT LOSS FROM THE SURFACE This is a small amount of the overall heat loss, 58W/m^2 out of 240W/m^2. And the atmosphere is transparent to most of the 58W/m^2 emitted IR energy leaving the surface, so that has no warming effect on the atmosphere. The warming effect of the small amount of surface radiation, the 18W/m^2 of the IR that does act on the atmosphere through the scattering of GHE, is poorly understood, and certainly a small and diminishing effect on the overall lapse rate with concentration.
Ot is much than the dominant control of the response to SST change, The slightest error in modellers guestimates of the control feedback to the tiny 1.6W/m^2 of total heat loss out of 240W/m^2, that the IPCC say is the net AGW effect, would make the supposed effect cooling, not warming. And again, the record shows no anomaly vs. past change, in range or rate.
If the observations don’t match the theory, it’s wrong. Whatever GHE there is is small, well controlled, and the change predicted by models has not been detectable as an anomaly in the natural record since they really began to today. QED
Charles, you are making a few fundamental errors…
Thus in short, it is not the temperature of the atmosphere that dictates the amount of outgoing energy, but the temperature of surface plus the amount of energy that is absorbed and back radiated to the surface.
Further, the -80ºC peak frequency for the absorption of CO2 is for a black body, not for radiation active gases. A CO2 laser at that frequency can melt steel at 1200ºC… Would be impossible according the black body frequency.
https://lightmachinery.com/lasers/co2-lasers/
“Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010” is a paper anybody serious should be citing unless it is supporting the argument that some will infer a trend from noise based on religious faith, and give their instrumentation captain marvel-esque super powers.
Had the authors shifted their observations by 2 years the 0.02 watts/m^3 per year of “forcing” due to a 21 ppm increase would have resulted in significant global cooling… or maybe they could have said a 21 PPM increase caused -0.02 forcing!
The idea that that they controlled for every other variable and singled out CO2 as the cause of whatever they saw in a huge amount of noise is ludicrous. They picked two years with the largest temp difference and ascribed that difference to CO2!
They claimed to be able to detect the amount of forcing seasonally but apparently not year to year (CO2 forcing is magic that way).
Their findings confirm the models though! Too bad the models out in 3 sigma land with observations even with huge unjustified “corrections” to the data.
Gretl, they didn’t use or calculate anything that is called temperature. All what they have done is measuring the whole IR spectrum and subtracting water vapor with its spectrum leaving the lines caused by CO2 and thus its change in W/m2. That is all. If that caused warming, cooling or nothing is of zero interest in this case.
That models have their influence of CO2 (as W/m2) right is no surprise, as that is quite straight-forward physics. The problem in the models is the assumed “positive feed-backs”, which hardly or don’t exist…
BTW, that is how hand-held CO2 devices work: They measure the IR absorption in the main CO2 band and another line in a water band where CO2 is not active. By calculating the effect of water in the CO2 band out of the water band and subtracting it from the CO2 band signal, the remainder is the CO2 absorption.
It seems that modern CO2 measurements don’t use a second wave in the water band:
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/6010192-how-does-an-ndir-co2-sensor-work
Anyway, they should compensate for any water vapor present, maybe using their temperature and relative humidity measurements to calculate the interference with water vapor. But that is not mentioned in the description…
Did you read the paper? That is not what they did.
If you read the paper, they supposedly used incredibly sophisticated equipment to measure all downwelling radiation and very very very carefully subtract everything that didn’t have a very very specific “CO2 signal,” and yadda yadda yeah right.
What is obvious is they in fact just chose 2000-2010 rather than 1998-2008 because it was easier to force the data to imply CO2 was the cause… and they were somehow able to identify which CO2 molecules came from fossile fuel. I bet they also have one of those benchtop gas chromatographs from “medicine man” that can calculate and display the tertiary structure of a 50kDa protein.
Silliness
Gretl, there is nothing unusual in the equipment they used: a spectrometer which shows every single line in the whole IR spectrum in very detail.
And there is nothing unusual in knowing what lines correspond to any specific molecule. I have worked with chlorine detection which has its specific lines of absorption to warn for any outbreak or leaks.
So there is nothing unusual to subtract what is known as lines from water vapor, CH4, N2O, O3, … from the whole spectrum and show that the remainder is from CO2.
If they had chosen 1998-2008, the results would have been similar, as the increase in total CO2 was similar.
Again, the measured CO2 induced forcing is in W/m2 and any resulting temperature change is out of the calculation.
And if you don’t trust that the CO2 increase (as mass, not the original molecules!) is 96% from humans, you don’t trust any type of observation…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
The warmist theory of a warming upper tropical atmosphere is based on more water vapor at that height in a warming world. But there is not more water vapor, therefore also no faster increase than at the surface…
From the article: “The GHE issues are how much when (ECS), not if.”
I’ll go along with that.
Now we just have to figure out if more CO2 in the atmosphere results in net warming or net cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The other GHE article is now up to 729 comments. 🙂
In Geoscience the notion of Continental Drift was derided.
It was necessary to invent the new name of Plate Tectonics before the concept of the movement of continents was generally adopted.
N.B. It was the proposed mechanism for the movement of the continents that was wrong, not the concept.
Well, if you want to retain energy in a warm body you need to surround it in a vacuum. Once you let the air at it (any gaseous medium), the temperature rapidly declines and the faster the flow of gas around the body the quicker it will lose its warmth. That’s called the wind chill factor.
As soon as a parcel of air accepts energy from a warm body, either via conduction or radiation, the gaseous particles so affected are displaced upwards and so long as the parcel retains the differential in the kinetic energy that it possesses in relation to the gas that it is passing through, that warmed parcel will keep lifting. Because of a negative lapse rate its always moving into a zone where the temperature is less so its ,likely to maintain its density differential……until its high enough to radiate to Space.
The atmosphere is very thin. 90% of its mass is found within 10km of the surface. Long before that parcel of gas reaches an elevation of 10 km it is free to radiate to space. If you live in the inland you soon find out that the energy gained in the daytime is very rapidly lost at night.
No, I cant agree with this notion of a greenhouse effect. What I believe is that the ocean is transparent to solar radiation, absorbs the suns energy to some depth and yields it up slowly, certainly not in the space of 12 hours like in the inland.
No mathematics needed, just common sense and an understanding of the behaviour of gases.
Yet, your narrative actually supports the idea of a greenhouse effect. You talk about a parcel rising “until its high enough to radiate to Space.” That “radiating into space” is accomplished by greenhouse materials (GHG and clouds). The more GHG there are in the atmosphere, the higher a parcel needs to rise before it can radiate to space without having that radiation be re-absorbed.
A higher radiation level means a larger lapse rate temperature differential to the surface. So, if GHGs increase, the radiation threshold elevation rises, and the surface temperature rises.
If that happens, it would smooth out temperature variations over a day. But otherwise, it doesn’t explain the planetary temperature.
“Common sense” is frequently wrong, when it comes to science.
Bob, look at it this way. If the greenhouse absorber instantly transfers kinetic energy to any other molecule that is adjacent, being immediately capable of accepting more energy, how many greenhouse molecules are required in parts per million to raise the temperature of the air to start it moving? In that connection think about what is achieved by the ozone molecule at and below the tropopause. What’s the elevation necessary before the downward radiation component becomes insignificant and the chance of re-absorption of the wave length being emitted by the air so heated, immaterial?
Absorption and transmission of energy is a function of atmospheric density. Density falls away with elevation. The work done by this process at 1000 metres of elevation is much less than that achievable at the surface.
What proportion of this planet is going to be adversely affected by adding radiation absorbers, over what seasonal interval, and what fraction of the planet would benefit for what proportion of the year. Consider that the optimum temperature for photosynthesis lies between 25 and 35°C.
Then ask yourself what proportion of absorbers is desirable?
And remember that at current concentration, CO2 is just above starvation levels from a plants point of view. And plant water use efficiency is dramatically enhanced as the proportion of CO2 is enhanced. Compare the availability of CO2 at 400 parts per million with that of Oxygen at better than one molecule in five and thank fate that you were not born a plant.
And remember that at and about the equator the main mode by which kinetic energy is dissipated is via decompression associated with uplift. The part of the Earth that radiates most strongly is not at the equator but where the air descends and is warmed by compression in the almost complete absence of water vapour.
Erl,
The scientific method was invented to counteract common sense.
People have always had common sense, and for all of human history, very little was ever learned about how things actually work.
Until the invention of the scientific method.
Nothing about human intuition has evolved to arrive at correct answers about questions of physical reality.
The warming that has occurred in the Southern Hemisphere between the decade prior to 1960 and the decade prior to 2020 by month of year is listed below according to the month of year in degrees centigrade.
January 0.351
February 0.6168
March 0.7784
April 0.9485
May 0.9659
June 0.8587
July 0.8946
August 1.0308
September 0.9388
October 0.7147
November 0.4401
December 0.254
Two questions:
First I have no doubt the GHE exists. What i do doubt is that there is any positive feedback from water vapor due to increased temperatures. Feedbacks from clouds are a different matter and for all I know could be cooling versus a positive feedback. The amount of heat radiated into space by water vapor is dependent on the temperature of the top layer of water vapor in the atmosphere. In turn the density of this top layer is dependent on the partial pressure of water vapor which is in turn dependent on the the temperature of the top layer of water vapor. What this circular argument implies is that the amount of energy radiated by water vapor is a constant and is not magically controlled by CO2. So if CO2 goes up warming the planet there is no corresponding warming caused by water vapor.
A little bit of observation, and a bit of digging informs us as to how the whole things works.
The July peak in the temperature of the Earth (2.5°C warmer than in January) is due to the evaporation of cloud (reduced albedo) as the land masses of the northern hemisphere heat the atmosphere via surface contact and infrared radiation. Land returns energy to the atmosphere on a 24-hour time scale.
Despite a 6% relative deficit in the intensity of solar irradiance between a peak figure in January and its trough in July, due to the Earth being further away from the sun in July, the temperature of the globe peaks when solar irradiance is weakest because there is less cloud at that time. It appears that a 3% difference in atmospheric albedo more than compensates for the 6% deficit in solar radiation by comparison with January.
Take away the cloud and surface temperature increases. Put the cloud back, and despite the hypothetical increase in back radiation from cloud, and the 6% enhancement in solar radiation, the temperature falls.
Albedo has been in decline for 17 of the last 20 years but is now increasing according to Ceres data.
The Ceres data tells me that the change in albedo is sufficient to explain the change in surface temperature over the last twenty years. Data is here: https://phzoe.com/2021/06/01/on-albedo/
Erl, CERES data experts (Loeb 2018) do attribute changes in 2000-2016 Earth energy imbalance in the period to “SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage” along with “interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO.”
Can’t agree with that Trick.
Albedo drives the interannually variability.
ENSO is a red herring. It’s explicable as due to a variation in the rate of upwelling of cold waters that are also brought to the tropics by the anticlockwise circulation of the waters in the Pacific the variations being due to surface pressure relationships driving the winds. Its akin to shifting the furniture about to change the seating arrangements but it doesn’t change the number of seats in the room. Just brings more or less cold water to those latitudes that have the sun overhead and are naturally warm. High pressure in the mid latitudes and low pressure along the equator brings the cold water into the tropics but the enhanced pressure is associated with a decline in albedo in the mid latitudes, raising surface temperature there. The tropics cool as the mid latitudes warm. So, ENSO is the mirror image of inter-annual variability in other latitudes.
SW TOA flux variations means albedo “interannually variability” – from sea ice coverage fluctuations. ENSO fluctuations also do in the time period as you write.
Atmospheric albedo is what I am writing about, not albedo due to reflection at the surface.
CERES measures SW TOA flux from both all-sky and surface not knowing where the photons originated (cloud, air, surface). The authors can discern the measured albedo fluctuations from sea ice coverage changes from other sources. They do not mention much smaller fluctuations in atmospheric albedo as noteworthy or pronounced (their terms).
So, it has come to this, science by proclamation.
The very concept of geoengineering the albedo contradicts RGHE.
More albedo and the Earth cools.
Less albedo and the Earth warms.
No albedo and the Earth cooks.
That is NOT what RGHE theory predicts.
The ubiquitous atmospheric power flux balances almost without exception include a GHG up/absorb/trap & down/”back”/delay “extra” energy loop that not only violates generally accepted accounting principles but LoT 1 & 2.
RGHE ASSUMES this “extra” energy comes from the SURFACE radiating as an ideal BB,
an assumption I have explained and demonstrated by experiment is not possible.
And, no, it is not measured.
Huh ? It is measured at every scientific weather station….net flow about 50 watts of heat skyward. Just cuz you personally don’t like the plus and minus portion of the SB equation as it applies to surfaces transferring IR…..maybe an update to your 19th century version of heat transfer by caloric , updating to quantum mechanics of photons of the 20th century would be useful.
Nick, what did they measure here?
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
What was the emissivity setting?
There has to be one.
IR instruments do not “measure” W/m^2.
They measure a relative/comparative temperature and then apply an ASSUMED emissivity to get W/m^2.
1.0 is wrong.
0.16 is closer to actual.
Nick, in the case of back radiation, they measure the full spectrum of what is coming back as radiation from the atmosphere. That means frequency and intensity, thus full W/m2. Nothing to do with emissivity.
An increase of 0.2 W/m2 in 10 years for a 22 ppmv CO2 increase…
Here the full text with graphs from Nature:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
Ferdinand says:”Nothing to do with emissivity.”
Of course it does. CO2 has almost no emissivity below 33 C according to Hottel. Peta posted a chart that has it at about .0035. So if there is no emissivity how can you claim .2 W/m2 from CO2?
Because the optical depth difference is quite large between a boiler flue and Earth’s atm. The global emissivity looking up of our atm. is measured around 0.8 not so in a furnace flue where air emissivity is much lower as Hottel measured.
mkelly, the 0.2 W/m2 is what is measured as the difference in CO2 back-radiation at two ground stations over a period of ten years, no matter the emissivity of the source.
As Trick mentioned, the emissivity is around 0.8 which is high enough to see the difference in back-radiation for a 22 ppmv CO2 increase.
See below…
If you’re calculating an emissivity of 0.16, that’s a sign that you don’t understand the science at all.
Is there anyone else on the planet who thinks the average emissivity of the Earth is near 0.16? No? Maybe that should be a clue to double check you work, and ask someone where you might be going wrong.
No, RGHE does not assume an “ideal black body” except in crude high-level models and accounts intended to teach simplified science to the general public. The real theory assumes the surface radiates as a “grey body”, with an emissivity less than 1.
“Note that being certain about the GHE being real is different than being certain about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the hypothesis that human-caused increases in the concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are causing highly problematic changes in the Earth’s climate.
AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone. One can be skeptical about AGW while totally accepting the reality of the GHE.”
When Wentworth said that in his post, especially “AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone” then I was willing to listen. I’m surprised as well about the negative comments.
Usually the warmists oversimplify the issue. I’m wondering
for those who are vehemently against what Wentworth and Rud said, what or who would convince you they are correct.
He tricked you there. There is no doubt that he is in the Climate Fiction- and AGW camp even though he presented that “different” argument.
Oddgeir
“AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone. One can be skeptical about AGW while totally accepting the reality of the GHE.”
I agree. That’s me.
Sure, I am also in agreement with that. He is sowing the seed though, that the increase in GHE is based on AGW.
Read his posts on Quora.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Bob-Wentworth
Oddgeir
Oddgeir, simply work on his arguments about GHE, not ad hominins.
There is no ad hominem in my post (climate fictionist in the AGW camp), there is merely an analyzis of what he is really at:
Sowing seeds of AGW, carefully avoiding stating that A is a problem not to scare off climate realists or climate sceptics.
It’s pretty clever actually.
From a couple of his posts at Quora:
“The issue is: what will happen to human beings, and the civilization we have built, if our climate shifts away from what we and current global ecosystems evolved to expect biologically, and what was assumed when we chose where to build our homes and infrastructure?”
Excellent question. Excellent LEADING question.
“Has the greenhouse effect based on longwave absorption and re-radiation been disproven, and has an alternative explanation for planetary warming been established?
No, definitely not.”
Clearly a proponent of the nonsense that there is more re-radiation of longwave than there is actual TSI reaching the planet.
Read up on his stuff.
/
THIS is ad hominem:
He is a MORON climate fictionist in the AGW camp.
Oddgeir
They’re using agreement with the existence of the GHE as the nose of the camel to open the tent flap for the more important idea of AGW. I’ve watched while others have used the same technique.
So if they say the sky is blue and clouds are white, anyone who disagrees with something else they say, has got to dispute their statements about the color of the sky and clouds?
Otherwise the camel’s nose is under the tent?
That is not even a good political strategy.
As a scientific question, it makes zero sense whatsoever.
“So if they say the sky is blue and clouds are white, anyone who disagrees with something else they say, has got to dispute their statements about the color of the sky and clouds?”
Yes, that’s about the size of it.
“If” and “how much” are good questions. How about “What else?” “When?”
The models are a[n expensive] waste of time.
Greenhouses have high concentrations of CO2 to enhance productivity, and the modellers then claim elevated CO2 levels will reduce productivity etc.
In the Earth system the greenhouse has no roof.
Rud, how does your 1.5C ECS stack up against the real world data that Mr Eschenbach analysed from CERES data, which appeared to show a slight cooling if anything at all?
a 1.5 C rise in the GMST anomaly over 140 years out of a min/max range of 150 C is a statistical aberration and not a meaningful number let alone a trend.
AC, two things.
First, I think ECS is about 1.7, not 1.5. That can be shown in at least three different ways: Callendar, energy budgets, Bode onservational feedbacks. And it roughly squares with UAH decadal trends when lags are considered, as the must be by definition for ECS.
Second, I commented on Willis most recent Ceres post that his time interval does not enable the inference he made. See my longer and more complete comment there. Plus, the more complete energy budget models (Lewis and Curry) also say his Ceres inference simply isn’t correct.
Sorry but ECS discussions are meaningless, because they still are based on the all-important scientific caveat, “all other things held equal.” This set of circumstances has never, does not, and will never exist. Here in the real world, the “hypothetical” ECS will be overridden by feedbacks that on balance are overwhelmingly negative, offsetting feedbacks, which will render the “sensitivity” to changing CO2 levels to something not able to be differentiated from ZERO.
And we know this because the Earth’s climate history shows NO ability of atmospheric CO2 levels to “drive” the Earth’s temperature, but that does show precisely the opposite to be true.
+ many
History tells the story, and constrains what might happen.
CO2 does not lead temperature, and they often move in opposite directions.
There are no tipping points.
CO2 is not dangerous.
The Earth is too cold, by a lot.
Leaving aside proxy evidence, we have this:
It’s a travesty that we can’t find the hidden CO2 heat, perhaps it is hiding in the oceans.
“Sorry but ECS discussions are meaningless, because they still are based on the all-important scientific caveat, “all other things held equal.” This set of circumstances has never, does not, and will never exist. Here in the real world, the “hypothetical” ECS will be overridden by feedbacks that on balance are overwhelmingly negative, offsetting feedbacks, which will render the “sensitivity” to changing CO2 levels to something not able to be differentiated from ZERO.”
That’s the way it looks to me, especially when regional surface temperature charts show no influence of CO2 on temperatures. It was just as warm in the 1930’s, with less CO2 in the atmosphere, as it is today, with more CO2 in the atmosphere. More CO2 but no increase in temperatures. And now the temperatures are cooling. There is no correlation.
That sounds like dangerous grounds of the data doesn’t fit the model to me.
The greenhouse effect exist, no doubt about that. You only have to feel the difference of the crisp air with no clouds as compared to the warmer air with cloud cover.
For GHG’s it is extremely small with diminishing returns for step-ups in atmospheric concentration, the problematic kind (AGW) is next to nonexistent.
That’s not the problem with Wentworths post. The problem with his post for me was cold objects warming hot objects, LW being being trapped sending heat back to earth which in sum adds up to a situation where we receive (or retain) more energy than we lose.
Which is NOT possible if we build a crust. I take it for granted that we are building a crust?
Copy, paste from his post:
This creates the possibility that the rate of LW radiation being emitted to space could be different than the rate of LW radiation being emitted from the surface
He is actually linking to- and would have us accpt the nonsense at https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
Wentworth also takes Stefan-Boltzmann law as gospel:
Formulated in 1879 (Stefan) and 1884 (Boltzmann), (their) constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.
I doubt Stefan-Boltzmann are more accurate than Henry-Dalton. Feel free to calculate how much the temperature in our oceans would have to change to allow a concentration change in the atmosphere with 100 ppm. The number is so small that you cannot possibly measure it, you would have to calculate it.
He also (arbitrarily) sets Earth’s emissivity to 94% of a perfect blackbody.
A lavaball with a crust is no blackbody. As we lose more heat than we receive, I’d take a physisist reasoned opinion of what this planets emissivity is or isn’t. It is certainly ABOVE 100% of a (solid, cold, non-lavabased) blackbody (else it would not lose heat)…
/
What goes for convection, warm, light air rise to cool off at higher altitudes to fall back down to earth as colder, denser air. Hadley cells.
That heat escapes the planet.
Oddgeir
“The greenhouse effect exist, no doubt about that. You only have to feel the difference of the crisp air with no clouds as compared to the warmer air with cloud cover.”
More than cancelled out when the clouds cover a very hot sunny day.
It works both ways, which one has the most effect?
Not sure where you are coming from here. The cloud cover, the ‘blanket’, prevents longwave from escaping as well as prevent shortwave from reaching the ground.
Longterm we are building a crust hence lose energy from this planet, so I would say cloud cover preventing shortwave coming in, has an effect which is higher than same cloud cover preventing longwave from escaping.
Oddgeir
That said: All else the same.
All else is never the same as this planet revolves around itself and clearly loses more energy on the dark side than on the sunny side, if not all energy (the net) is actually lost on the dark side.
Oddgeir
If clouds prevent lwir leaving, why don’t they prevent lwir entering?
They do, but there is very little solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere with wavelengths > 4um, less than 10W/m2 total out to 50um.
Take a look a the chart I posted below at 7:22 for what it means for earths temperature.
Compare it to the same charts for CO2.
Midday clear sky Sahara desert.
Midday clear sky North Pole.
No dark goggles to protect the eyes.
North Pole very much more dangerous than Sahara, for your eyes.
Odggeir, do you think this happens to be because of GHE?
cheers
Nope. I believe there would be danger to your eyes because of sunrays.
Perhaps you could rephrase to clearify your question?
Oddgeir
Ok, silly.
Your eyes are a perfect evolutionary optical sensor, to light and radiation… but still very poor performance in the consideration of light, or radiation response to the condition of radiation @ polar regions.
No such handicap observed as far as the Earth’s Atmosphere concerned.
Contrary to your eyes, the optical, light, radiation sensors,
Earth’s Atmosphere does not behave or respond that way.
It does not really care much of radiation variation, or the delta radiative pulse,
or the delta radiative potential between the incoming radiation and the ‘hovering’ radiation from the surface.
Atmosphere of Earth is almost insensitive to delta radiation.
cheers
And as a side note to the all idiots that keep negatively voting my comments;
Get real… idiots..
cheers
In my case, downvotes are a badge of honor.
You mileage may vary.
Nicholas,
I do not care about up or downvoting,
but will appreciate people getting involved and engaged.
So, I get some feedback.
If someone had time to read my comments and cared to have an opinion,
it will not be that bad to leave a reply some times.
cheers
I believe… I can fly… because donkeys can’t…
I can “feel” the difference of drawing draperies across a large picture window.
Cooler with south facing window in summer.
Warmer with a north facing window in winter.
The albedo cools the lit side, the thermal resistance warms the dark.
No RGHE hocus pocus required.
I couldn’t tell whether the sunny side of the planet loses more energy than it receives but have no problem postulating that the planet lose longwave energy on the dark side AND that the average of the sunny- and dark side must lose more energy than it receives to be able to build a crust.
Oddgeir
How would the latent heat capacity of water compared to the other gases of the atmosphere be discriminated from the radiative component?
This analogy is repeated endlessly but I am getting more and more the impression it might be inaccurate ignoring other physical properties than the radiative of the molecules involved.
Every single thing you are citing as “the problem with [my] post” is NOT in my post. None of those things were claimed in my post.
It’s not arbitrary. It was based on data from satellite measurements.
Well, no real matter is a blackbody. But all matter acts as a “grey body”, radiating according to 𝜀𝜎T⁴, with 0 < 𝜀 < 1. A lavaball with a crust obeys that law just like all other matter.
You might not like this, but the radiation emitted by a surface is only dependent on the temperature of the surface. It doesn’t matter if there is magma inside or tapioca pudding, if the surfaces have the same temperature.
So what you’re saying is that a lavaball which is heated by BOTH the Sun and its’s own interior, must lose less energy in longwave than what has been received by the sun’s shortwave?
OK….
Oddgeir
No, I’m not saying that at all. What makes you think that I am?
The temperature of the surface would be determined by: the rate at which energy reaches the surface (from both the Sun and the interior lava) and the “thermal resistance” to heat escaping to space.
So, the amount radiated would depend on both the energy arriving from the Sun and the energy arriving from the lava (magma).
In steady-state, the amount of LW radiation being lost will equal the rate of energy being received from the Sun and via heat transfer from the planet’s interior.
Not sure if “the energy arriving from the lava” does anything to logic but one thing is for sure: Energy within the core of this planet (magma, lava) does not arrive at all. It escapes.
You saying that Planet Earth is in steady state? As we are building a crust, that is NOT possible.
You might not like this: A lavaball with a crust wouldn’t have a crust at all if it didn’t lose energy (hence LW escape > shortwave bombardment).
As I am stupid, not sure where you are headed with “IF the surfaces have the same temperature”. What I am at here, the planet lost energy during the normal temperature level periods for the planet (continued to build a crust at ~25 degrees C average) as did it during the relatively short Snowball Earth periods.
Oddgeir
Heat from the lava arrives at the surface, and from there it escapes. It escapes via radiation and convection (if there is an atmosphere), and then any convected heat escapes via radiation from the atmosphere.
No, I’m making no assertion that anything would be in steady-state if the Earth is actively cooling.
Why would I have a problem with that?
However, my understanding is that at this point in time, the rate of heat flow from any interior “lavaball” to the surface is pretty low. The estimates I’ve seen place this heat flow at about 0.09 W/m². That’s a pretty tiny effect, compared to other heat flows involved in climate.
What I am saying is that at every point in time, no matter what the temperature of the crust, that crust has always radiated energy at a rate 𝜀𝜎T⁴.
That has been true when the temperature T was high, and also when the temperature T was lower.
You can always tell when someone is gonna say you said something you never said, when they lead with, “So what you are saying is…”
People that wish to have a real conversation use the words that the other person actually said, such as by quoting them directly.
“It experimentally must, and easily provably does.”
Show us.
I did, in the post, in the Mohave desert ‘experiment’. Do the same experiment here on the Fort Lauderdale beach and there is tens of degrees less night time cooling because of the much higher water vapor (specific humidity) provided by the ocean.
You are one of the ones I chose not to name. The first commenter to this post was another.
There is also tens of degrees difference in the daytime temperature in the opposite direction.
Humidity reduces variation, both up and down.
Rud do the new line-by-line calculations by Wijngarden and Happer call for a readjustment of your figure from your earlier essays? W&H refer to saturation several times.
Probably. I produced the first figure here over a decade ago using Modtran (as the referenced book essay explained). Doable even if not exactly correct.
@Rud Istvan
Sorry, that is not true either. It is the same problem I had with Dr. Wentworth’s statements. You read or hear something and you decide to believe it. And then you come forward telling others about “the truth”.
That’s not how science works. If you hear something like the above, then think about it, analyze it, fact check it. If you did so you might have found reality, which is you are quoting an urban myth. There is absolutely nothing true about it.
https://www.greenhousedefect.com/2/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-2
And that is not so simple either. The question is not if the “GHE” exists or not, but a) what size it has and b) how much GHGs contribute, if at all. At least you do consider that CO2 and vapor might be partially overlapped, which is true. But you fail to consider that both will be overlapped with clouds. In fact this is the biggest blunder in the whole GHE theory.
I mean why you think emission spectra from space always show clear sky scenarios? Might it be, that cloud presence would badly impair the narrative?
https://www.greenhousedefect.com/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-1
“Might it be, that cloud presence would badly impair the narrative?”
I don’t think you should impugn Rud’s motives. He’s not trying to sell a narrative, he’s trying to figure things out.
Not HIS narrative, but the “consensus” narrative of the GHE. And watching someone “trying to figure out” something you already have figured out, is hard..
I see I misinterpreted your statement. Sorry about that.
Mr. Schaffer, do you know what the temperature of the Sand is and what the night time temperature is?
Also are there any night time time emmission spectra to compare to?
It would be interesting to know the temperature difference from surface to 6ft above it.
Well, of course I did a little research on the subject. Maybe I should have referenced some of it in the article. But really I found no all too consistent info. The basic problem is well described in the video below.
German wikipedia also has a list of satellite measured temperature records (again the question is if they got emissivity right?). Note: the record setting 82.3°C from the Turpan depression in China.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperaturextrema#H%C3%B6chsttemperaturen_(seit_Beginn_der_Aufzeichnungen)
Apart from this exception, sand record temperatures are about 15°C higher than record air temperatures, which may be a good indicator.
Then here is some educational material..
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=97328§ion=_unit3.2.2.3#back_thumbnailfigure_idm45676350205440
If you happen to have more detailed data, pls share.
Thanks, that will keep me busy.
It appears to me a good effort to understand the changing atmosphere and its associated effects. However, there is no doubt that CO2 levels are important to our friends, the green plants, and we need them to survive. Therefore, pump out some more CO2, thank you very much, and if it gets too hot for you move to the Yukon/Siberia/Sweden and hush up.
The earths atmosphere and climate are extremely complex entities that cannot really be simplified into computer models or mathematical formulas with any accuracy. Observations are after the fact that only give clues as to causation. Experimentation is highly limited in scope and studies using data or statistics can only give possible limits to variations.
Our atmosphere is not just air (nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, and argon.) Even the other common gas, water vapor is often ignored. there is also a large and significant proportion of solids (dust), and liquid aerosols (primarily clouds.
Each of these has different properties of transparency, absorption, readmission, reflexivity (albedo) and tenancy.
Although many of these properties are known through laboratory experimentation we have a very poor understanding of their impact in the atmosphere. About all we can say is that they are all significant.
We are really only concerned with temperatures a few meters from the earths surface.
My understanding is that the earth receives nearly half its solar radiation in infrared wavelengths. Greenhouse materials must therefore have a strong cooling effect during the day by storing heat in the upper atmosphere but subsequently releasing it during nighttime.
Of course now we must consider convection in its role in moving heat.
Another factor is the surface itself and its ability to store and release energy and of course its albedo.
My belief is that we currently have far too little accurate data with too little resolution along with far too little computing power to give us a reasonable understanding of climate. Much less the ability to make predictions that are not further and further from reality the further out in time that we look.
Still waiting for an experiment that proves that GHG are indeed causing any warming. On the contrary, many experiments prove the opposite. Radiative forcing only exists in models (easy to implement).
As I wrote earlier, it is impossible “to win” the battle on the existence of the GHE by scientific facts against those who do not believe in measurements. The evidence of GHE is so simple as it can be: the net radiation from the Sun is 240 W/m2 and the net radiation to the surface is 165 W/m2 shortwave and 345 W/m2 longwave; totally 510 W/m2. If you do not understand what it means, it does not pay to explain.
Another question is on which grounds the IPCC defines that the magnitude of the GHE is 155 W/m2. This seems to be a subject, which cannot be analyzed on WUWT pages.
In order to explain, you might have to think about it a bit and do the basic math yourself.
The 155 “GHE” is less than the average energy imbalance shared from equator to the poles. At equinox the net energy surplus is 200 W/m2 near the equator while near the poles the energy deficit is also 200 W/m2.
What you need to explain is how 99% of the atmosphere is warmed, given that it is IR transparent! While your’e at it, please explain how a negative gradient or “Back Radiation”* in any real situation or amount will not lead to runaway warming.
*Yes, I do except the possibility of negative gradient flows of thermal radiation. And no, I do not deny that a GHE is therefore also possible.
Given that there are greenhouse gases throughout the atmosphere, it’s not IR transparent. (But, maybe I’m missing the context of your comment?)
As for why “back radiation” doesn’t lead to runaway warming, it’s pretty straightforward. You might look at my essay Atmospheric Energy Recycling.
Bob,
I’d always accepted the GHE because negative gradients are “legal” for radiative flux and thus real Back Radiation is definitely a possibility in certain situations. It was only recently after looking closely at the issues that I’ve been entertaining doubts.
Exactly, you don’t need to invoke the GHE, this Atmospheric Effect (A
GHE) is doing the job just fine! Let me explain.The vast bulk of the atmosphere (99%) is heated (And cooled) by non-radiative processes. GHGs (1%) exchange energy with “non-radiative” gasses via direct contact and they pass it in turn to each other by direct contact. The IR transparent gases would form a thermal gradient via conduction at the surface to space, even in the absence of convection or GHGs.
In a vacuum without any intervening gases, any net energy return – to the surface from and a “reflective” layer, must cause runaway warming because a gradient can’t be established. However, the existence of gasses, cancel any possibility of a negative gradient because conduction (At the surface) and collisions in the air above it, are statistical processes that lead to entropy and the first law.
Perhaps the Earth isn’t actually any warmer than is commonly thought (i.e. not @ +33) and therefore the GHGs (Cooling to space as much at they warm.) are making no net difference! There is an observed energy surplus near the equator and deficits near the poles for example. The average temperatures of 32C at the equator and -55C at the south pole is -23C after all, which is right in the ballpark.
cheers,
Scott
Your explanation includes a bunch of ideas about details of what might be happening in the atmosphere.
But, none of it seems to actually “explain” why a planet could be warmer than would be possible in the absence of radiative gases, which is what the GHE is about.
That’s simply not true. “Runaway warming” would only occur in the case of 100% reflectivity. For any finite reflectivity, there will be a corresponding finite net warming. The calculations are easily done, and I’ve done them in the essay I cited.
My analysis definitively shows that that is not the case.
<i>Also note that over the region of Callendar’s curve of present interest, the curve is approximately linear, which is why in my comment to UAH’s most recent report, I did not bother to make the log correction correctly suggested in subsequent comments </i>
Well, yeah but. The “present interest” is between the portions of the CO2 curve dealing with history, and the next century. So this already simple log model is simplified into three linear segments. All three are poorly correlated to time.
In the recent past — say from the dawn of industrialization to the time of Callendar’s analysis — the slope of the trend was rising sharply. From the 30s to now, the linear slope is rising, but not so fast. (On the chart, the segments are in concentrations of CO2, not by decade. But the early history part is from 1 to 3 while the “present interest” is from 3 to 5. ) It is a mistake to project forward, in years based on the slope and trend of the early part — in concentrations — of that curve. It’s a comparable mistake to assume “business as usual” for the correlation between CO2 concentrations, and time, or population, or energy usage.
The economic notion of <i> ceteris paribus </I> has a place but that place is not in projections of concentrations, chemistry, and radiative physics.
I thnk the problem with the original article that caused so much discussion is that it attempted to prove GHE “real”, but did so in terms of a global average temperature, which is not “real”. A little more objective language is always best when discussing science. “Warming” is another word used subjectively a lot on this topic.
If you need a mathless proof of the GHE, the Moon has twice the temperature range of Earth, despite being the same distance from the sun.
What do you imagine would be more “objective” than talking about the area-averaged mean surface temperature, a concept which is very well-defined and can be measured by observers?
The temperature range of the Moon doesn’t help prove the GHE, though to some extent, the much lower average surface temperature (there that is again!) of the Moon (190 K on the Moon vs. 288 K on Earth) does offer (imperfect) evidence of the GHE.
Hi Bob, in answer to your questions, the area-averaged mean surface temperature is not data. It is not the direct measurement of an actual thing. It is a calculation of data that, once averaged, no longer represents any actual thing in the same way the average color of the rainbow can be calculated, but no longer represents any real aspects of a rainbow.
Secondly, I do think the moon offers proof of the GHE since the primary difference between the Earth and Moon is that Earth has an atmosphere, with gases which dampen the rate at which it heats and cools. The GHE isn’t just about warming, it slows cooling too at the same time it slows warming, but it is almost never discussed that way because people insist on averaging the highs and lows together into a single number that represents nothing any living thing actually experiences.
Generally the GHE refers to warming effects due to LW absorbers in an atmosphere, not simply generic effects of an atmosphere.
The Moon has some very significant differences from Earth:
#3 make the Moon a little warmer than it would otherwise be, but #1 and #2 lead to enormous temperature swings which make the surface of the Moon much, much colder on average, in a way that isn’t entirely about any lack of primary atmospheric dynamics, and much of it certainly isn’t about the lack of LW-absorbing gases.
So, there is a great deal going on that leads to the Moon’s low average temperature, and only a little of that has to do with the GHE as it is conventionally defined.
That makes it harder to argue for the Moon as “proof” of the GHE, at least in my book.
I does seemingly tend to stabilize temperatures.
CO2 does not cause any warming what so ever. The only reason this isn’t obvious is scientists, for whatever reason, do not understand temperature change over any time frame is a sum of energy gained and energy lost.
Because of this, a temperature time series consisting of average temperatures at a set time interval is a cumulative sum of net energy gain from an initial temperature. Using such a time series as is for cause and effect analysis with other variables is almost guaranteed to result in spurious relationships. A correct analysis of temperature over time should start with differencing the data.
This is really not a controversial assertion. Spurious relationships are very common and there is a wealth of published literature which covers this. However, this is also an intuitive result if you consider this rather simple question. Is it warming or cooling? The follow up question then becomes why is it warming or why is it cooling.
If you want to see a real world example of this I have a graph from an analysis of ENSO and the AMO at the link below. The data shows the rate of temperature change by month smoothed by centered 23 month averages. It is clear there are cycles of warming and cooling. It is also clear there has been no increase in either since 1950.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbPffigEzc7LOb47hWl8lyA7hnatrt7F/view?usp=sharing
I missed the attach photo button.
Hey, that looks familiar!
Long time old friend!
How are things down on the possum ranch?
Rud Istvan, thank you for this essay.
. “Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not “
Tyndall didn’t actually prove it. In his experiment, radiation passed through a vessel with gas and hit a thermopile (a sensitive element of some modern infrared spectrometers). Tyndall showed that some gases absorb infrared radiation, while others do not, but it does not follow from his experiment that the absorption of infrared radiation is associated with the absorption of heat, that is, with a change in the gas temperature. By the way, for air that was not purified from water vapor and carbon dioxide impurities, Tyndall noted a zero deflection of the galvanometer, that is, his device was naturally less sensitive than modern spectrometers.
“ So a personal experiment can be conduced in any desert (mine was a summer day in the Mohave outside Palm Springs during a boring conference). The dry desert heats up a lot from insolation during the day, and cools down a lot at night thanks to desert low specific humidity, so not much GHG except well-mixed CO2, and therefore not much GHE at night “.
Yes, in a dry desert specific humidity (relative humidity) is low, but what about concentration of water vapor? Let’s see an example. In a desert on a summer day the air temperature can reach 40 oC with relative humidity of 25%. From the experimental data on the temperature dependence of the water vapor pressure, it follows that at 40 °C the water vapor pressure at saturation is 55.3 Torr and, therefore, at 25% relative humidity it will be 13.8 Torr. Since the concentration for a gas can be defined as the ratio of the partial pressure to the total pressure, the concentration of water vapor in this case will be 13.8/760 = 0.0182, or 1.82 %. This concentration of water vapor corresponds to 100% relative humidity at 16 °C. For comparison: sometimes in Paris temperature is of 1 o C, relative humidity 95%, atmospheric pressure 744 Torr. These conditions correspond to H2 O concentration of 0.63%, that is 3 times less than in a chosen example for desert.
There is a simple physical explanation for the difference between day and night temperature in a desert without the “greenhouse effect”. Sand has a low thermal conductivity and heat capacity, so during the day a relatively small amount of sand heats up to a relatively high temperature. The release of heat at night occurs quickly, in accordance with Newton’s law of cooling: the cooling rate is proportional to the difference in temperature between the body and the environment. The absence of vegetation and clouds also contributes to the accelerated release of heat.
Alexander,
Your example of ’40 degrees C (or 104 F) and 25 relative humidity is VERY HUMID, and not what i would consider as a ‘dry desert. 104 F and 25% relative humidity equates to a dew point of 62 degrees (that is quite humid to most people).
I live in the Phoenix AZ area. In May, when dew points are quite low (often in the 20s F), it is not uncommon to see daily temperature swings of over 30 F (fyi the ‘average’ May high and low is 95/68 degrees F, which still a 27 degree swing). N
Now in August, we get the ‘monsoon season’ when due points get up to the high 50s/low 60s F. The ‘average’ August high and low are 104/83 F, a 21 degree swing. Why the difference? The additional water vapor in the air is absorbing more of the outgoing longwave radiation, which it then can re-radiate in all directions, some of which is returned to earth. This is simply ‘slowing down the loss of energy’ to space, which results in it being ‘warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN’ without the water vapor there.
The ‘bolded words’ above is also something that I often see getting LOST when talking about the greenhouse effect (not always, but quite often). We hear the term ‘it WARMS’ the surface of the earth. I MUCH prefer the description, ” it results in the surface being warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN without the ‘greenhouse effect’ “. This is the ‘bottom line’ to me of the ‘greenhouse effect’ does. To me, it is that simple.
Martin, you say: “Your example of 40 degrees C (or 104 F) and 25 relative humidity is VERY HUMID “.
O’kay, let’s take another example. Your examples do not fully correspond to the issue under discussion, since it was not about the difference in average monthly temperatures, but the reasons for the difference between day and night temperatures in deserts.
Let’s take the least possible value in the Mojav desert of 10% (https://sciencing.com/humidity-mojave-desert-19526.html) and the same temperature of 400C. Even in this case the concentration of water vapor will be 55.3 x 0.10/760 = 0.0073 = 0.73 % . (more than in Paris in winter). In your opinion, this is not enough for the manifestation of the greenhouse effect?
«The additional water vapor in the air is absorbing more of the outgoing longwave radiation, which it then can re-radiate in all directions, some of which is returned to earth. This is simply ‘slowing down the loss of energy’ to space, which results in it being ‘warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN’ without the water vapor there».
Let’s check your statement with an example. At about the same latitude as your city Phoenix (33.4 0N) is Charleston, South Carolina (32.7 0N). Air humidity in Charleston is significantly higher than in Phoenix (average annual precipitation in 1985-2015 is 23.7// and 1.5// ,respectively). One would expect the greenhouse effect of water vapor to have a higher average temperature over this 30-year period in Charleston, right? In fact, averaging the maximum and minimum monthly average temperatures on the site https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/ gives the average temperature for Charleston 66.5 0F, for Phoenix 75.3 0F. In addition, Phoenix is located higher above sea level than Charleston. I don’t know how to explain this based on the greenhouse effect, do you?
holy cow, really ? the nature of temperature highs and lows in different geographic locations is much more dependant on weather systems coming through than any amount of water vapor in the air.
My comment was for a GIVEN geographic location, and then comparing ‘higher humidity’ to ‘lower humidity’. Trying to compare temperatures in different geography with different weather patterns and claiming it is or isn’t demonstrating the ‘greenhouse affect’ is just plain ignorant.
Comparing temperatures across geographic locations is exactly what the IPCC does to calculate the global average temperature and prove the greenhouse effect.
For over half the year, Charleston has a significant number of days with the winds coming from a cold direction, as cells of high pressure move down from Canada and across the US.
During the high Sun season, Charleston is temperature limited by marine influence and the presence of high humidity, which raises the specific heat of the air.
Phoenix has very dry air, which has low specific heat.
Charleston has significant cloudiness on a large number of days, and Phoenix does not.
There may also be differences in the amount of UHI affecting the two numbers.
In Winter when the wind is from the west or north, Charleston has dry air too. Cold dry air, from continental polar areas.
So there is no direct comparison using a yearly average.
There are too many other variables.
Looking at a range of cities at around that same latitude, starting at San Diego, and then east to Phoenix, then Carlsbad, then Dallas, then Shreveport, and finally Charleston, average temps are 64F, 76F, 62F, 68F, 66F, and 67F.
Carlsbad has about the same annual average dewpoint as Phoenix (although it gets a lot more rain), but is the coldest of the bunch on an annual average basis.
San Diego gets less than 3″ of rain a year, and is second coldest.
I was looking at the rainfall listed on time and date website for Charleston, and knew immediately the numbers are way off.
There is no place east of the Mississippi river that only gets 20 some inches of precip a year.
30″- 40″ is about as little as can be found in the east on an annual average basis. And that is mostly in the Upper Midwest region.
The actual number for Charleston is 54 inches per year.
Anyway, there are too many variables to use yearly averages to try to intuit something like the radiative properties of the atmosphere by looking at two cities.
Actually, looks like a small piece of Michigan gets under 30″ a year.
Average annual precip for Phoenix listed on that site is way off as well.
The actual number is over 8″/year, and some nearby places have several times that much:
So maybe Carlsbad does not get much different rain that Phoenix.
Checking real data (not sure why that site is so bad on rainfall, it is mostly a good site), I see Carlsbad gets about 13″ a year:
So Carlsbad NM, still the desert, about the same latitude, colder than other cities on that latitude, even ones that get a lot of cold Winter weather. Hmmm…
Carlsbad almost the same highs in Summer, larger range of daily temps, A little cooler in the low Sun months, and even larger range of temps. Coldest month, near 60 by day, under 30°F at night.
“This is simply ‘slowing down the loss of energy’ to space, which results in it being ‘warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN’ without the water vapor there.”
“Slowing down the loss of energy to space” is the way I think of it.
Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy,
–
“Tyndall showed that some gases absorb infrared radiation, while others do not, but it does not follow from his experiment that the absorption of infrared radiation is associated with the absorption of heat, that is, with a change in the gas temperature.”
–
I have read many statements,
This one leaves me in awe!
–
It is so, so wrong but absolutely correct,
–
What a shame he did not put a thermometer in the flasks to confirm it for you.
If you believe that in fact Tyndall’s experiment proves the special role of H2O and CO2 in the greenhouse effect, take a look at this link: https://www.academia.edu/12043014/Reinterpreting_and_Augmenting_John_Tyndall_s_1859_Greenhouse_Gas_Experiment_with_Thermoelectric_Theory_and_Raman_Spectroscopy
As for thermometers in flasks, I hope you are aware of Anthony Watts’s experiment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
“If you believe that in fact Tyndall’s experiment proves the special role of H2O and CO2 in the greenhouse effect,”
Yes.
to the new “ignores convection” (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does)
Sad to see Rud the latest skeptic POW trudging through the mud joining a line of retro-lukewarmers, under the sneering gaze of warmista camp guards.
You nicely articulate some fallacies and straw men. Let’s look just at radiation and convection. The central conjuring trick of AGW is to brazenly assert that only radiative movement of heat is important. Convection is usually not mentioned at all e.g. in Bob Wentworth’s post. If it is, as here, it is only dismissively, “convection moves heat around but only radiation can exchange heat with space”. That is the clever deceptive half-truth central to AGW. Here’s why it is false.
Heat exchange between the earth on one hand and sun and space on the other, is by radiation only. True.
However the clever part of the trick (turn and prestige) is to falsely extend this “radiation only” argument to the atmosphere where it does not apply.
What determines earth’s IR radiation to space is the temperature of the effective radiative level (ERL). The trick is then to imply that only radiation can move heat to the ERL. But radiation probably moves less than 1% of heat to the ERL. Convection does the rest. Convection moves the majority of vertical as well as horizontal heat transfer in the atmosphere. Once that heat is moved by convection to the ERL it can be radiated as IR to space. So just because energy is radiated to space as IR it doesn’t mean that convection was not involved and can be dismissed. Heat is moved to the ERL by convection from whence it is radiated to space as thermal IR.
Cause-effect inversion is a big part of the AGW conjuring trick. Matter is not hot only because of IR. IR is emitted because matter is hot. Thus measured increase downwelling IR is trumpeted as proof of CO2 trapping heat. Nonsense. It’s just the trivial consequence of the atmosphere getting warmer during a cycle of natural climate change.
Similar to what I was going to say.
Basically, the radiation to space is dependant on the temperature difference.
If X Kelvin difference loses heat at Rate_X then X+1 Kelvin difference loses heat at Rate_X+1. Crucially we know Rate_X+1 > Rate_X. We know that if there is a part of the world than is hotter than another then more heat is lost there.
The above statement cannot be true. Increased convection moving heat to the poles must increase the rate of loss of heat to space.
When I read your comment, Hatter, your uptick was -2. That’s thanks to all the WE groupies and cheerleaders on WUWT who don’t understand radiative physics and think putting a steel shell around power source increases the output of the power source. It is now -1 for the time being. 🙂
Well I returned the favour – brought you back to even par 😁
The claim is not that it will increase the output of the power source, but that it will increase the temperature. Two entirely different things.
While I think the data would show ERL moves more than 1% of heat to the ERL, I’m happy to stipulate that convection moves a large fraction of the heat.
Even if convection moved 99% of heat to the ERL… that wouldn’t change the conclusion that increasing GHG concentrations are likely to lead to surface warming.
What determines the height of the ERL? It’s largely the level at which the atmosphere above that level is transparent to LW radiation. Consequently, the higher the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the ERL will be.
The temperature of the ERL has a comparatively fixed value, the temperature of the ERL is what is needed to radiation the right amount of radiation to space.
Raising the ERL means that the lapse rate temperature difference with the surface will increase. Thus increasing GHG levels increase the height of the ERL which in turn increases the temperature of the surface.
Doesn’t matter if all the heat were delivered by convection.
Everyone that I know of agrees that “IR is emitted because matter is hot.”
That’s entirely consistent with the story that heat is being “trapped.” Heat trapping raises the temperatures which increases downwelling IR.
There is no “cause-effect inversion” involved in any of this.
If you’re perceiving those, I suspect you’re misunderstanding what others are saying.
“The central conjuring trick of AGW is to brazenly assert that only radiative movement of heat is important. False.
Heat exchange between the earth on one hand and sun and space on the other, is by radiation only. True.”
–
One should stop there.
The concept of an ERL is pseudoscience in the first place.
Rud,
This is one of the many ‘settled’ misunderstandings regarding feedback that broke climate science:
“versus Bode 1/(1-f)”
The gain equation g = 1/(1-f) is only representative of a linear feedback amplifier when the open loop gain is 1 since the proper equation is g = 1/(1/G – f), where G is the open loop gain, f is the fraction of the output returned to the input and g is the closed loop gain. In Schlesinger’s sloppy derivation of this equation, he assumed that G=1 in one place in which cancelled out the G he assumed was an arbitrary value that converts W/m^2 into degrees in another. The specific error was conflating the feedback factor, which is G*f with the feedback fraction which is f, while ignoring the REQUIREMENT that each of G, f, g and G*f must be dimensionless ratios per Bode’s assumption of strict linearity that was applied in order to simplify the analysis. NO EXCEPTIONS. Note that when an audio amplifier starts to distort and go non linear, Bode’s arithmetic no longer applies!
Per Bode, the sensitivity is a dimensionless ratio comparing two quantities with different dimensions and does so by calculating the ratio of the percnt change in g per the percentage change in something else. W/m^2 per degree is a nonsense metric with no linear physical correspondence to reality as required by linear feedback analysis and the first paragraph in Bode’s book restricts his analysis to strictly linear amplifiers.
The misuse and misapplication of feedback analysis to the climate system is a pox on all legitimate science and has horribly confused many on both sides. Feedback analysis is somewhat counter intuitive and when I taught this as a TA in graduate school at Cornell, it was definitely the most difficult of all the topics for many of the students to grasp.
The proper derivation of the gain equation is as follows:
For a gain block whose open loop gain is G, the output, O is equal to the input, I, plus a fraction of the output times G.
O = (I + f*O)*G
Divide both sides by I and recognize that O/I = g
O/I = (1 + f*O/I)*G
g = (1 + f*g)*G
Solve for g.
g*(1 – fG) = G
g = G/(1 – f*G)
g = 1(1/G – f)
If this isn’t convincing enough, then just apply dimensional analysis to see how broken the climate feedback model is. You can’t take a fraction of an output temperature or temperature change and add this to an input whose units are W/m^2. In fact, there was no reason for Schlesinger to derive his own gain equation, as Bode already provided one. The only purpose of Schlesinger’s derivation was to provide bogus support for the idea that G can have arbitrary dimensions.
Another way to look at the error is that Schlesinger implied that the dimensionless fraction of the output returned to the input was f/G, rather than f, where G was the open loop gain that converted W/m^2 into a temperature change. When you multiply this around the loop, the G cancels for the feedback term, but not the forcing, so in effect, the open loop gain can only equally affect both the W/m^2 of input forcing and the equivalent W/m^2 of feedback added to that input when G is a dimensionless 1 which contradicts his assumption that G can have dimensions.
Another way is to consider that the steady state relationship between W/m^2 and temperature is given exclusivly by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Schlesinger’s feedback analysis was an attempt to either change the 4 in the T^4 into something else or to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, both of which are otherwise immutable.
Climate feedback analysis is so obviously wrong so many ways, it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science that these errors have been allowed to persist for so long as ‘settled’ science. That Roe repeated these errors in his paper nearly word for word doesn’t change the fact that Bode’s feedback analysis was horribly misapplied to the climate system.
The units for ECS, W/m2/K, have always seemed very strange to me.
Yes, a presumed linear relationship that has no foundation in the laws of physics.
Never can understand why many dispute the obvious that CO2 absorbs OLWIR, but only in small sections of the IR window,
In high resolution charts CO2 and Water Vapor overlap very little, thus not much effect on each other’s absorption rate of IR.
“As CO2 increases, the ERL rises unconstrained, since CO2 is unaffected by the lapse rate, while H2O is and so decreases. This also reduces their mid troposphere’s overlapping radiative windows.”
They hardly overlap at all as Phil shows in the 7 year old article where Phil posted High Resolution charts
Phil’s comment link
“….Also such a low resolution spectrum such as the one in the OP is totally misleading, since as George points out it gives the illusion of overlap where there is none!
Here’s high resolution spectrum showing the two gases, the top one being water, the much sparser lines of which give very little overlap with CO2.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/H2OCO2.gif
Here’s a spectrum through the atmosphere with the GHGs progressively remove starting with water, which is at a very low concentration higher in the atmosphere where the radiation to space actually takes place.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Atmos.gif
George E. Smith comment Phil refers to.
=======
The two charts works from Phil’s comment.
It is interesting to see the high-resolution absorption spectral lines. However, the coarse-resolution wavelength-axis precludes verifying your claim “the much sparser lines of which give very little overlap with CO2.”
As I pointed out in another comment, mixing gases together produces different IR-absorbance spectra than just adding their individually measured spectrum due to collisions.
Reality is just not that simple.
“Reality is just not that simple.”
Isn’t that the truth!
“to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down). I chose not to name names; this possible guest post is only a general rebuke.”
Canard.
Yes, the overall compression component has been discharged to space long long ago.
But regardless, heat is constantly being introduced into the atmosphere and released from the atmosphere. Regardless of there being green house gasses or not.
I think all gasses follow the boyles law, do they not? Something about a relationship between the number of molecules, the temperature, the volume and the pressure…
As the gas interacts with the surface, it picks up energy or releases energy through conduction depending on which is warmer.
As it picks up energy, boyles law indicates it will rise through the atmosphere, convection, carrying this newly acquired energy higher into the atmosphere.
Without green house gases, the only place for the atmosphere to lose energy is conduction back into the planet or the very slow process of gaseous black body radiation.
So the argument that without green house gases a planet surface cannot be higher than it’s black body temperature is not true.
” Neptune reaches temperatures of up to 7273 K (7000 °C; 12632 °F), which is comparable to the surface of the Sun. The huge temperature differences between Neptune’s center and its surface create huge wind storms, which can reach as high as 2,100 km/hour, making them the fastest in the Solar System.”
I am thinking Neptune has had 4.5 billion years to cool just like the earth. It gets almost no energy from the sun at its distance. But even so, it has a very high surface temperature at its core. How does that happen? Are there little blue men down there churning out ever more methane and CO2?
I posed a question on the other thread that I do not think anyone addressed.
Imagine an earth sized planet that is a perfect black body with no atmosphere that is 93,000,000 miles from a star exactly like our sun which rotates 1 time every 24 hours. What would the surface temperature be for that planet?
Now imagine the same situation, but the planet has a massive atmosphere that is made up entirely of gaseous nitrogen with no condensation into liquid form. Will it have the same surface temperature as the one above?
Edit… Apparently nitrogen can be liquified at 2 atmospheres, so change nitrogen above to helium.
Nobody wants to talk about Neptune as it does not fit their paradigm.
They also do not want to talk about Uranus either.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-can-uranus-have-storms-hot-enough.html
Apparently, nobody wants to talk about planets after Nikolov and Zeller anymore.
NASA has been recording the weather on Mars for over 20 years. I wonder what they have found? Any Hockey Sticks on Mars? It’s probably too short a time period to show a good trend, and it’s probably warming, or was until the Sun decided to calm down.
If I recall correctly the process of creating the hockey stick created them out of any random set of numbers.
Yeah, they could do that for Mars, too. 🙂
Didn’t it show that it has the same global warming that we have at the same time?
Yes, I believe all the planets are showing signs of warming during the active phase of the Sun. It will be interesting to see what happens if the Sun is a little less active.
We would need about 60 years of data to really be able to understand what was going on.
Round and round we go again. No conclusions are ever drawn, nobody changes their mind, nobody offers real proof of anything. Surely, for an issue that is so important, somebody can prove that GHG’s produce a GH effect. If not, then surely somebody can prove that it doesn’t? For something that effects how we will be living in the future, surely it can’t be decided based on opinion?
Never fear, it has been proven. You can lean a horse’s arse to truth, but you can’t make him think.
Welcome to government funded “science.”
It does trouble me that there are so many obviously bright, well-educated people who can’t agree on how to apply and interpret the laws and facts of science! I’m reluctant to jump in here because is has been several decades since I took the basic physics courses and I’m pretty rusty.
I have drawn conclusions, and have learned enough to be able to decide certain specific questions.
The word “proof” has certain connotations that can be seen as unscientific.
But regarding specific assertions and questions, much evidence is presented.
Yeah, it’s amazing that with all the hot air rushing about, you’d think the debate would concern itself with more than just 1% of the atmosphere!
I guess I’m slow but someone remind me again, how does 99% – the great bulk of the atmosphere – warm or cool given its IR transparency?
Might I suggest that direct contact/conduction between GHGs with the surrounding air*, transfers that energy – both in and out – and this is the real Atmospheric Effect AE^.
There is no necessity to explain the average temperature of the Earth, in my opinion it is around -23C anyway! Which would explain why the equator is 32C on average and the Antarctic -55C!
No need to thank me, it was my pleasure 😉
^(A
GHE)*Nitrogen and Oxygen and those with the surface also.
“… the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’…”
That aside for a second, this quote from Dr. James Hansen is a favorite:
IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631:
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
People shouldn’t disagree with that for all the reasons Wentworth and others have posted here at Watts Up With That.
But the great Venus vs. Mars argument forces the Climate Crusaders to point out that there are other factors on Venus and Mars besides CO2 that cause those “melts lead, snows dry ice” extremes to occur. Well, gee whizz, aren’t there other factors here on Earth that cause variations in temperature besides CO2?
But arguing over CO2 and the green house effect is really buying into the alarmists propaganda. All they have to do is discredit the opposition by proving that CO2 should cause some warming. They can then get away with exaggerating the effects of the warming with impunity.
To deny CO2’s warming capability in an attempt to rebut CliSciFi high ECSs is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Dave, read the Hansen quote from my post. I said, “People shouldn’t disagree with that for all the reasons Wentworth and others have posted here at Watts Up With That.”
Noses and faces aside, you need to learn to read the entire post before you go off half cocked.
You said: “But arguing over CO2 and the green house effect is really buying into the alarmists propaganda. All they have to do is discredit the opposition by proving that CO2 should cause some warming. They can then get away with exaggerating the effects of the warming with impunity.”
I said: “To deny CO2’s warming capability in an attempt to rebut CliSciFi high ECSs is cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
Explain yourself. I can’t.
I think perhaps he was agreeing with you, Steve.
I think maybe you’re right. To quote a famous movie line, “What we have got here is a failure to communicate.”
“But arguing over CO2 and the green house effect is really buying into the alarmists propaganda. “
They are called lukewarmers.
Lukewarmers give warmers the credibility they don’t deserve.
If something is true, you don’t do yourself a favor by denying that truth.
Another lesson to learn in life is, “Don’t hit the tar baby!”
I for one read what you actually said, Steve, and I made a comment in a similar vein, albeit one that had far less of an economy of words, the other day.
I think I read that one and liked it, but searching on your name doesn’t turn it up.
I have not found any way to find comments either, even ones made only a few days ago, except by just opening up threads and scrolling through.
Which is not easy when there are many threads, and some are over 700 comments long.
It would be handy if we could click on a name and get a list of all comments made by that person.
Exactly, emphasis on the “should“. The Wentworth essay was a typical warmist preamble to “soften up” skeptics because they are vulnerable to real science. It’s the old bait and switch gambit.
While that may be true, there is no point in declaring someone is wrong, until they say something that is wrong.
That is how science works.
Everyone agrees on the things that are correct, and disagree on the things that are not.
Science does not work by deciding things based on personalities, or disbelieving things because of political side-choosing.
We discuss the merits of ideas, not who holds those ideas, in order to determine what may be true, and to discern those things from what is clearly false, and from what is not in evidence.
Save the lecture on how one should or shouldn’t behave in an informal setting like this. I have been following this topic since long before this site had its beginning. I’m very familiar with nearly every tactic warmers and lukewarmers use to wear down real science.
Except we were discussing a thing they DO, even when what they say might be factual.
Nonsense. If you believe that you’re discussing the wrong subject.
Are you sure you’re commenting on a climate science topic? Nothing could be further from the truth. AGW (previously known as “Global Cooling”) has been 100% political from the outset. The entire dog and pony show was conceived of by super wealthy, Marxist leaning social engineers. The science is just a smoke screen for the goal of the redistribution of wealth and power globally.
Evidence? There IS no empirical evidence supporting any aspect of AGW. “Climate change” is no more than an equivocal tautology to baffle the ignorant. Don’t be so naive.
Every time I see “tautology” I have to look it up, and I think the same thing, “So what?”
“The entire dog and pony show was conceived of by super wealthy, Marxist leaning social engineers.”
Maurice Strong & Roger Revelle is who I come up with on that statement.
Well ,at least Roger Revelle recanted his earlier stance on CO2 warming. Gore thought of himself as Revelle’s protege until he retired from Harvard and the AGW debate was heating up. Gore had Revelle cancelled as a doddering old fool inflicted by dementia. Strong was evil personified … and the go to name to counter all the warmunists who use the fallacy, “he was funded by big oil or the fossil fuel industry”. Maurice Strong, and advocate for eugenics, was one of the world’s most successful oil magnates and 1st President of Petro-Can, the father of the UN’s Agenda 21 and author of the Oil for food scam (among other nastiness).
Rud,
Thank you for posting this gentle “comment rebuke”. It’s my opinion that Dr. Wentworth has demonstrated that he is a person of high quality in presenting and defending his ideas in the face of what is probably the greatest onslaught of ad hominem bile I’ve ever seen on this blog.
Full disclosure, I consider myself a technically educated (engineering and economics) skeptic of CAGW in that the demonstrated benefits of fossil fuels to human (and Nature’s) welfare vastly outweigh any of the proposed downsides, all of which have no scientific basis once the junk science of data tampering and GCM error propagation are exposed. As to AGW, I would be termed a “luke warmer” because I had enough grounding in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics back in the day to find the arguments of working scientists, past and present, in this camp to be altogether persuasive.
Referring back to Dr. Wentworth’s post, while I am in agreement with the existence of the GHE, I am skeptical that he has offered a “mathematical proof” of same for two reasons. First, such a proof would have heretofore been “discovered” and published in chapter 1 of every climate, earth science, meteorology and radiative heat transfer textbook published in the last 20 years, or so. NB – I realize I’m committing a logical fallacy here (appeal to ignorance), but so be it. The second point is that I was uncomfortable with Dr. Wentworth’s invocation of Holder’s (alternatively Jensen’s) inequality. Yes, T^4 is a convex function, meaning the fourth power of the “average” T is less than or equal to the average of the T^4’s, but then by definition the same also holds true of LHS of the equation, i.e., the fluxes. While I haven’t got my head entirely around this, I think his substitution looks like an unintended “change in numeraire”, an issue that one sometimes finds in finance where a false arbitrage is posited to exist, e.g., Siegel’s Paradox. While I may be totally incorrect on this, I would have found his proof much more convincing if, having invoked Holder’s inequality, Dr. Wentworth had proceeded to support his conclusion using total surface and TOA emissions, rather than the areal fluxes.
Thanks again.
NB?
NM,
Just noting (well) that I was aware that that particular premise could be construed to be a logical fallacy.
I would be surprised if the argument isn’t known. I personally learned (or re-learned) about Holder’s inequality in the context of reading papers about calculating planetary temperatures (e.g., this one).
My guess is that those who know the argument likely believe that it probably wouldn’t change the mind of anyone who isn’t already convinced. And, they may well be right in that assessment.
I have a hard time seeing how there could be a problem. But, if you think you’ve identified something, let me know and I’ll try to take a look at it.
Hmmm. I could have reported “total surface and TOA emissions” instead of “areal fluxes”, but it would have been exactly the same underlying data, since they are the same information, normalized differently.
I actually agree that the argument might be more intuitively convincing when expressed in terms of total emissions. I started out thinking in those terms, then realized that the “area-based averages” were mathematically equivalent.
Maybe using averaged area fluxes was a poor presentation choice, in terms of the ability of the argument to convince people. But, mathematically, there’s no difference.
Thanks.
Dr. Wentworth,
Thank you for responding and providing the link to the 2008 paper by Arthur Smith. I will take a look, as it looks very interesting and appears to have been undertaken in direct response to G&T’s premise that the planetary GHE doesn’t exist. I noted the paper is archived on Cornell University’s physics site, but couldn’t tell if it has otherwise been published and / or peer reviewed – not that the latter means much in this era of politicized science.
Thanks again.
It’s possible Smith’s paper wasn’t published as a formal journal publication. I can’t find a different citation than the one for xariv.org.
For what it’s worth, I did a critique of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper which some people seem to enjoy.
Rud,
Microsoft ‘Spell Wreck’ strikes again:
“(true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; …”
Working outside and enjoying all this beautiful GHE happening today! Y’all enjoy your stimulating mathematical discussion, I am heading back out to pump some more Evil CO2 into the beauteous atmosphere, and lets not forget the trace elements from charring beef and chicken and pork.
Make sure you have your mask 🤓
Elmo bandana is always close to hand. No virusi would dare pass through that!
The global average temperature at the Earth’s surface ( not the lower troposphere) depends only on the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface. Only the oceans are able to accumulate solar energy and are temperature regulators near the Earth’s surface.
It is just not that simple:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
https://www.nature.com/articles/2091341a0
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0025-3_16
N2 and O2 can act as greenhouse gases due to collisions. Especially in dry air.
And that does not even touches the additional modes in IR spectrum of N2 and O2 not detectable by IR-spectrometers but only by Raman spectrometry:
https://www.ipm.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ipm/en/PDFs/product-information/GP/SPA/raman_spectroscopy_gases.pdf
Raman modes could also explain the short wave absorption which seem to happen in this experimental setup:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf
The calculated absorption properties of the gases used there is too small to be picked up by IR-spectrometry, hence would be simply overlooked.
Bottom lines:
The latter happens all the time.
This is all not to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
It is just to point out that measuring IR-spectra of pure gases with only one equipment and deducting the whole picture of how the energy budget of the atmosphere and the planet is generated by radiation alone might be just way too simple.
Rud Istvan
Thanks for clear perspective.
PS Please correct. N2 & O2 ARE greenhouse gases though much weaker than H2O and CO2.
Höpfner M, Milz M, Buehler S, Orphal J, Stiller G. The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2). Geophysical research letters. 2012 May 28;39(10). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
“The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth’s atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 W/m2 and due to N2 by 0.17 W/m2. Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions.”
There is no doubt that there is a greenhouse effect, if by that you mean greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared radiation. Heat loss to space from the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is exclusively by radiation and no amount of additional CO2 will change the TOA temperature. It is going to be somewhere around 255K, depending on insolation, albedo, and emissivity – none of which additional CO2 has any impact.
What is wrong with this physicist analysis is that he assumes that only radiation transfer matters within the atmosphere. The only way additional CO2 will impact earth’s surface temperature is by increasing the radiative thermal resistance through the atmosphere, which it no doubt will. But heat transfer through the atmosphere is by radiation and convection in parallel. Both contribute to transferring the 163 W/m2 (approximate average) absorbed at earth’s surface to the TOA. Because most of the heat absorbed at the surface is transferred by convection, the increased resistance to thermal transfer by radiation is diluted by a factor of 2 to 3.
The importance of convection in earth’s energy balance can be seen in an analogous problem. Consider a 3-meter-deep pool of clear water with a dark bottom being heated by direct sunlight. Like the Earth, it consists of a solar-heated horizontal surface under a “greenhouse” fluid, with heat rejected on top. Heat rejection from the pool occurs at the pool surface driven primarily by convection, while heat rejection from the TOA is by radiation. Because of the greenhouse effect, we would expect both the pool and Earth’s atmosphere to create or enhance temperature gradients, where it is warmer at the bottom and cooler towards the top. However, our experience shows that an outdoor swimming pool does no such thing, even when left undisturbed. Temperature distributions in solar-heated swimming pools and ponds are mostly uniform and if anything, warmer towards the top. The reason, of course, is convective mixing in the pool. When water is heated at the bottom it becomes less dense, thus creating buoyancy, which naturally drives mixing. Similarly, when air is heated at Earth’s surface it becomes less dense, also creating buoyancy. In addition, water evaporation and condensation further enhance convection and combined with spatial and temporal variations, and Earth’s rotation and scale, create a wide range of chaotic convective mixing called weather.
Now consider a 3-meter-deep pool of clear water with a dark bottom heated by direct sunlight, but with salt introduced at the bottom. Eventually the salt dissolves, and if not disturbed, creates a salt gradient with a high concentration at the bottom, which decreases to nearly fresh water at the top. The salt gradient causes a density gradient that stifles the natural buoyancy of the solar-heated water at the bottom. The result is the suppression of convection, heat transfer is limited to radiation and conduction through the water. Such solar ponds exist, both natural and manmade, and in fact achieve temperatures of up to 90oC at the bottom and a very steep lapse rate with near ambient temperatures at the surface. Although the solar heated pool case is vastly different than Earth’s atmosphere, it clearly shows the importance of convection in regulating surface temperature. It also shows that lapse rate is affected by heat transfer. If we could suppress convection in Earth’s atmosphere the average surface temperatures of the earth would be at least 40C. Convection, not radiation, is, therefore, the primary heat transfer mechanism between Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere and is why adding additional CO2 has a minimal impact on earth’s surface temperature.
My analysis did not assume that.
It determined a constraint that could be calculated by considering radiation, but which is independent of other heat transfer mechanisms.
What I offered a bit analogous to saying “energy will be conserved” in a complex system (without talking about all the detailed, complex processes going on in that system).
I didn’t explicitly talk about other phenomena in the atmosphere. But, that doesn’t mean the result isn’t valid, even in the presence of those phenomena.
It’s useful to analyze the system in terms of thermal resistance, I wonder if you’ve left out an essential piece of that analysis.
The system includes the following thermal resistances or conductivities (inverse of thermal resistance) (crudely):
I’m wondering if your analysis takes into account R4 being a significant factor in the thermal resistance of the system as a whole?
* * *
(The following might be superfluous and not help much, but I’ll include it just because I wrote it out.)
The total thermal resistivity in this simplified model is:
R = 1/[1/R1 + 1/[1/(1/R2 + 1/R3) + R4]
Or, the total thermal conductivity is:
C = C1 + 1/[1/(C2 + C3) + 1/C4]
The latter is slightly simpler to examine.
What would happen if we assume the convective thermal conductivity, C3, is much larger than the radiative conductivities, so that C3 ≫ C2, C4?
You’d end up with
C ≈ C1 + C4
(This is unrealistically high, but…)
Now, what happens as you increase GHG concentrations? The “atmospheric window” will tighten up, and C1 will be reduced. C4 will increase. So, energy headed from space will divert from going directly to space (via C1) and instead, more will go via the atmosphere (via C4).
However, radiating energy from the surface (via C1) ought to generally be more efficient than radiating from the atmosphere (via C4) because (a) the emissivity of the surface is higher than the emissivity of the atmosphere, and (b) the temperature of the atmosphere is lower than that of the surface.
Those arguments aren’t quantitative enough to establish anything.
But, I suspect that if one worked through a more complete thermal model, one would discover that the impact of very efficient convective heat transfer doesn’t dilute the increased resistance to radiative energy loss as much as you might expect.
I still have yet to here anything that says what the temperature of the atmosphere would be with out any GHE gases. It would warm by convention, would it be exactly the same temperature as the surface and if so would it be so all the way to the TAO with out radiative gases. How would it cool otherwise?
Given the massive pollution that has been occurring in China for decades, and with it the release of tremendous amounts of Greenhouse gases, is the average surface temperature in China significantly higher than anywhere else on Earth? Has their surface temperature risen much faster than other parts of the Earth?
As I pointed our in the original, we have seen a 40% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere in about the past 100 or so years. Tell me how this has affected earth’s temperature. Keep in mind that some 6,000 years ago during what has often been referred to as the “climate optimum” by those who have studied it, earth was warmer than it is today, and CO2 levels were lower than they are today.
Rud,
I agree with your overall conclusion: there is no scientifically-credible doubt that the “greenhouse effect”—as physicist describe certain gases having the ability to absorb LWIR from Earth’s surface whereas nitrogen and oxygen do not have this ability—exists in Earth’s atmosphere.
However, I take issue with your specific conclusion as to the inability of CO2 to become “saturated” with respect to affecting ECS.
Not only do I think that Wijngaarden and Happer “nailed it” scientifically in their paper discussing CO2 being nearly saturated wrt to being a GHG (preprint available via link in David Wojick report at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/ ), but the curve of the Callendar [1938] surface temperature model you reference near the very end of your article was based on only 50 years worth of measured atmospheric temperature increase and was assumed to be caused only by a increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Callendar did not establish that other causes of atmospheric surface temperature increases may have been predominate factors over those fifty years (e.g., changes in cloud coverage, changes in average global humidity level (not available in 1938), progressive UHI-induced measurement errors, etc.).
Moreover, Callendar [1938] did not even attempt to ascertain if the GHE could become saturated.
Rud, you might read the 600+ comments more carefully, as many of them were not about the existence or not of the GHE (mine for example). Among other things, the science of the GHE is far from settled, despite your time in the desert.
Also relevant to your post, neither ECS nor CS exist, because CO2 alone does not determine temperature. There are therefore no such numbers. These are names without physical meaning.
When it comes to climate science, simplification is falsification. That is the general point of all these comments taken together. Thus I rebuke your rebuke.
You hit the nail on the head. For the most part whether the GHE is real or not is a kind of straw man. It’s a classic example of over simplification. Such arguments are often intended to move the reader into saying, “well, I can’t argue with that, the “science” must be settled.”
I think you guys are missing the point somewhat.
For one thing, it is not a straw man, because it is exactly the topic that was already being discussed.
The point is not to settle any questions except the one narrow issue described: Is CO2 a radiative gas, or is it not?
Ditto H2O, although there is seemingly less disagreement regarding that gas.
Did you read what I wrote? Did you understand the exchange? There is no debate, given their definition of GHG, that both CO2 and its massively bigger brother, water vapour are greenhouse gases. This issue is two fold: the importance of the GHE in warming … and the importance of CO2 in the GHE. Focusing ad nauseam on what the GHE is and if the hypothetical model is valid is both a straw man and a red herring.
The only critical issue is: how important is the GHE and is there a human signal hidden somewhere in all that scientific bloviating.The average person has been overwhelmed by pseudo science and the dissenting experts have been silenced with political censorship.
“The only critical issue is: how important is the GHE and is there a human signal hidden somewhere in all that scientific bloviating.”
I think that boils it down to the essentials.
There is so much we still don’t know about how the atmosphere works.
That’s why I fall back on the evidence. The evidence presented by the regional surface temperature charts from all over the world that demonstrate CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures, because the regional charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century, with less CO2 in the air, as it is today with more CO2 in the air.
Within recorded history (the regional charts) we have seen temperatures cool while CO2 increases. North America has been in a cooling trend since the 1930’s, despite all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since that time.
I don’t know what combination of things in the atmosphere is causing this result, but that is the result. Temperatures are not following CO2 in the instrument record.
My observations completely. Add that to the cooling trend from the Holocene Thermal Optimum to the present and it’s pretty obvious we need to fear cooling more than warming. Little wonder the IPCC wanted to disappear the MWP and the LIA so they could sell AGW more easily.
“Also relevant to your post, neither ECS nor CS exist, because CO2 alone does not determine temperature. There are therefore no such numbers. These are names without physical meaning.”
Yes, that’s a question that needs answering.
OMG1! “.. The dry desert heats up a lot from insolation during the day ..” What is sunlight??
OMG2!! “.. but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere ..”
The atmosphere warms up by the surface, the surface is heated by the sun.
Temperature potential in the Troposphere is dicatate by pressure, mass and gravity, lack of moist heats the surface up faster, like in the desert. The same low level of moist makes the desert cool faster at night, it also makes the temperature lower.
You see the opposite in the rain forest, the rain forest warms up slower, it doesn’t become as warm as the desert, it also stay warm during the night.
It’s called latent heat.
People who has been on islands for example in Greece has probably noticed how the wind tends to pick up a lot during sunny, warm days. The reason is – as the island gets baked by the sun, the warm surface air on the island starts to ascend (warm air rises, still?) – that is called Convection.
Colder air from the oceans around the island rush in to replace the air that are rising, that phenomenom is called advection.
The warm air that is rising is rising in an atmosphere that loses pressure and mass in addition to atmopheric expansion with altitude (temperature falls by around 0,65 C./100 m.)
The clouds are the result of convection. All measurable energy (heat) below the cloud cover is transported up to the clouds by convection. Radiative energy (LWIR) losses from the atmosphere is done above most of the cloud cover (6 – 8 km.)
If convection didn’t transport energy (heat) we wouldn’t have clouds.
I leave the rest for others to comment on.
RL posted: “Radiative energy (LWIR) losses from the atmosphere is done above most of the cloud cover (6 – 8 km.)”
I disagree.
All components of Earth’s atmosphere (mostly N2 and O2) radiate LWIR thermal energy isotropically due to their inherent temperatures. Most of this radiation happens within the lower half-mass of the atmosphere (that is, below 6 km). As stated by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget ): “The atmosphere thins with altitude, and at roughly 5–6 kilometres, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so thin that heat can escape to space.”
Isotropic radiation means that about half of such atmospheric radiation is directed toward Earth’s land and ocean surfaces.
So, most radiative energy (LWIR) losses from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface and to deep space occur below 6 km.
No! Because of the density of the lower part of the atmosphere, molecules are pressed close together, radiation doesn’t radiate very far, on average less than 20 cm. before being absorbed, mostly by water vapor. That is the reason CO2 is irrelevant, convection does all transportation of energy (heat).
About you not agreeing?? Well, I do not think that will change the reality.
Roald,
I recommend that, at your earliest convenience, you communicate this needed correction to Wikipedia.
We are in agreement that reality matters.
Wikipedia has been corrupted by “green” activists, I do not use Wikipedia and I do not put any confidence into anything about the climate in Wikipedia, ref.: Climategate II
OK, Roald. Then contact NASA instead, for they have this verbatim statement:
“At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.”
at this webpage:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
You know you can’t trust NASA either, they counterfeit science, thinks the earth is flat, they say the power of sunshine is too weak to warm up the atmosphere and they adjust historical, previously published temperature data and hide data that is inconvenient for the AGW narrative, ref.: Tony Heller (Real Climate Science).
That is at best misleading, the atmosphere above 5-6 km. (actually 6-8 km.) is so thin (low pressure because of less mass and increased distances between atoms because of the expansion of the atmosphere), regardless of composition of the atmosphere at that altitude, energy (heat) can radiate freely to space.
But that is not the issue. What they claim is that increase level of C02 will trap energy (heat) in the atmosphere (Troposphere) when the reality is – that is impossible, if it was possible, it would have happened – all the time – and the world would have been too warm for life – all the time!
Like ice is always cold, fire is always warm etc.
Also, historically and geologically, CO2 has always followed temperature, why would it suddenly change when crooks needed money and power?
We’re definitely done here. Bye.
Iran sure is having a lot of accidents lately.
(Next to) No original thought and what there is, is a Train-Wreck
Re: The desert example>
Next:
Next:
Next:
Rud,
I agree with your discussion, but you omit an important detail.
The degree of greenhouse warming depends on the degree by which the flux of relevant IR wavelengths are retarded in their emission to space. This in turn depends on the temperature of their emission, which depends on the altitude where that emission occurs (the emission height).
We know that water vapor often condenses at lower altitudes and can be at quite low concentrations at greater altitudes. Thus, the H2O space emission height is sometimes at much lower altitude and higher temperature (greater IR flux emission) than is CO2.
An IR photon does not distinguish between the gas involved in its absorption or emission, either H20 or CO2 will suffice across much of the broad 15 micron band.
Thus, an IR emitted from H2O at a lower emission height will sometimes be absorbed at higher altitude by CO2. In such cases, the IR emitted to space by that CO2 is less than if the space-emitted IR derived from H2O, and thus CO2 controls the amount of warming that results.
So, although H2O and CO2 do overlap some in the IR range they absorb, the IR actually emitted to space often drives from CO2 and has a lower flux, even if H2O earlier (at lower altitude) absorbed and emitted IR of that wavelength.
Agree. Thought I covered it sufficiently in the opening to the ERL/saturation discussion. Perhaps was too cryptic.
“Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not.”
No. Tyndall discovered the thermoelectric gases. O2 and N2 do not transduce electricity at any temperature with thermopiles and the like.
Black body curves and also produced by thermoelectics.
To observe N2 and O2 (and the Raman active IR spectra lines/modes of CO2, H2O, CH4,etc) we need to use laser-based Raman spectrometers.
I recently conducted an experiment that refutes the use of thermoelectrics in radiation theory: CO2 is transparent to IR, as is silica (glass); germanium is non-transparent as is water. http://www.fractalnomics.com/2021/05/refuting-greenhouse-theory-experiment.html
Below is my augmented Raman thermoelectric IR atmosphere. Raman is the real IR detector: it will end the greenhouse debate. O2 and N2 absorb and emit as they should.
Blair,
Tyndall is often misquoted and misunderstood by people who have either not read, or not comprehended, his publications.
Tyndall pointed out that gases which absorbed IR resulted in less energy reaching the thermopile, and its temperature fell as a result. For some gases, the absorption was so strong that blocking the radiation completely with a brass plate made no difference to the radiation reaching the thermopile.
For anyone asking why the energy absorbed by the gas was not then reemitted to the thermopile undiminished, Tyndall explained, and provided examples, with accompanying illustration for easier understanding.
Although you are no doubt aware of these things, others might not be.
As a final note, people sometimes overlook the fact that Tyndall measured relative absorption of CO2, water vapour, etc., against dry air. For example, at a particular pressure, he found that CO2 absorbed 972 times as much IR as dry air. People sometimes overlook the fact that there is more than 972 times as much dry air as CO2, absorbing more IR in total than the CO2.
Tyndall’s experiments indicated that about 35% of the Sun’s radiation (which is mainly IR), does not reach the surface. So much for the GHE and its “blanket” properties. Keeps us cool during the day. Good thing.
The thermopile inside a pyrgeometer is underneath a black absorber that converts IR radiation to heat.
“They spanned the gamut from epistemological (really a proof, or something else?), to the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’, to the new ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does),…”
Heat isn’t loss to space from convection, but convection could be involve more heat radiated to space [or less heat radiate to space].
The craziness is atmosphere losses most/all heat, but it’s surfaces, not gases with radiate most energy into space. If land surface is hotter, the most heat is lost to space. Gases may glow but they passing the intensity of heat from surface below them.
If you spread more heat around a sphere, the large area of spherical area radiates heat to space.
I think craziness is related to being in an Ice Age, and idiots are concerned about this frozen hell getting warmer.
“The surprisingly controversial post’s conclusion is also easily personally verified by simple observation. Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not. So a personal experiment can be conduced in any desert (mine was a summer day in the Mohave outside Palm Springs during a boring conference). The dry desert heats up a lot from insolation during the day, and cools down a lot at night thanks to desert low specific humidity, so not much GHG except well-mixed CO2, and therefore not much GHE at night. Burrr!”
Two things, or maybe 3.
N2 and O2 don’t radiate any where near as much as CO2 and H2O, and H20 radiate more molecule than CO2. And even in desert there more affect from H20 than CO2. Also in our Ice Age we have a lot deserts on Planet Earth. And having more desert causes Earth to be colder. Or making the Sahara Desert green, would be significant warming effect {probably as much as doubling CO2 levels}. And we should cause the Sahara desert to green. And ancient scientist knew we were in an Ice Age, and knew making warmer was a good plan. Or doubling of CO2 wasn’t bad news, but good news.
“convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere” so if convection moves that heat closer to the top of the atmosphere that does not speed up the energy being radiated to space?
No 2:16pm, convection equally moves that heat closer to the surface so that meaningfully measured there is no global net surface thermo. internal energy gain or loss from updrafts/downdrafts due weather over a climate cycle.
Rud,
Thank you so much for the essay, it is well thought. I would like to point out that you have both of these statements in your essay:
“to the new ignores convection (true, but convention [sic] only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does)”
and later on you have this:
“This misunderstands saturation, since it depends on the effective radiative level (ERL). As CO2 increases, the ERL rises unconstrained, since CO2 is unaffected by the lapse rate, while H2O is and so decreases. This also reduces their mid troposphere’s overlapping radiative windows. More CO2 raises the ERL.”
I haven’t read through all the statements to your essay, and I am sure that many have addressed this, but I thought I’d bring it up just in case. Obviously, these are mutually exclusive statements without additional explanation that convection can transport energy above the ERL, and I know you know that and it doesn’t impact your reasoning on the GHE.
Anyway, enjoyed the read, thanks!
Ah, I now see many have brought it up. Sorry for the redundancy.
I find it amusing, that after being on this site for some 20 years or so, here we are, debating the GHE, and worse, how it relates to climate. And, yet, the same old arguments, people dragging out the same old physics, but, the models are still wrong, as well as their predictions.
When is someone going to try and approach this from a different angle?
Dr. Deanster:
This I have done, with an alternate, falsifiable explanation of the cause of Earth’s changing temperatures, which completely excludes any detectable GHE.
Although frequently posted on WUWT, it is routinely ignored.by everyone–probably too simple for the highly educated minds on this site to.accept. Your thoughts?
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/ , .
It’s clear that water vapor acts as a blanket (I try to avoid using the term “greenhouse gases”) to keep the earth warmer at night. Simple observations: last night cloudy min temp 11C, previous night clear skies, min temp 5C.
But I struggle to understand how an increase from 300 to 400ppm CO2 has increased the average global temperature by 1C.
Well an increase from 300 to 400 ppm CO2, might increase global average temperature by 1 C over period of thousands of years.
But there is so many factors in involved over such long periods of time. And any policy addressing something 1000 years in the future, to be polite, would be not practical.
My guess is doubling from 280 to 560 ppm might cause more than .5 C within a century of time.
Or we had 280 to +400 ppm which is + 120 of the 280 to be added to get to 560.
+140 would be half, but the first 1/2 {140 ppm} has more effect than second half of 140 ppm.
So immediate warming from the 120 ppm is already 1/2 of warming one get when it reaches 560 ppm {and not certain it will ever reach 560 ppm}.
And the immediate result, has not [or can not} be measured.
Or IPCC is “very confident” it’s been .2 C or more. And I don’t share such confidence. I might be less confidence in IPCC, as compared to US FBI or US intel services. And US government is talking about UFOs. And WHO committed War crimes.
Instead it might have been as much as .2 C, but we lack enough accuracy in global temperature, to state anything else {IMO}.
Robber,
Correct. It also works in reverse during the day. Clear sky, hotter ground. Extreme examples are arid tropical deserts (little H2O GHG), from more than 70 C to – 18 C or so, or the Moon (no atmosphere to speak of) from 127 C to -180 C. John Tyndall was mentioned in the post, and made the same sorts of observations.
He pointed out that without H2O in the atmosphere, temperatures in England would drop at night to the point that life would become unsustainable. And of course, during the day, temperatures above 60 C are difficult to cope with.
The GHE “blanket” analogy is just stupid. Some desert Bedouins wear heavy black clothing during the day. Peer reviewed research shows that these dark “blankets” are effective at keeping the body cool in the desert sun. Just as cool as white “blankets”, strangely enough. Measurements, not assumptions. Likewise, insulation (“blanket”) is extensively used to keep things cool. Putting a coat on a tailor’s dummy or a corpse won’t make it hotter, but will stop it heating up so much in sunlight.
As do roofs, hats, and parasols. All insulators – “blankets” if you like.
Adding CO2 to a sample of air raises its temperature not at all. Removing CO2 from a sample of air does not affect its temperature, either.
GHE believers have faith, as to the followers of any cult or religion. No relevant facts, and the scientific method is anathema to them.
Such is life.
So I think the debate about GHE is daft it exists. This is a debate about the outcome.
The big difference between H2O and CO2 is the CO2 is distributed virtually perfectly, whereas H2O a condensing GHG and has the ability to transport energy from the surface to about half way up from there the Atmosphere is dry.
The debate is about where energy is absorbed or emitted and given that CO2 is a bit player in the equation but some have claimed that it should result in warm and cold patches in the atmosphere and none have been found is that not correct.
If you think about the difference between CO2 and H2O then that would be the area of research and if that is trivial or zero then it is a problem no more.
You’re still missing the point Dr Istvan, which is the impact of liquid water.
Liquid water is a sink for energy, since on phase change the energy absorbed is locked up until the resulting water vapor condenses again. Which it does in the form of clouds well above most of the CO2 in the air column.
H2O(g) and CO2(g) emission lines are the same as their absorption lines. That energy is continually being re-emitted and re-absorbed all the time…until it gets picked up by a liquid water molecule, whereupon the phase change locks that energy in as latent heat of vaporization.
This occurs wherever there is liquid water available. And can occur so long as relative humidity is less than 100%.
Your first graph of absorption lines shows why the mismatch between H2O(g) and CO2(g) isn’t as important as you might think, because while CO2 is maximum absorption between 10 and 20 microns H2O is still absorbing 50% or more. So any energy absorbed by the CO2 and then re-emitted is available to be absorbed by both gaseous and liquid water (see an absorption spectrum graph for liquid water here). But the latter is the end of the line, until the newly produced water vapor gets to the troposphere and re-emits that energy on condensation. Whereupon it goes to space by a similar process: any photons emitted downwards are captured by GHGs, transferred to water droplets which evaporate, then recondense after diffusing upwards. Whereas photons emitted upwards are gone: out to space, thereby meaning essentially all energy emitted from the clouds during the condensation process is radiated outwards, some directly and some indirectly down-then-up in a second escape attempt.
Now add in the tropical thunderstorm processes, which offer an even faster transportation of latent heat up even to the high troposphere and you can see why empirical ECS is so low.
One implication of this is the empirical GHE from increased CO2, CH4 and etc is confined mainly to deserts where liquid water availability is low. But even there the accumulated greenhouse heat moves eastward fairly rapidly with the weather systems, and then evaporates liquid water to the east a few days later.
The water cycle is not unlike modelling an ethanol distillation column with multiple trays, something which I’ve done. There are sinks at the bottom (the water) and the top (the ethanol vapour). Energy is continually being absorbed and re-emitted in the tray stages. The net result is a clean split of the azeotropic ethanol product from the water, which can’t be done in a single stage.
I do not dispute the greenhouse effect of CO2(g) or H2O(g), just that as a water chemist it’s quite clear to me that the water cycle rather neatly finesses it.
Rud, Bob Wentworth and Willis E all are correct in summarising what IR measurements and some theory show about atmospheric processing of IR by CO2 and water vapour. It’s an internally consistent story that’s had a lot of work done on it.
However many of us simply feel that something ain’t right about the story. This might not sound scientific, but even in science instinct still counts.
Millennia of human years of effort have of course gone into fortifying the CO2 story, and attacking it is like charging WW1 German trenches prepared with 4 lines of defence over years. A lot of us, myself included, have no doubt made ourselves look foolish in the attempt, moving outside core areas of expertise, fighting on the opponent’s prepared ground.
But the real question is not whether the story is true but if the story is relevant. The narrative itself should be left alone; what is omitted is more important.
For instance there is the implicit assumption that IR absorption and emission events account for all the important heat movement in the atmosphere. Two assumptions are questionable. One is that O2 and N2 are inert to IR. they are not. Due to their abundance, even if they interact 100x less than CO2, they will still overwhelm CO2’s effect. The second is that absorption and emission are the be all and end all of CO2’s heat interaction with IR. This notion was flatly contradicted by none other than Albert Einstein. He said that even if a molecule has absorption and emission frequencies, these play a negligible role in heat transfer photon to gas, which is predominantly by collisional momentum transfer:
We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be
kT / 2
this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”
(Note in the above that kinetic energy means heat.)
You’ll have to forgive me, but if Einstein says one thing, and a mob of activists with an overwhelming conflict of interest say the opposite, then I’m just going to stay with Albert if that’s OK with you. And very probably, even if it’s not.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/
Another assumption is that of “everything else being equal” and the simplicity versus complexity of atmospheric thermodynamics. The adaptive or optimising behaviour of complex systems is ignored, and everything is assumed to be simple and linear. In the real world if a complex dissipative nonlinear system is perturbed, then there will be multiple movements of system players within the phase space aimed at returning the system to the dominant attractor. This is embodied in Ilya Prigogine’s theory of nonlinear thermodynamics of dissipative systems. One key behaviour of these systems is the spontaneous export of entropy by emergent “dissipative structures”. The tropical thunderstorms that eject heat to space when ocean SSTs reach 30C, described by Willis E., are a good example of Prigogine’s dissipative structures.
On the other hand, ignoring all this and assuming “everything else being equal” after CO2 increase, contravenes the important physical law of the principle of least action.
(It also ignores the most important effect of adding to CO2 in air, which is global enhancement of plant 🌱 growth.)
The principle of least action states that the universe will choose the path between two states that minimises the action. This principle is a generalisation of Fermat’s theorem which requires light to take the path between two locations that minimises the travel time.
The principle of least action can be extended to any system evolving between two states. It is the founding assumption behind Noether’ theorem that is required to explain why Einsteinian relativity does not break conservation of energy.
For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to summon up vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. This is an enormous thermodynamic response to this tiny trace gas perturbation, that transgresses the principle of least action.
However, a response by the system rearranging its structure, changing for instance water vapour content or the emission height, or adjustment of convection or even radiative interactions, could lead the system toward a new equilibrium with much less expenditure of energy. And thus fulfil the laws of least action, Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems. Miskolczi’s hypothesis was of this nature – a rearrangement of the emission structure without temperature change.
On the other hand, response to the tiny adjustment of CO2 amount by heating up the whole atmosphere and ocean, is the exact opposite of what one would expect in fulfilment of the principle of least action. It’s the principle of most action, and most (empty) heat and noise.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/the-principle-of-least-action-calls-into-question-atmosphere-warming-by-co2/
— Two assumptions are questionable. One is that O2 and N2 are inert to IR. they are not. Due to their abundance, even if they interact 100x less than CO2, they will still overwhelm CO2’s effect. The second is that absorption and emission are the be all and end all of CO2’s heat interaction with IR. This notion was flatly contradicted by none other than Albert Einstein. He said that even if a molecule has absorption and emission frequencies, these play a negligible role in heat transfer photon to gas, which is predominantly by collisional momentum transfer:”
I roughly agree with Einstein. But I don’t think O2 and N2 “overwhelm CO2’s effect” but CO2 effect is quite small. But without the mass of O2 and N2, most agree CO2 has a lot less or near zero warming effect.
Or greenhouse effect is the 10 tons of O2 and N2 {and Argon} and when add the tiny amount of CO2 there is some more warming effect. But say up to a round number of 300 ppm there is more “far more” warming from 300 ppm part than from adding another 300 ppm to make 600 ppm.
So if mean the O2 and N2 is a lot more {“still overhelm”} as compared doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm, then perhaps, that is true.
I not sure how warming is from doubling of CO2, if the lower end vs higher end is true. Then it’s more likely, to be true.
I’m frustrated that there is an implicit assumption that other modes of heat movement are being “ignored.” They are NOT.
No. There has been specific, numerical analysis of this issue.
The results show that on a per molecule basis, N₂ and O₂ are, respectively, a factor of 3e-6 and 7e-6 less effective at absorbing/radiating LW radiation than CO₂.
When the actual abundances of gases in the atmosphere are taken into account, the impact of of N₂ and O₂ are 0.6% and 0.4% as large as the impact of CO₂.
So, no, they do not “overwhelm CO2’s effect.”
This is completely wrong. As is the source your link references.
Momentum transfer by the photon to the gas only accounts for one trillionth (one part in 10¹²) of the energy involved in heat transfer from photons to gas.
You and your source are badly misinterpreting Einstein.
His text does not mean that that photons don’t get absorbed by a gas and transfer heat by mechanisms other than the transfer of momentum.
His text only means that the net effect is always a thermal energy distribution within all the energetic modes of the gas. This observation is utterly irrelevant to the conclusion that you seem to be are inferring.
Talking about “everything else being equal” is beyond the scope of what I’m up to addressing in this comment.
However, saying that “everything is assumed to be simple and linear” seems to me to be an inaccurate and unfair characterization.
What you are appear to be ignoring is that N2 and O2 remove the energy from the CO2 molecule far more often by collision than CO2 emits a photon.
Which is why, despite not absorbing LWIR the N2 & O2 are at the same zonal temperature as the CO2 molecule.
They emit in the Microwave range, which is what the Satellites use to measure the temperature.
But they do not remove their energy by LWIR, which in the upper atmosphere only CO2 can do. SO Co2 is the Coolant.
Why do you say I appear to be “ignoring” this? Yes, it is true that collisions happen very often. And, so what?
It’s also true that, while collisions with N₂ and O₂ often remove energy from a CO₂ molecule, collisions also often add energy to a CO₂ molecule, enabling a photon emission.
Yes, all the individual gases within a gas mixture are at the same temperature. There is nothing surprising about this.
In a way, it doesn’t help to think of the constituent gases separately.
Overall, the mixed gas:
How strongly the mixed gas absorbs and emits increases with the concentration of GHGs present in the mix.
Interesting. That partially explains why they would be less effective absorbers/emitters for thermal radiation at temperatures relevant on Earth.
(Satellites also measure LWIR, of course.)
Well, cooling happens via electromagnetic emissions whatever the frequency. It’s just that being able to emit at LWIR wavelengths make for more efficient cooling.
N₂ and O₂ apparently contribute about 0.6% and 0.4% as much cooling as does CO₂. So CO₂ in the upper atmosphere is certainly the main coolant, but not the only one.
Then you must agree that the most efficient Coolant in the atmosphere is CO2.
That’s true in parts of the atmosphere where there isn’t significant water vapor.
Wouldn’t it be necessary for a heating effect of CO2 by LIWR to efficiently transmit energy by collision before emitting a photon?
So downwelling LIWR would be technically wrong, it would be transmission of energy to non-absorbant molecules faster than emitting a photon to space. And what is measured as downwelling LIWR is just the resulting temperature of this imbalance in the speed of two processes.
I suppose that’s true. Because collisions happen on a shorter time scale than photon re-emission, all the received energy thermalizes, contributing to the net temperature of the mixed gas.
No, there’s nothing “wrong” about downwelling LWIR. Perhaps you previously had some interpretation of the mechanics of downwelling LWIR production that you now see to be wrong?
Your thinking here may be a bit “off.”
For one things, photons are emitted in all directions, not just towards space. I don’t know if that matters to your logic.
For another, those non-absorbant molecules often transmit energy to absorbant molecules, which is then emitted as a photon (in any direction).
Not really.
Collisions are frequent, and this gives rise to downwelling LWIR. But, if collisions were rare, that would also give rise to downwelling LWIR. The details of the process would just be slightly different, but in both cases there would be downwelling LWIR.
So, the relative rates of collisions and photon emissions don’t have the sort of significance you seem to be inferring.
Bob
Thanks for your helpful reply.
Experimental data shows the same infrared lamp warming of argon as CO2.
Argon (z=40) has similar molecular number as CO2 (z=44).
Argon (monoatomic) has negligible IR absorption (apparently).
But they both heat the same in an IR field.
Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics: American Journal of Physics: Vol 78, No 5 (scitation.org)
Thanks for the reference.
As I read it, this paper indicates that certain table-top “demonstrations” of the GHE don’t necessarily actually demonstrate the GHE. Instead, they demonstrate a change in convection associated with greater gas density.
Do you think that this result somehow disproves the GHE?
* * *
The problem with every experimental “disproof” of the GHE that I’ve ever seen is that people usually don’t bother to check what conventional physics (from which the GHE arises) would actually predict to happen in that situation.
So, for example, many people cite an experimental demonstration that “the Greenplate effect does not exist.” The experimentalist seems delighted to report that he has “disproven” the effect. Yet, he never bothers to check what the predicted effect would be.
I checked to see what would be predicted. It’s expected for the first ten minutes, the effect would only be about 1℃, which is consistent with the results that were reported. If one ran the experiment for an hour, a very large effect (impossible to miss) would have been expected.
Yet, the experimentalist ran the test for only 10 minutes, then erroneously declared he had “disproven” the greenplate effect.
It’s important to check what a theory actually predicts, before declaring that one has in some way falsified it.
* * *
In the table-top experiment, I am confident that looking at the predictions of conventional physics would show that, despite the IR absorption of CO₂, that IR absorption would be expected to have a rather small impact on temperature for that experimental configuration.
A table-top setup is going to contain much less CO₂ per unit area than does the Earth’s atmosphere. Despite CO₂ being less concentrated in the Earth’s atmosphere, the atmosphere is many kilometers deep, whereas a table-top demo is likely to be just half a meter deep.
The effects of LWIR absorption by CO₂ would be expected to be much larger in the atmosphere than in that table-top “demonstration.”
The paper you cite does seem to (likely) invalidate the demo as a correct demonstration of the GHE. But, it doesn’t in any way disprove the GHE.
One of these days, I guess I’ll have to work through what size GHE would be theoretically expected in a table-top experiment. (It’s possible that the experiment does demonstrate the GHE, but one has to look at finer details than what is usually taken as indicative of the GHE.)
Yes the authors did point to convection. It was a short article excerpt only and the full experimental details were missing.
The point is though that if it really was true that most of air – oxygen and nitrogen – have almost zero interaction with IR while CO2 interacts strongly, this would be simple to demonstrate and experiments with heating of CO2 or other non IR active gasses would show an overwhelming and unmistakable difference. Instead it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.
One is that O2 and N2 are inert to IR. they are not. Due to their abundance, even if they interact 100x less than CO2, they will still overwhelm CO2’s effect.
No. There has been specific, numerical analysis of this issue.
The results show that on a per molecule basis, N₂ and O₂ are, respectively, a factor of 3e-6 and 7e-6 less effective at absorbing/radiating LW radiation than CO₂.
“Specific numerical analysis of this issue??” What’s wrong with a simple experiment to conclusively prove that CO2 absorbs heat from IR and that O2 and N2 don’t. Show us.
But no-one can. Experiments trying to show higher heat absorption by CO2 read like cold fusion experiments. Endless argument over tiny observed discrepancies and experimental details. Not convincing at all.
So instead a retreat to theory? “Numerical analysis”?? LOL 😂 The optics are not good.
The GHE does exist. Those arguing it does not are wasting our time. There are more important things to do than nanny the unconvinced. You all should branch off and form your own website. Then people can visit that and argue with as to why it does exist. The same things would happen. Just elsewhere. Likewise the Democrat Party should say you CRT people are bleeping crazy and kick them out of their party. We know if they did, they’d have an easier time of things.
Ragnaar,
You wrote –
“The GHE does exist.” And so do bananas. The difference is that I can describe a banana, tell you where one may be observed and measured, and so on.
Go on – describe this “GHE”, tell me where I might observe and measure it . . .!
Only joking of course! You can’t describe the GHE in any sensible way. At least people can describe the mythical unicorn more or less consistently – looks like a horse with a single horn growing out of its forehead, gentle nature, that sort of thing.
Try describing the GHE in way that makes physical sense.
What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue?
GHE effect is when a surface is heated and it heats the air {usually} above, it’s convection heat. It also occur when surface evaporate into the atmosphere.
But I know you more interested in radiant aspects, because that all the cargo cult people talk about. There is idea that when gas molecule absorbs radiant energy, it transfer {translate??} this energy into kinetic energy {increase the average velocity of the atmospheric gases] this theory is difficult or complicated by a number unknown “variables”. And there other idea {like Roy Spencer explains it] as acting as insulation. And I also believe there other theories “of how it works”.
Anyhow, I believe there is greenhouse effect on Venus, and involves the high elevation clouds. And also there effect of Ozone, which the cargo cult likes to pretend is a greenhouse gas. {though doesn’t fit their definition of greenhouse gases}.
There is idea that when gas molecule absorbs radiant energy, it transfer {translate??} this energy into kinetic energy {increase the average velocity of the atmospheric gases] this theory is difficult or complicated by a number unknown “variables”.
————————
How does a warm object warm a cooler object? Radiation. There is an energy transfer. And energy can be thought of as the velocity of a gas. Very cold gases don’t vibrate, or whatever term you want use, much. Warm gases do vibrate a lot. Liquid water also does this. It slows down and speed up. I don’t know what is unknown about this? It’s H.S. stuff.
“And energy can be thought of as the velocity of a gas.”
The energy of gas is the average velocity {according to theory
of ideal gas laws]. A gas molecule which doesn’t have any kinetic theory in period of a nano second time can increase the average velocity.
Or it’s average velocity within a volume of space- not just velocity- it’s an relationship with all the gas molecules within volume of space.
Rud Istvan says:
“There are only two even semi-rational (but still erroneous) arguments why the CO2 GHE might not exist despite Tyndall’s experimental GHG evidence.”
Rud, You seem very confident, even dismissive, with this statement. Please open your mind.
Nobody is saying that CO2 does not emit electromagnetic radiation (‘photons’), or that some of these emissions go downwards to the earth’s surface. The issue is do those emissions increase the temperature of what they impact?
Do you believe that all EM emissions increase the temperature of what they impact?
If you say yes, then you are wrong.
Three simple experiments, that can be done by any WUWT reader, prove that not all emissions increase the temperature of objects they impact. Here they are:
1) Place a 100 degree object on a table. Then, place a second 100 degree object next to it. Does the temperature of the first object immediately go up? The answer is no, its temperature does not increase. How can this be true given the arrival of all those new photons? The answer is that not all photons increase the temperature of the objects they impact. Some do, some don’t.
2) Now, conduct the second experiment. Place a 100 degree object on a table as before but this time place a second object next to it that has any temperature greater than 100 degrees. What immediately happens to the temperature of the first object? It goes up!!
3) Now, conduct the third experiment. Place a 100 degree object on a table as before but this time, place a second object next to it that has any temperature less than 100 degrees. What happens to the temperature of the first object? Nothing!!
That is experimental proof that not all emitted photons increase the temperature of what they hit. Notice I proved that without using any Stefan Boltzmann equations!
Those three simple experiments prove that emissions only increase the temperature of what they hit if they originate from an object that has a greater temperature than the object they hit.
Now, since I have proven that not all emissions increase the temperature of what they hit, let’s go back to CO2 emissions. My hypothesis is that, because the emissions from atmospheric CO2 come from the colder atmosphere, they cannot raise the temperature of the warmer earth’s surface.
Rud, this request is to you personally. Please explain how some photons increase temperature and some don’t. You may use SB equations if you want, though I don’t think that is possible. If you cannot explain it, will you admit that it is possible that cold CO2 emissions cannot warm an already warmer earth’s surface?
Best regards
Bernard,
I, for one, agree with you.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2, and the GHE true believers fall about the place trying to avoid the fact that no amount of energy from ice can make even an infinitesimal amount of liquid water hotter.
You are right, and no amount of blathering about energy levels, rotational, vibrational and translational energy do any more than to expose the ignorance of the blatherer. Unless supported by additional information which demonstrates knowledge, rather than assertion based on a cursory look at Wikipedia!
Why doesn’t my 8 feet of average depth lake in MN freeze all the way to the bottom each Winter. Because the ice makes the water warmer. If exposed to air, that water would freeze. The ice gets photon from below and throws them back. Jesus.
You did not prove anything, you merely asserted it, and if you actually did that experiment, you would find out where you went wrong.
To do correct put object in hot or boiling water. Cook for an hour {or longer if more massive- like boiling potatoes- big potatoes take longer to cook}.
Nicholas,
Are you really trying to counter predictions apparently based on physics, with completely unsupported assertions based on nothing at all?
That might not be too convincing. Maybe you could try what has been suggested, and then cut Bernard off at the knees, so to speak, by reporting facts that show he is wrong.
I believe you have no clue about physics, but facts overcome faith. Have you got any to present?
Yes, this one: You may be the single most obnoxious jackass on the entire internet.
You didn’t do the experiments, did you?
I did and you are right, especially if you provide air movement to prevent them warming air between them, then it does not even slow down their cooling rate.
As I said above the Heat Transfer equations also show no transfer of heat.
I have done the experiment and he is correct.
The Heat Transfer equations prove that if 2 objects of the same temperature are placed in close proximity zero heat or heat flux is transferred. So how can all photons cause warming when the Heat transfer equations show that they do not?
What does happen is that the air between the objects on the table gets hotter and thus very slightly slows down the cooling rate.
However if you place a fan blowing air throught the gap as I did they cool at the same rate as when only one for them is there.
Yes.
The greenhouse effect does not make anything hotter.
That highest air temperature ever recorded was over 100 years ago,
doesn’t change my idea of what global warming is, instead more proof of global warming.
Global warming is about increasing average global surface air temperature.
If measuring the temperature of a sidewalk {which has nothing to do with global warming]
and the air is warmer, the sidewalk will convect less heat to the air {it will cool less to the air}
and because sidewalk is losing less heat to atmosphere, it can get hotter.
Or if want find a sidewalk which is close to 70 C, you need a dry sidewalk, you need the sun near zenith {somewhere near} and you need air about 40 C [104 F} or more.
And without the warmer air, a sidewalk will reach about 60 C. If stop all convection heat loss
a sidewalk might reach 80 C] but as said warmer air or less difference of temperature reduces convectional heat transfer to air.
And global warming instead of extreme temperature difference will cause a more uniform night and day {and summer and winter temperature}. And mostly about polar increases in average temperature {which doesn’t mean it doesn’t snow- Canada average temperature is
-3 C. And US has winter temperature of colder than -50 C {or as they say, too cold to snow}.
True serious global warming will cause the Sahara desert to green.
You are making a “straw man” argument, misrepresenting others’ beliefs then disproving a theory you’ve made up.
The key to the whole global warming debate is whether people accept that some emitted photons increase the temperature of what the hit and some don’t. If you accept that premise, you have to accept that ‘cold CO2’ emissions won’t warm the warmer earth’s surface. That’s not a straw man argument, it’s an acid test.
That is a mis-framed premise.
Radiative theory doesn’t talk about “all photons warming what they hit.”
That sort of technically true, in a way, but also not. If you think about the issue that way, it’s likely to lead you to incorrect conclusions about what radiative heat transfer theory predicts.
What radiative theory says is that “all photons transfer energy to what they are absorbed by, and the likelihood of being absorbed doesn’t depend (much) on the temperature of the object. Temperature is determined by the net balance of energy flowing into and out of an object.”
Your examples fail to account for the “net balance of energy flowing into and out of an object.”
You are presenting radiative theory as if it was about “photons increasing the temperature of an object.” It’s not. It’s about photons adding energy which will raise temperature if and only if the net balance of energy flows calls for the temperature to rise.
You are not relating to an accurate representation of the theory you are trying to assess.
Bob,
Are you then saying you don’t believe that all EM emissions increase the temperature of what they impact?
Or do you believe that all EM emissions increase the temperature of what they impact?
Just a question. Either one answer or the other applies. No “straw man” involved, unless you are building one to avoid being pinned down to something specific.
I believe that all EM radiation absorbed by an object adds to the internal energy of that object. EM emitted by an object decrease the internal energy of an object.
The temperature of an object is a measure of its internal energy.
So, in a sense, yes, all EM radiation absorbed by an object increases the temperature of the object—except insofar as other factors lead to cooling which offsets this temperature increase.
Temperature is never a function of just one radiation flow. It is always the net result of all radiation flows.
I see people consistently coming up with ridiculous examples that use the “absorption leads to heating” part of the statement while entirely ignoring the issue of “offsetting cooling.”
It’s the arguments that ignore offsetting cooling which are the “straw man” arguments.
(These sort of arguments sometimes also ignore “view factor“, which is a consideration in how objects at two different temperatures affect one another.)
Verbal arguments about temperatures of objects very easily go wrong. It’s useful to actually study the theory of radiant heat transfer.
You can only “debunk” the predictions of a theory if you know what the predictions of a theory are.
Bob,
I agree that temperatures are the result of flows of energy. Having said that, all bodies have a precise temperature at a specific moment in time. The experiment I described was to measure the immediate change in that precise temperature of a body when a second body was placed next to it with the same or a different temperature. The results of the experiment clearly show that sometimes the temperature of the first object immediately increases when a second object is placed next to it and sometimes it doesn’t. If you vary the temperatures of the second body, you find that the first body only increases in temperature when the second body has a higher temperature. That means that sometimes emissions raise temperature and sometimes they don’t.
This is a profound conclusion if you consider the earth’s surface to be the first body and cooler atmospheric CO2 to be the second body.
Bernard,
The problem with your experiments is that you are unrealistically looking at situations with only two objects.
Looking at situations with only two objects leads to false beliefs about how things work in general.
Situations with 3 or 4 objects would be far more relevant.
Consider the following two experiments:
Experiment Alpha:
Line up 3 objects: A, B, and D.
These objects are flat plates and the distance between them is much less than the size of the plates. The plates are inside a well-insulated container to eliminate outside influences.
A is at 300 K (and this temperature is kept fixed by a thermostat)
D is at 3 K (and this temperature is kept fixed by a thermostat)
B is between objects A and C, and is allowed to come to an equilibrium temperature.
I claim the equilibrium temperature of B will be 252 K.
Experiment Beta:
In the previous experiment, add another object C between objects B and D. (Object C completely blocks the path between objects B and D.)
Object C is at 228 K.
The temperature of object B is once again allowed to come to an equilibrium temperature.
I claim the equilibrium temperature of B will be 271 K.
Discussion:
In experiment Alpha, the temperature of B was 252 K.
Then, in experiment Beta, we added object C at temperature 228 K, and this led to object B having a temperature of 271 K.
Note that introducing an object colder than B (since 228 K < 252 K) led to the temperature of object B increasing.
This is because object B “seeing” object C at 228 K, instead of object D at 3 K, allowed object B to come to a higher equilibrium temperature.
This is what people mean when they say it is possible for a cold object (C) to make a warmer object (B) even warmer.
(In case you missed the connection, A is analogous to the Sun, B is analogous to the surface, C is analogous to the atmosphere, and D is analogous to space.)
Does this make any sense to you?
Bob,
I don’t know whether your experiments result in the temperatures you say. For the sake of argument, I happily accept that your calculations are correct. However, you have introduced the concept of equilibrium plus you have introduced objects with internal heat sources controlled by thermostats. That massively complicates what I see as a very simple experimental result. Namely that sometimes emissions cause the temperature of an object to immediately increase and sometimes they don’t. A simple, real world experiment demonstrates that. I would hazard a guess that the majority of WUWT readers don’t know that this is true.
In the real world, nothing is ever in equilibrium. Everything moves towards equilibrium but it is never achieved. I think it is more helpful to consider the universe to be made up of countless objects, each with an individual temperature at any one moment in time. Heat always flows ‘down-hill’ from warmer objects to cooler objects. This energy gradient includes every object in the universe. Now, go back to the simple experiment above … no cooler object can cause an immediate increase in temperature of a warmer object. In fact, only warmer objects can cause an immediate increase in the temperature of another object. I see no need to complicate matters by introducing internal heat sources, thermostats, equilibrium etc when none of those exist in the real world … everything is just objects with a temperature. By the way, everything is cooling down … unless it is temporarily warmed by a warmer object.
Best regards
My experiments make explicit something that is implicit in your experiments, which you are not noticing.
Your experiments all take place in a context where there is a certain ambient temperature. You would experience different results if the ambient temperature was different.
The extra objects (and thermostats) I add model that ambient context which you are including only implicitly.
As far as my introducing equilibrium, all the statements that you are disputing are statements about equilibrium. Some things are simpler when one talks about equilibrium than when one looks at transient conditions. However, I might be able to make my point without focusing on equilibrium…
You are failing to take the environment, the ambient conditions, into account.
I believe you are implicitly assuming the environment is at the same temperature as your object of interest.
What happens if it’s not?
Suppose that you (at 37℃) are in a warm room, and you go stand next to a stone wall that is at 20℃. You’ll feel cooler, right?
But, suppose the air in the room is cold, 0℃. Now, when you go stand next to that stone wall at 20℃, I maintain that you will actually feel slightly warmer.
The temperature impact of an object B on object A is not determined by the temperature of B relative to A. It is determined by the temperature of object B relative to the temperature of whatever object C that B blocks the view of.
If you put a 20℃ wall between you and a fire, you will feel cooler. If you put a 20℃ wall between you and an enormous block of ice, you will feel warmer.
You are focusing on the wrong temperature comparison.
Bob,
‘Ambient’ is really countless other objects with different temperatures. The only assumption I made about the ‘ambient’ temperature was that it was not warmer than the first object. If the ambient temperature was already higher than the first object then the first object’s temperature would already be increasing. Adding a new, warmer object would therefore accelerate that warming.
It’s easier and clearer to keep it simple. Assume that the first object is cooling. Then introduce the second object. The only way you can get an immediate rise in the first object’s temperature is if the second object is warmer.
So, as you requested, I have added assumptions about ambient temperature and the experiment’s results still hold true.
Best regards
That’s true, but isn’t “simpler” if that’s your goal.
I’m quite certain this is NOT the only assuming you are making about the ‘ambient’ temperature .
Please consider the case where the environment includes a very cold object, and the new object you introduce (which may be cooler or warmer than the first object, but is certainly warmer than the very cold object) is placed between the first object and the very cold object.
If you are making this assumption, then you are specifically refusing to consider an example would me most analogous to what people are talking about when they talk about the GHE.
That’s “clearer and simpler” only if you deliberately want to not understand what people mean when they talk about the GHE.
Bob,
You keep trying to introduce other people into our discussion and more complicated assumptions into the experiments. It’s not my job to try and understand ‘what people mean when they talk about the GHE’. My argument would be that if they don’t agree that some emissions raise temperature and some don’t, then ‘they’ would be wrong. It is a reproducible experiment with 100% guaranteed results. I would urge you to do the experiments and then try to explain the results. I would be very interested if you reach a different conclusion to mine … that some emissions increase temperature and some don’t.
Thanks for the discourse though. It has been an interesting discussion.
Best regards
I agree with the results of the experiments you offered, but I’m not particularly comfortable with the way you frame your conclusions about the meaning of those results.
* * *
If you want to apply your interpretation that “some emissions increase temperature and some don’t” to only this one situation with two isolated objects, then I find the conclusion trivial and uninteresting (and I am unsure why we are even talking about it).
But, if you want to apply that conclusion to any more complex situations, then I think that your way of framing your conclusions is almost certain to cause trouble and lead to false conclusions about those more complex situations.
That’s why I have repeatedly asked about more complex situations.
I guess I’ve assumed that you will want to apply your conclusions to more complicated situations. If not, I don’t really get why the experiments were of interest to you.
Best regards
I’ve just realized that your experiments omit the influence of the surrounding environment, and that that environment affects the results.
The only reason a cold object cools the object it is placed next to is because it is cooler than the environment.
If the cold object were warmer than the environment, and blocked the view of the environment, then adding the cold object would allow the other object to warm, or at last to cool less rapidly.
You’re coming to false conclusions as a result of not considering the larger context.
(My other comment with detailed experiments quantifies this.)
This is not a fully specified experiment but that’s understandable in a casual discussion. Let me make some assumptions about the unspecified conditions and you can correct me if you meant something else and it affects the results.
When you talk about putting an object on a table, and making the assumption we are not doing this in a vacuum, we are doing this in an ordinary room at typical room temperatures with the air in the table are both at typical room temperatures (less than 100 degrees)
You start by placing “a 100 degree object on a table”
In the absence of any unspecified flows of heat to the object, and in a room less than 100°, the object will immediately begin cooling.
You then state:
> “1) Place a 100 degree object on a table. Then, place a second 100 degree object next to it. Does the temperature of the first object immediately go up?”
I agree with you, that the temperature of the first object will not go up. However, it is true that the rate of cooling of the first object will slow down.
Next:
> “2) Now, conduct the second experiment. Place a 100 degree object on a table as before but this time place a second object next to it that has any temperature greater than 100 degrees. What immediately happens to the temperature of the first object? It goes up!!”
Not necessarily. Both objects will begin to cool, being in an environment surrounded by a cooler gas. There will be some net heat transfer from the second object to the first, but whether the first object heats up depends on whether the net heat transfer from the second object to the first is a higher magnitude than the rate of cooling in the absence of the second object.
Next:
> “3) Now, conduct the third experiment. Place a 100 degree object on a table as before but this time, place a second object next to it that has any temperature less than 100 degrees. What happens to the temperature of the first object? Nothing!!”
Not quite. Both objects will begin cooling immediately after being placed on the table. If the temperature of the second object is less than the first part higher than the ambient room temperature, the rate of cooling of the first object will slow down. The object won’t heat up but it will cool off slower than in the absence of the second object.
Stephen,
Thanks for the response. Yes, your increased detail of assumptions are all in line with my assumptions. Plus, you also introduce the extra element that all the objects are cooling to some degree or other. My intent was to measure the ‘immediate’ temperature change when the second object was placed next to the first object, rather than measure what happened to the rate of cooling. That is because the temperature increase from adding a warmer object is immediate, whereas adding an object at the same or lower temperature had no immediate temperature effect on the first object. Hence my statement that some emissions increase temperature and some don’t is still valid. I wasn’t trying to avoid talking about cooling, it’s just that it wasn’t necessary to make my point.
Best regards
Stephen, I have conducted all three experiments and the rate of change in cooling of the first higher temperature object is virtually immeasurable with another high temp object or a slightly cooler object.
Especially if you provide a small amount of air movement between them.
Because the air between does warm up and slow the cooling.
But is not detectable at all when a cold object is placed next to it and the cooling is very much faster
You are concluding that a photon bounces off another object without doing anything or that that photon disappears without doing anything. That’s just dumb. If you account for everything, the mofo went somewhere. We don’t allow bleep to just disappear or objects to have anti photon magic protection. I want the theory that explains disappearing photons. Maybe add a blackhole to experiment.
Ragnaar,
I have to admit that I have no idea why some photons increase temperature and some don’t. However, it is definitely a fact that can easily be demonstrated. I suspect it is something to do with the frequency of the emissions and that shorter wavelength emissions have more energy than longer wavelengths, but I don’t know what the mechanism is. I agree with you though that it is probably not due to magic … or a black hole!
Best regards
Actually, it’s due to the magic of mathematics and the way that radiant heat transfer works.
It turns out that photons are absorbed independent of relative temperatures, without needing to be “disappeared”, and the math always makes it “just work out.”
Bob,
The photons could be absorbed, reflected, pass right through or even trigger the immediate release of other photons – I have no idea.
Although I don’t know what the mechanism is, the results of the experiment are simple and irrefutable. Sometimes the photons increase temperature and sometimes they don’t. When the temperature of the second object is higher, they do. When the temperature of the second object is lower, they don’t.
Best regards
Conventional thermodynamics has a standard explanation that involves none of those things. It involves the photon always being absorbed and transferring its energy. And, it accurately predicts what happens, including in the sort of situations you are examining.
It’s not irrefutable. I refute it. I reject the idea that your statement is a well-formulated and meaningful premise. It seems to depend on a false mental model of how things work.
There are photons and there are temperature rises, but you are inappropriately under-specifying the system in a way that makes your statement imprecise and potentially misleading.
You’re talking about what the “photons do to temperature” when temperature is an emergent property of more factors in the system than just the photons you are focused on.
This is true only in the context of an isolated system with only two objects in it. That is a critical qualifier.
Forgetting that qualifier will lead you to make false inferences about what is likely to happen in more complex systems.
There is also this quote
“The energy transferred as heat in a given process changes the internal energy of each object with equal and opposite quantities. The sign of the heat amount indicates the direction of the transfer. For example, in a transmission from system A to system B, the negative sign indicates energy flowing in the reverse direction.”
Which is precisely what you get when you place the cold object on the left hand side of the heat transfer equation instead of the hot object.
How about writing clearly AC:
“The thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transferred in a given process changes the internal energy of each object with equal and opposite quantities.”
“The sign of the thermal energy amount indicates the direction of the transfer.”
“Which is precisely what you get when you place the cold object on the left hand side of the thermal energy transfer equation instead of the hot object.”
Trick, not my Statement, it is from a Science source on the web.
Yes, you are offering a valid description of what happens between two objects in a thermally isolated system.
What I worry about is the way that people often analyze simple two-object systems like this and then make incorrect false inferences about what “must” happen in more complicated systems.
I’m content with what you’re saying as long as you are not going to now jump to saying, “therefore adding an atmosphere which is cooler than the surface can’t increase the temperature of the surface.”
That would be a false inference, trying to transfer an analysis of a situation with only two thermodynamics objects to making inferences about a system with at least four thermodynamic elements.
Some simple questions from a non science educated…..
-Claim…. Adding more co2 ”traps” more energy leaving the surface – (it increases the density of the GHGs and reduces the ”window” or ”free passage” to space = increases back radiation) That’s what everyone is saying thereby slowing cooling. Right, got it.
-But if you increase the concentration of an energy trapping gas in a non-contained space, the density cannot remain the same. The molecules move further apart – This MUST occur given the gas law right?
-So now, how does the ”window” to space remain reduced?
-After reading this passage from Clyde on the other thread, I think it bares repeating for further comment….
”The other side of that coin is that an increasing proportion of polyatomic (radiative) molecules will more readily emit energy in the upper atmosphere (and their higher specific heat capacity will more efficiently transit energy surface-to-upper-atmosphere). This has the effect of attempting to make the lapse rate more vertical by transiting more energy to the upper atmosphere and thus make upper atmosphere temperature closer to surface temperature… except those same molecules radiatively cool the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it.
That’s partly why the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term and dramatic cooling (even as the troposphere experienced no statistically-significant temperature trend for ~2 decades), and since the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation), and since the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, the surface must cool with an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
-Sorry to all the believers, but proclaiming that the GHGE is a done deal is not cutting it with me as yet. (but of course that could be a failure of understanding on my part)
-For those of us not too mathematically inclined, text as above rather than equations has more resonance.
-Thanks to all for an interesting read..
If the atmosphere gets warmer, it will expand, and the “height” of the atmosphere will increase.
However, while the density at any one place will increase, the total number of GHG molecules above you, or the density per unit area (as opposed to volume) will remain unchanged. There will be just as many GHG molecules between the surface and space.
* * *
As to Clyde’s argument… Verbal arguments about the behavior of complicated systems are highly unreliable. One really needs to work through the math and see what it tells you.
Here’s another verbal argument, which like Clyde’s may be unreliable, but it leads to a different conclusion:
For what it’s worth.
Hot, high, and humid. Pilots know this. As the air gets thinner, what happens to the GHE? I mean really, really thin like on Mars? But in order to power that thin atmosphere, you need lots of energy, or else it’s not thin. The fact that the atmosphere exands is a feedback. And it’s not a postive one. Runaway global melting feedback is not like on Mars. A thin atmosphere is worthless. You can’t lift a plane or moderate temperatures.
Say the gases expands in one direction, towards the TOA. The gases have more volume. The trips between molucules become longer. It’s really complicated. I think that have these things called line by line transfer models.
Given that the speed of light is so fast, the time it takes light to travel between molecules is entirely negligible, as are changes in that trip time.
Yes, there are line transfer models. And, I don’t think that increasing distances between molecules has much effect on their results when one considers the atmosphere as a whole. The total number of molecules encountered matters much more than the distance between them.
” There will be just as many GHG molecules between the surface and space.”
Not to any given photon there won’t. If they are further apart they are less likely to intercept the photon.
I don’t agree with your analysis. And this is a type of analysis that physicists are used to doing.
It’s appropriate to speak in terms of molecules per square meter in a vertical column extending from the surface out to space.
That cannot change, no matter how much the atmosphere might heat or cool and expand or contract. That dimensions of the atmosphere can change only in the vertical direction, not in the horizontal direction.
So, if you’re looking upward, you will always see the same number of molecules per square meter, unless mass is added to or subtracted from the atmosphere as a whole.
And, it is that density on a per square meter basis that determines the probability of a photon being intercepted by a molecule on its way from the surface to space.
Assumes that increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 will drastically increase effective emission height, thus shifting the lapse rate (which is ‘anchored’ at TOA, that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation) such that the extra height results in higher temperature at the surface due to the lapse rate.
In reality, the change in effective emission height isn’t much.
Also discounts the eventuality where that effective emission height surmounts the tropopause, resulting in higher radiant exitance with increasing effective emission height, resulting in more cooling with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given that the effective emission height for CO2 is ~15-20 km now (based upon Brightness Temperature of CO2 emission), and given that the tropopause ranges from 17 km (equator) to 9 km (poles), I surmise that if we haven’t already reached that point, we’re very close to it.
The whole “Effective Radiation Level” narrative is a bit oversimplified, in that the “level at which the atmosphere becomes transparent” is strongly a function of wavelength, so there is not really any single altitude involved.
The ERL is an emergent, after-the-fact nominal radiation level that averages out many different radiative effects and doesn’t really correspond to “the” place where physically interesting things are happening.
Even CO₂ doesn’t remotely have a single “effective emission height.” The optical depth at the center of the 15 micron band and in the wings is vastly different, meaning that the “effective emission height” will also be very different, with the height being much lower in the wings of the emission lines than at the center.
I wonder, too, how much the “effective emission height” will change with respect to different parts of the emission band. I have a sense that the change will likely be larger in the wings that at the center, but I haven’t done any math to confirm that idea. (I think it’s consistent, though, with the idea that the absorptive effects are nonlinear with concentration. The increase may be more linear in the wings, and more nonlinear at the center.)
If the “effective emission height” is near the tropopause at the center, it would still be much lower in the wings.
And, if the central CO₂ “effective emission height” shifts into the current tropopause, I don’t think we can take for granted that the temperature profile at those altitudes couldn’t shift.
* * *
The ERL narrative is a nice intuitive story, but in practice I’d want to see results of modeling rather than relying heavily on intuition about what “should” happen.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“The whole “Effective Radiation Level” narrative is a bit oversimplified, in that the “level at which the atmosphere becomes transparent” is strongly a function of wavelength, so there is not really any single altitude involved.”
True. In fact, TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation) for some wavelengths is very near the surface.
That’s sort of the reason that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn’t have much effect upon the overall altitude at which the lapse rate begins having an effect upon surface temperature… because it only absorbs in relatively narrow spectral bands, so its contribution to the overall Effective Emission Height for all wavelengths is small.
The absorption shoulders of CO2 have a lower cross-section (the shoulders are off-resonance absorption due to collisional and Doppler broadening, which is why they absorb less than the center), so I would surmise that they would have less effect upon CO2’s Effective Emission Height than the center, which implies an even smaller effect upon the overall Effective Emission Height for all wavelengths.
Ok. As someone way out of my pay grade I’ll consider myself rebuked.
For the record I point out two things in mitigation:
And I remain uncertain of what Rud Ivstan defines the GHE to be. That would help me to decide whether I agree with his statement that “To summarize without any math, the GHE exists.”
And if it is not too much to ask may I enquire what Bob Wentworth proved? Is his definition of GHE the same as Rud Ivstan’s? As precisely as possible please because I think Bob Wentworth argued around in a circle and proved precisely zilch.
Here is something cut and pasted from one of John Tyndall’s books –
“The upper parts of the grass radiate their heat into regions of empty
space, which, consequently, send no heat back in return ; . . .”
Grass on the surface radiates directly to space!
As does everything else on the surface, with very, very, small amounts of radiation, at specific frequencies, intercepted by gases, aerosols, and suspended matter in the atmosphere, and almost instantaneously re-emitted, generally at lesser energies and hence lesser perceived temperatures.
No support for a GHE by Tyndall, just by readers with small attention spans, and poor compression of the written word.
–Here is something cut and pasted from one of John Tyndall’s books –
“The upper parts of the grass radiate their heat into regions of empty
space, which, consequently, send no heat back in return ; . . .”
Grass on the surface radiates directly to space!–
John not living in the Space Age, probably didn’t think space meant 100 km up.
But I am wildly guessing, empty space means away from most of the rest of the grass.
gbaikie,
No. You can read it yourself if you wish, but he meant space – the nominal vacuum which surrounds the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and all the rest.
19th century Irish dude who thought of about space, too.
The science is very clear there is a GHG effect and that almost all of it is from H2O and CO2, and that the net GHG warming effect is estimated to be between 26K~33K.
Logically, since H20 absorbs almost the entire LWIR spectrum and has an atmospheric concentration of around 30,000ppm, and CO2 primarily absorbs 15 micron LWIR and is at a paltry 415ppm atmospheric concentration, the vast majority of total GHG warming is from H20.
The CAGW hypothesis estimates CO2’s ECS is around 3C, which is logically absurd because there have already been 9.5 doublings of CO2 (1ppm~415ppm) so at ECS 3.0C, it would mean CO2 has generated 28.5C of total GHG warming (9.5 x 3C) and H2O’s GHG warming would be between -2.5C and 4.5C (26C-28.5C or 33C-28.5C), which makes absolutely no sense.
CO2’s ECS is estimated to be: 5.35watts/M^2*ln(560ppm/280ppm)*(.31 Stephan-Boltzmann constant)=1.2C gross GHG warming – negative feedback effects.
At maximum ECS=1.2C with no negative feedbacks, that would mean CO2 GHG warming has generated 11.4C of warming (1.2C x 9.5) and H20 has contributed 14.6C~21.6C (26C-11.4 or 33C-11.4C), which still seems CO2 net forcing is too high.
I think the negative cloud feedback is very strong at around 50% making CO2’s ECS 0.6C (1.2C x .5), which would mean CO2’s net GHG effect to date would 5.7C (0.6C x 9.5) and H20’s total warming to date would be 20.3C~27.3C (26C-5.7C or 33C-5.7C), which logically seems about right.
Regardless, the CAGW hypothesis is a complete scam as it assumes a runaway positive feedback loop, when the net cloud feedback effect is negative…
–The CAGW hypothesis estimates CO2’s ECS is around 3C, which is logically absurd because there have already been 9.5 doublings of CO2 (1ppm~415ppm) so at ECS 3.0C, it would mean CO2 has generated 28.5C of total GHG warming (9.5 x 3C) and H2O’s GHG warming would be between -2.5C and 4.5C (26C-28.5C or 33C-28.5C), which makes absolutely no sense.–
ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity ] is best to understand as poorly defined religious expression. But if you prefer, you can call it a wonk term.
{{ The noun wonk is an informal way of referring to an overly studious person. Wonk is as derogatory as words like “dweeb” or “geek,” and it implies someone who is boringly focused on work or school — like your physics major friend “the science wonk.” Extreme fans of politics are sometimes called policy wonks.}}
Anyhow, roughly it means the “warming effects” due or forced from an increase in CO2 levels. Or generally, it’s imagined CO2 causes increase in global water vapor- and it can take
“some amount of time” to do this.
“There are three main measures of climate sensitivity that scientists use. The first is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The Earth’s climate takes time to adjust to changes in CO2 concentration. For example, the extra heat trapped by a doubling of CO2 will take decades to disperse down through the deep ocean. ECS is the amount of warming that will occur once all these processes have reached equilibrium.”
Not many people understand what reached equilibrium, means. Most correctly, will say, equilibrium can never happen. I tend to say roughly it takes thousands of years if not too strict about it. Main thing is suppose to increase water vapor, and water vapor is thought to be passive. Or Co2 forces and water vapor is not suppose to force {or something like that}.
“The second is transient climate response (TCR). This is the amount of warming that might occur at the time when CO2 doubles, having increased gradually by 1% each year. TCR more closely matches the way the CO2 concentration has changed in the past. It differs from ECS because the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and oceans will not yet have reached equilibrium.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity
And:
“Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report, completed in 2014, gave a likely ECS range of 1.5C to 4.5C of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but a likely TCR of only 1C to 2.5C.”
“The science is very clear there is a GHG effect and that almost all of it is from H2O and CO2, and that the net GHG warming effect is estimated to be between 26K~33K.
Logically, since H20 absorbs almost the entire LWIR spectrum and has an atmospheric concentration of around 30,000ppm, and CO2 primarily absorbs 15 micron LWIR and is at a paltry 415ppm atmospheric concentration, the vast majority of total GHG warming is from H20.”
I think we can all agree that clouds (H2O) keep the surface warmer than if there were no clouds. A cloudy winter night is warmer than a cloudless winter night. The Greenhouse Effect on a small scale.
That only works at night.
It is directly opposite in the daytime when clouds block sunshine.
I point you to this chart on Climate for you on the affect of cloud cover.
Interesting Samurai. What is your definition of GHG effect?
Dave Fair wrote –
”To deny CO2’s warming capability in an attempt to rebut CliSciFi high ECSs is cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
Either Dave cannot express himself in plain English, or he is an idiot.
“Warming capability”? CO2 can raise the temperature of thermometers? As in “increasing global temperatures” and so on?
I’d like to see somebody do that. I’ll buy a CO2 heating device that doesn’t need any other source of heat. Presumably it will function indoors, at night, during cold spells, when it is cloudy, raining, or snowing.
Only joking. Dave Fair is delusional. CO2 has no “warming capability”.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (IPCC 1990, 1996) is defined as the change in global mean temperature, T2x, that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change F2x resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Approximately, there are 10^40 molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. If we start with 1 molecule, then double it to get 2 molecules, we have done 1 doubling. If we double that again, 2 doublings give 4 molecules, 3 doublings give 8 molecules and so on.
133 doublings give 1.09*10^40 molecules, mathematically. (This is simply 2^N, where N is number of doublings), so in concept, our atmosphere has had 133 doublings.
Roughly, the present range of ECS as offered by various authors is between some negative value and about 9 degrees C. For the sake of demonstration, let us take a ‘popular’ value of approximately 1 ⁰C. Each doubling then raises the temperature by 1 ⁰C.
Because there have been 133 doublings, we should have seen a temperature change of 133 degrees C. We appear to have NOT seen this change. How can this be explained? Several options exist.
1. The ECS is much smaller than 1 ⁰C. To match observations, ECS would need to be 1/100 of 1 ⁰C, or 0.01 ⁰C.
2. Maybe, it is incorrect in theory to start the doubling calculations as I have done, from 1 molecule. If so, what is the ‘correct’ point to start the doubling calculations, and WHY that point?
3. The effect of doubling does not follow a simple relation that each doubling produces the same temperature change. That is, the IPCC definition is incorrect, or lacks some caveat(s).
4. Possibly, the Earth system copes with any temperature changes from variations in CO2 concentration by compensating mechanisms that produce an effective ECS that is close to zero and not as high as 1 ⁰C.
5. More explanations – welcomed.
Geoff S
Geoff,
You wrote –
“More explanations – welcomed.”
Oh well. To paraphrase Mark Twain, maybe reports of the IPCC’s competence have been greatly exaggerated. Maybe they share a common fantasy, in which they actually know what they are talking about.The facts might indicate the opposite.
“Approximately, there are 10^40 molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. If we start with 1 molecule, then double it to get 2 molecules, we have done 1 doubling. If we double that again, 2 doublings give 4 molecules, 3 doublings give 8 molecules and so on.”
I think one have start with say 1 million per square km, so
510 million million molecules.
So that is 1 molecule per square meter or 1 molecule in 10 tons of air.
Though probably be more reasonable say 1 billion per square km
gbaikai,
What is your reasoning for starting at 1 million sq km? We are discussing the temperature change from a CO2 doubling. Geoff S
Geoff; the logarithmic relationship where each doubling contributes about the same amount of warming starts when the line center saturates. It occurs because the line shape is close to gaussian and each doubling is equivalent to convolving the gaussian with itself. Convolving a gaussian with itself yields a new gaussian with a wider spread ie: it absorbs over a larger range of wavelengths.
Spectroscopists use the term absorbance where 1 absorbance is a path length which absorb 90% of the incident radiation- at the wavelength corresponding to the line center. Double the column or double the concentration and the first half absorbs 90% while the second absorbs 90% of the remaining 10% so in total 99%. 3 absorbance = 99.9% absorbed and so on. At present the CO2 column is about 3000 abs. So depending on whether you define saturation as 1 absorbance or maybe 2 absorbance there are about 10-11 doublings above saturation not the 133 you refer to.
Thank you Michael H,
Yes, As a former spectroscopist, I am aware of that convention and its convenient outcome in allowing conventinal instruments to see just enough and not too much absorbance, but can you fault my logic?
Geoff S
Geoff; I am not exactly sure what logic you are referring to. If we assume 10 doublings from saturation and 3 watts/sqM per doubling that gives 30 watts/sqM total impact of CO2 which is about what is being claimed. But does that mean CO2 contributes 10C of warming? No I absolutely do not think so, any more than I think the Earth would be 33C colder if water vapour and CO2 were not GHG’s. As I keep mentioning over and over, the reduction in OLR is only one of the impacts of GHG’s.
The atmosphere acts as the working fluid of a heat engine converting thermal solar energy into mechanical energy (wind rain etc). Such a heat engine needs to conform to the principles discovered by Carnot in the late 18th century. Most specifically that there must be a hot junction where energy enters the working fluid and a cold junction where heat leaves the working fluid. The cold junction is at the tropopause (or lower stratosphere) and is created by GHG’s. Without GHG’s there is no cold junction and thus no heat engine. That means a completely saturated isothermal atmosphere. No convection, no evaporation, no rain, no wind, no clouds etc. Without evaporation and convection the conditions at noon on a clear day in in summer would be exactly the same as in a closed car for the same reasons. Here at 37S temperatures rise to well over 70C and kill people in minutes. GHG’s act to ameliorate temperatures raising minima and lowering maxima. So why wouldn’t a small increase simply ameliorate temperatures a bit more. After all, if they reduce the surface radiation to space that means the extra retained energy is coupled into the working fluid which improves the heat engine efficiency so more clouds (cooling – negative feedback) more rain, lower maxima and higher minima.
To me the most compelling evidence is the plot of OLR over time as published by NASA. If CAGW were true we should see OLR falling as CO2 rises (especially since the advocates claim Earth has a long time constant with significant locked in warming ie: temperature not in equilibrium). But in fact OLR is rising as Earth warms and rising at 3 watts/sqM/C which is the claimed thermal sensitivity of Earth. That means there is no discernible impact of rising CO2 on OLR which in my book disproves the theory.
Michael,
You seem to dismiss any energy effect from CO2 at concentrations below your your chosen start point. Why?
The logic to which I refer is the simple count of doublings as I expressed it. Do you agree that we have had about 133 doublings so far? Geoff S
Hi Geoff; yes I did more or less ignore any energy effect from CO2 below about 1 absorbance for the atmospheric column. The reason is that the absorption line starts off very narrow so that it intercepts very little energy. The impact of GHG’s really only starts to become significant after the central peak saturates. Not rigorously true of course but a not unreasonable approximation. Maybe it would be better to assume the total impact up to 1 abs would be again about 3 watts/sqM. In which case 3 watts/sqM/doubling plus 3 watts/sqM for the impact up to 1 abs.
No you cannot start doubling from 1 molecule, where in the atmosphere would that molecule be. Not only would its absorption line be really narrow it would also spatially absorb essentially nothing of the total emission from the millions of sq km comprising Earth’s surface – maybe over 1 square millimeter somewhere over the great australian desert? Until there are enough molecules of CO2 to uniformly blanket the Earth at least to a reasonable fraction of an absorbance unit there is no impact. I would contend that 10 doublings is a far more reasonable approximation.
“4. Possibly, the Earth system copes with any temperature changes from variations in CO2 concentration by compensating mechanisms that produce an effective ECS that is close to zero and not as high as 1 ⁰C.”
That’s the way I’m leaning. CO2 doesn’t look like the driving force at any time other than from 1979 to 1998, and that correlation seems to be a coincidence between a natural, cyclic temperature uptrend and the end of World War II, which led to the production of a lot of CO2 after that period. The three decade period of cooling that preceeded 1979, took place while CO2 was increasing all during that time.
But the temperature increases beginning around 1979 have stalled out since 1998, while CO2 concentrations have continued to climb, and recent temperatures are cooling substantially. CO2 seems to have little or no effect on the temperatures.
Yes, how does monotonic increases in CO2 create Step changes in temperature followed by platues or cooling?
It couldn’t possibly be the case that each doubling would have the same effect over the entire range you are considering. Doubling from 1 molecule to 2 in Earth’s atmosphere certainly would not be expected to raise the temperature by a degree.
I am quite certain the IPCC is not claiming that ALL doublings of CO₂ lead the to the same temperature change. I’m sure they are focused only on the value for doublings within a few doublings of the current atmospheric concentration. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
RUD;
There have been indeed a number of somewhat negative responses to Dr Wentworths’s article, mine included. The problem is Dr Wentworth looks at radiative loss in complete isolation from anything else and shows how the presence of GHG’s reduces the energy loss – ASSUMING NOTHING ELSE AT ALL CHANGES. He is right but this proviso makes the entire exercise pointless in any meaningful way. It leads him to claim that if there were no GHG’s the world would be around 30C colder and that is plain wrong! The reason is that while GHG’s do reduce energy loss to space they also have other direct effects which cannot be ignored. Just one example, as I tried to point out in my comments on his thread if there were no GHG’s there would be no clouds or atmospheric dust so Earth’s albedo would be far lower and Earth would absorbing closer to 340 watt/sqM not the current 234 watts/sqM. To point out in detail how GHG’s reduce energy loss while ignoring that they also reduce energy gain is hugely misleading and leads to wrong impressions.
As I tried to point out, no GHG’s would also mean no weather, no rain, no wind, no clouds, no convection etc (because GHG’s create the cold junction of the atmospheric heat engine). The implication would be that at latitude 37S where I am the noon summer temperature would not get occasionally to 40C as happens now but would routinely get to over 80C which would rapidly kill everyone.
On a very practical point, if one simply accepts Dr Wentworth’s analysis as a realistic picture of reality one would have to assume that as CO2 rises, Earth’s energy loss to space ie: Outgoing long wave radiation or OLR for short would be decreasing which is what would be driving the warming. Maybe if one assumed Earth as a whole had a very short thermal time constant one could claim Earth was always in thermal equilibrium in which case OLR would remain constant as the Earth warmed. However what the NASA data shows is that Earth’s energy loss to space is rising as Earth warms and is rising at about 3 watts/sqM/C which is exactly the thermal sensitivity claimed for Earth as a whole. That implies OLR is simply determined by Earth’s temperature and rising CO2 has no discernible impact. In fact Earth is not warming due to falling OLR but due to rising absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and that appears to be due to falling cloud cover. What causes the falling cloud cover is of course the “$64 question”
I do NOT claim that “It leads him to claim that if there were no GHG’s the world would be around 30C colder.”
I claim that, if you could remove the radiative effects of GHGs (and other materials) while holding albedo and emissivity constant, then the world would need to be at least 24℃ colder.
This is a thought experiment, not something could really do. It is NOT equivalent to “removing all GHGs”, as you correctly point out.
It’s not, rigorously, a statement about what would happen if one removed all GHGs (although it is often misinterpreted as that), but that doesn’t make it meaningless.
It answers an important question: “Do the LW radiative properties of materials in atmosphere play an important role in allowing the planet to achieve its current temperature?” The answer is an unequivocal “Yes.”
People keep insisting that it would be more meaningful to look at “What would really happen if you removed all the GHGs?”
That’s a useful and important question. But, it’s not the only useful and important question.
In scientific experiments, if you want to find out the importance of one variable, it is traditional to look for ways of isolating the effect of that one variable. You don’t go changing 15 different variables at the same time, and expect to get any clear result.
So, if you want to answer the question, “Are the radiative properties of GHGs important in setting the planet’s temperature?” then it is natural and useful to look at what would happen if you could change those radiative properties without changing anything else.
It turns out that (as my analysis showed), one can make some clear statements about what would happen if you could change the radiative properties of GHGs without changing the key factors of albedo and emissivity (though everything else is allowed to vary).
The answer to that question tells us that the radiative properties of GHGs play a really important role–all other things being equal.
It’s true that the question of what would happen if you removed GHGs (and not just the radiative properties, holding other radiative properties in the system fixed) is an important question, and possibly a more useful question than the question that was answered.
But, this is a vastly more difficult question to answer.
Answering the question that we easily could answer still offers some insights.
It tells us that, although albedo and emissivity might change if one removed GHGS, for any combination of albedo and emissivity that might emerge, we could still put some bounds on what could happen with and without the radiative properties of GHGS.
It remains useful information, even if it’s a subtler bit of information than what we would most like to know.
Yes. The commendable and most valuable thing about WUWT is that, unlike Ars or Real Climate or the egregious SkepticalScience, it carries posts that rebut the wilder fringes of skeptical opinion, and it permits pretty free debate about them.
On Ars for instance you regularly find people posting that civilization is going to be doomed unless… various idiotic things are done…. which will have no effect on global CO2 levels. Any views to the contrary are promptly voted down to invisibility and the posters banned in short order.
These last two posts on the GHG are obviously correct. Its real, it can be quantified. This is not where the problem is with climate alarmism.
The problem is with the passage from the GHG, which is a matter of physics, to the effect on the climate of the warming influence of GHG on the planet, which is a matter of engineering, so to speak.
I have previously compared it to the mileage you get from a gallon of gas. You cannot estimate this from the energy content of the gas. You have to know the specifics of the design of the vehicle, weight, wind resistance, losses due to heat, efficiency of transmission…
The question is not how much of a warming impulse a rise in CO2 has. We know the answer to that. The question is what that warming impulse does to the climate of the planet we are living on. And it depends how the planet works.
Take a much simpler example, you turn up the heat under a pan of water. Then you try to estimate how the temperature of the water will rise under the influence of that heat. But you cannot tell from the amount of heat you are applying. You have to take account of the way water behaves at this atmospheric pressure.
The planetary climate could respond to rises in CO2 by simple warming, by warming accelerated by feedbacks, by triggering a cyclical damping effect so there is little or no long term warming.
Absent any other changes a simple doubling of CO2 ppm will lead to a planetary warming of about 1C. The problem is that there will be other changes as a result of the application of this warming effect. If you are crazed alarmists you try and find reasons to think the end conclusion will be 4C+, and your propaganda will claim that the high number is ‘just physics’.
It isn’t, any more than the mileage our car gets in the first example is ‘just physics’. It happens in accordance with the laws of physics, like everything else, but how these laws work out in this instance and what end result the warming delivers is a matter of how the car or the planetary climate functions.
The rational and science based conclusion about human emissions, rises in CO2 ppm and global warming is that there is a warming effect from rising ppm, the GHG, but that it is not of a magnitude to cause any disastrous effects, because the reaction of the climate of this particular planet to it is not for this slight warming, or any other slight warming, to amplify it through feedback. Other planets differently constituted might respond differently, just like three or four different cars might get different mileages. But on the one we are living on, there is no grounds for alarm.
On the contrary, there seem to be dampening mechanisms which limit small warmings of this sort, however caused.
Michel,
You claim :Absent any other changes a simple doubling of CO2 ppm will lead to a planetary warming of about 1C.:
Did you not read what I wrote just above you here?
If you can answer my questions, I’d love to hear. Geoff S
Yes, I read it, but didn’t understand the argument properly. With the 1C figure I was just following the almost universally accepted account as I understand it.
Is maybe the thing wrong with your account that it doesn’t take account of the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the thing that will drive total heat absorption? And its total heat absorbed that will affect the climate. I am not sure I understand your argument well enough to know if this is a proper counterargument though.
Martin,
It is a proper counterargument. Think about it, read it again and if you must then give an opinion, or would you at least give the reasons why you formed that opinion?
Geoff S
“ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does)”
Unless the emitted photon has a free path to space then radiation too is just ‘moving heat around the atmosphere and go away to space’
The fact is convection, and particularly that which takes with it water vapour, moves huge amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere, where at least it is closer to space. It takes 5.5 times as much energy to evaporate water as take it from 0 C to 100 C, evaporation, convection, and clouds/rain move a staggering amount of heat.
“to even the very old gravitational density heating canard”
Yet there is a lapse rate….
Thank you.
Thank you Rud,
Thank you Bob,
and the other voices of reason.
“The surprisingly controversial post’s conclusion is also easily personally verified by simple observation. Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not.”
.
A few comments.
There is still life in being a skeptic.
The science is not settled.
CO2 is a GHG.
An increase in its concentration in the atmosphere will lead to some degree of warming.
Feedbacks have not been proven to anyone’s satisfaction.
–
Taking a strong position on warming leads to shutting one’s mind to inconvenient facts, shouting down the opposition and taking a cargo cultist approach to science.
Basically if one can disprove the GHG theory, the feedback theory, the measurements theory then magically global warming, as a theory, will be wrong.
–
I see a lot of otherwise good scientists on both sides foam at the mouth and strain logic and commonsense in their efforts to denigrate their opponents and their opponents arguments.
–
Good arguments do not win discussions, but they help.
Bad arguments with good motives may win discussions but do not help.
One way or another time will sort it out.
The side with the best case does not always win.
–
In times like these I like to listen to the arguments of the more sensible people with open minds.
Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Rud Istvan.
People who wish to disagree with them and their views have to put up some pretty good arguments and I do not see any yet.
–
So come on. Put up a few sensible arguments.
To summarize without any math, the GHE exists. It experimentally must, and easily provably does. The GHE issues are how much when (ECS), not if. Any ‘skeptical’ arguments to the contrary are fairly easily rebutted, as done here.
Thankyou! about time we started the debate from a point of the settled physics!
“Fine IR scale matters.”
Generically, narrow structures widen as the concentration (or energy levels) increase. I would be surprised if the environmental measurements of LW radiation can see this. Is my definition of “Fine”, 4 wavenumber resolution and lower, off for climate studies?
Rud – there may be a problem with what people understand when the words “greenhouse effect” are used. Seems some people interpret it as being totally or largely on the amount of CO2 in the air, and others look at it as a result of the combined CO2 and H2O in the air. It seems pretty intuitive that if you impede the outgoing radiation from the ground then the ground will reach equilibrium at a higher temperature than if there was not such an impedance (no greenhouse (or more precisely absorptive/radiative at the relevant temperatures) gases in the atmosphere).
Thus there seems little reason to doubt that our world is going to be warmer with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than it would be if they weren’t there.
However, we receive solar radiation which adds energy to the system, and the only way the Earth can lose energy is also by radiation. AFAIK the water vapour in the atmosphere largely stays in the troposphere, and thus the main radiation must come from the non-condensing radiative gases in the stratosphere. There’s also the “window to space” at around 10 micron wavelength where radiation from the ground level passes through the entire atmosphere with little absorption, and recently there have been a few products (metamaterials) that utilise that window and provide passive cooling of up to 10°C relative to normal surfaces. The point here is that the wavelength is critical and that a lot of diagrams of “heat flows” showing the greenhouse effect are over-simplified to the point of being just wrong.
Your first diagram in the article is pretty important. Solar radiation coming in at 5780K or so – though again that’s a bit variable so we’re looking at an average, and as the UV intensity changes where the energy is absorbed will change. Outgoing radiation at 255K – and again that’s averaged, and even that 255K is an average of the air temperature at somewhere around 1.2m above ground rather than the radiation from the ground itself which will normally be a different temperature than the air above it.
“GHG are saturated, so can have not have any further effect. This misunderstands saturation, since it depends on the effective radiative level (ERL). As CO2 increases, the ERL rises unconstrained, since CO2 is unaffected by the lapse rate, while H2O is and so decreases.”
for temperature versus height. I don’t however know what the ERL actually is. Thus figuring out whether an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the air temperature at 1.2m above ground level from first principles is a bit difficult – I expect there will be an effect but the question is exactly how much.
Yep, the ERL will rise with increased CO2, and will thus have an increased area and will radiate more energy – but of course as the ERL goes up then the temperature will also vary. See
Then there’s Greg Wrightstone’s “fact checking the fact checkers” post. An important plot here is
?ssl=1 . OK, there are problems in defining “average global temperature” since what we normally measure is the air temperature at between a metre or two above ground, and it’s normally measured where people live, and the changes in weather-station locations over time as well as changes in the sensors used and the time of day of the observations means that we’re not comparing apples with apples, but let’s sweep those problems under the carpet for a bit and just accept that Greg’s plots are near-enough accurate to use. The implication is that we can’t see any definite CO2 signal there. Another important article here is https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/ where Willis plots the temperature versus CO2 concentration over 67 million years. Sorry, but I’m also one of the “Willis groupies” here since he works things from first principles and analyses the data rather than changing it to suit his theories. Again, in that plot we can’t see any effect of CO2 on temperature. Another important article from Willis is https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/20/the-1-5c-hysteria/ which points out the lack of connection between the CO2 levels and temperature changes, and underlines the stuff that isn’t explained by the GHG theory.
Thus on the short-term we’re not seeing any major effect of CO2 on ground-level air temperatures, and also we’re not seeing any effect long-term. We should thus question our intuitive deduction that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the temperatures we measure. The data implies that if it happens then it’s minimal and probably below the threshold of measurement.
For me, the net result is that though the “downwelling LWIR” obviously exists, and we can measure it, and it means that our world is (pleasantly) warmer than it would be without it, I’m not seeing any major change in that that depends on the change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There must be some change, but it is maybe compensated by something else such that the net result is too small to be certain of.
“to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down).”
This sentence caused me to reconsider that theory. The point here is that the cycling of air rising and falling in the troposphere is still going on today, and thus the energy from the ground is conducted into air at ground level reducing density as it warms, together with water vapour reducing the density until it’s risen far enough to cool enough to condense out into clouds, but the radiation is largely impeded by being absorbed/re-radiated thus having a long random walk before it finally escapes. Thus the convection in the troposphere is the main energy transport from the ground to the top of the troposphere (air is continually being pressurised and de-pressurised as it falls and rises), and above that the energy is largely transferred by radiation until it reaches the ERL and finally leaves the atmosphere. We thus have the two mechanisms for the radiative loss – from the ground directly to space via the 10-micron “window”, and from the ERL to space with the radiative lines (broadened by temperature/pressure) of CO2 and maybe a bit from H2O. It thus makes sense that the ground-level temperature will depend to some extent (maybe even a large extent) on the temperature at the top of the troposphere and the lapse rate from that level down to ground. My main observation here is that unlike a bicycle tyre that you pump the air in and then it cools down again, here the pressurisation is constantly being performed by the convection in the troposphere. Descending air will warm up as it gets pressurised, and so the equilibrium temperature at the top of the troposphere (where the only energy loss will be by radiation) is important.
I thus think that “that old canard” shouldn’t be rejected. It’s not the whole answer, since the 10-micron ground radiation is also important, but it should be part of the answer. The only way we can lose energy is by radiation, and the CO2 radiation is from the ERL and not ground-level.
The bottom-line question is “what will we measure as a change in temperature if we had double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere”. If we look at the measured temperatures and those inferred from proxies, and we compare that against the measured CO2 in the air and those inferred from ice-cores, stomata sizes in fossils, and other methods, it seems that the answer is “bugger-all”.
Thus the data tells us that both transient climate sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity are around zero. Sure, there are correlations if we choose our dates carefully, and we can propose a TCS and ECS that will fit the data over that range, but we need to consider all the data.
We can’t explain the historical temperature changes by how much CO2 was in the air at the time. There’s however bound to be a change in CO2 concentration in the air as a result of temperature changes in the ocean, since most of the free CO2 (around 98%) is dissolved in the ocean and the solubility is very temperature-sensitive, though untangling the effects of ocean currents will be difficult since some of them are of the order of 1000 years long, and where water is cold (thus can absorb more CO2) it’s going to subsequently sink and it may be a long time before that water again reaches the surface in somewhere warmer and releases some of its absorbed CO2.
When we can explain all the previous climatic conditions, such as warmer and cooler periods, glaciations and de-glaciations, etc., then maybe we’ll have more confidence that the predictions for the future have a better chance of being right. It seems to me we’re nowhere near that level of ability yet.
I am glad you raised UV, because although there is little change in TOA, there is a much larger change in UV which needs to be taken in to account along with Cloud Cover.
ACO – yep, the spectral change does make a difference where more energy is dumped (surface or deeper). On the other hand I haven’t seen any obvious hints of an 11 or 22-year cycle in temperatures, so maybe the net effect ends up around zero. Thus it’s maybe something that ought to make an effect but doesn’t in practice.
The problem I have with the GHE is that it’s stated that more CO2 => bigger effect, and I can’t see that in the data. I’ve no problem with the existence of the effect itself, since it’s obviously going to be there and we can also measure the downwelling LWIR. However, I don’t see a change in it in the actual historical temperature data that shows it happening, given that most anthropogenic CO2 was emitted after around 1950 and the warming out of the LIA started over 100 years before that. Thus though it seems that the GHE should have increased, in practice it seems it hasn’t.
For the “gravitational” explanation, initially I rejected that for the same reason Rud did – it got compressed a very long time ago. However, the cycling of atmosphere between ground and the top of the troposphere is always happening, so it’s being pumped like a cycle tyre now, and thus it’s the ERL (a sort of average height where the radiation to space effectively occurs from) that gains some importance. I don’t however know what the ERL is for other planets (or the Earth) so all I’m noting there is that the idea shouldn’t be rejected. It needs more discussions, and it should be possible to observe the ERL if we have the right spectral response in the telescopes. Thus we should be able to get the experimental evidence to support the proposal.
Overall, though, just looking at the history we know, a few degrees warmer isn’t going to hurt us – there’s a reason the historians call such times Climate Optimums. It does however look likely that it’s going to get somewhat colder, though precisely when remains unknown. In history those colder times haven’t been good times to live. Thus the AGW scare means we’re preparing for the wrong eventuality, and at the same time reducing our ability to cope with it. Not exactly clever….
Simon, I agree with just about all of that.
The proble with UV is that it could be going in to deep ocean where we do not have any real idea of any time lags involved.
For instance it could be the source for the energy for El Ninos.
“there are problems in defining “average global temperature” since what we normally measure is the air temperature at between a metre or two above ground, “
That is because human want to know the air temperature.
Global average surface temperature {not global average surface air temperature}
Is the average temperature of the Ocean, which about 3.5 C.
If we were fish, we would have right average global surface temperature.
Or global temperature has always been known to long term average temperature.
The average ocean is a long term temperature. And ocean has 1000 times more heat per K
of temperature. Ocean average temperature is global climate temperature.
And as some have said the warming deep ocean water is more than 90% of warming which occurred in last 50 years {because only starting measuring accurately, it recently]
What doing by measuring surface air temperature, is trying to measure the ocean, or it’s assumed if air stay warm enough and long enough it will warm the ocean.
It’s like looking for your keys under the street light, cause that where the light is.
If you’re going to shoot down the atmosphere compression idea, at least you could explain why on Earth and Venus, at the altitude where the pressure is half the surface level (ie half the mass of the atmosphere is below that height and half above), the temperature is the expected black body temp? It seems like the atmosphere is acting like a black body, to the extent it is averaging out the energy absorbed according to mass, and there is more mass closer to the surface than above, according to the temperature gradient. No pump needed.
Good one 99. Can you supply figures or a reference? Venus is a real fly in the GHE’s ointment.
I just looked up the temperature vs altitude curve for Earth and for Venus, matched that with the pressures at surface and altitude, from NASA mostly.
Wiki:
0 meter “sea level” 462 C 92.10 atm
10 km 385 C 47.39 atm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
And 92.1 atm / 2 = 46.05 atm
Or roughly 1/2 the mass of Venus is around 10 km or less above this zero elevation.
Though one might argue about how or why sea level is used or determined.
But it would less then 10,000 above this “sea level” elevation- or this averaged elevation of the rocky surface of Venus.
How is number somewhere around 385 C “the expected black body temp”
As compared 462 C at the mean average elevation of 0 meter not being “the expected black body temp”.
As far as earth goes it is commonly said 5.3 km elevation has 1/2 atmospheric mass below it {or 1/2 mass above it].
And just plug in average numbers, you could times 5.3 by lapse of 6.5 C =
34.45 C
So average global surface air temperature:
Land: 10 C and Ocean: 17 C and average global 15 C
15 – 34.45 = -19.45 C
The minus 19 C is close to cargo cult number of blackbody minus the reflected sunlight. Or Earth roughly radiates about 240 watts. minus 19 C or 254 K temperature of blackbody in vacuum of space emits 236 watts per square meter.
Now the cargo cult imagine at around 1/2 atm is where earth cools, are we suppose to follow the same foolishness and assume at 1/2 atm of Venus is somewhere that Venus cools.
I happen to think Earth land and ocean surface is where it cools, and with Venus it cools at it’s cloudy surface. And if Earth was completely covered with thick clouds, and no warmth of sunlight reach the Earth’s surface, then also likewise I would count the only warmed surface {these earth clouds} as where it cools to space.
[unless I didn’t think the sun was large factor warming the planet surface- for instance the gas giants temperature is not due to them being warmed from the sun- it’s all about their internal heat.
Thanks gbaike. My numbers didn’t come to the blackbody at the atmospheric midpoint either. But it’s clear that at Venutian 1atm altitude, solar proximity explains the temperature perfectly, frankly nullifying the back radiation theory all by itself.
If you want to disregard evidence from our closest neighbour with an atmosphere, this phenomenon has to be explained first.
Venus rocky surface is dim and not heated by direct sunlight at rocky surface. Earth is somewhat dim at it’s surface, but is heated at it’s surface.
Venus heated surface is the clouds which are high elevation.
Is that really true for Venus? That seems very unlikely to me.
And, when you say “black body temp”, I hope you’re not treating Venus as an absorptive black body, ignoring the fact that it reflects 75 percent of incident radiation? Because anything that ignores that is clear nonsense, from a physics perspective. Anything based on ignoring how much energy is absorbed would amount to fishing for coincidences.
reflective is about amount of energy absorbed, and not really anything about temperature. Or reflecting surface can [and usually are} hotter in vacuum than blackbody surface, but blackbody surface absorbs the most {and of course emits the
most in a vacuum.
Venus reflects a lot because of it’s acid clouds [droplets of concentrated acid}. But also reflect a fair amount even if the atmosphere didn’t any clouds.
Any significant atmosphere even though it reflects sunlight should increase average temperature of a planet {or any spherical body].
But I argue that with large atmosphere of Venus, Venus at earth distance should be colder than Earth. This because Venus is warmed with twice as much sunlight at it’s distance, and this sunlight can warm the acid clouds, whereas at Earth distance the sunlight is not strong enough to warm the acid clouds {by very much}. Or Venus clouds do not absorb much sunlight, but can absorb enough with intense sunlight.
So at Earth distance Venus would have “runaway cooling” and all atmosphere and less bright sunlight, the rocky surface would a lot dimmer than it currently is.
The only alternative view is Venus has a source internal heat, due to volcanic heat or impactor heat. But they say that on Venus the acid is a greenhouse gas- and I say it would not be a “greenhouse gas” at Earth distance.
Venus absorbs less sunlight than Earth. Despite being closer to the Sun, it reflects most of the sunlight that is incident on it.
Only the absorbed sunlight counts, with regard to temperature.
I don’t see what point you are trying to make, in speculating about what the temperature of Venus would be if it were in the orbit of Earth.
“Venus absorbs less sunlight than Earth. Despite being closer to the Sun, it reflects most of the sunlight that is incident on it.”
Yes and Venus emits less energy than Earth
“Only the absorbed sunlight counts, with regard to temperature.”
It’s terms of effective temperature or planetary equilibrium temperature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
“I don’t see what point you are trying to make, in speculating about what the temperature of Venus would be if it were in the orbit of Earth.”
A theory such as greenhouse effect theory should be able to predict this. My point is to indicate what “my theory” or what I understand about any theory would predict.
What does anyone else predict would happen if Venus received 1/2 as sunlight as it currently does?
I also would predict if Earth would get twice as much sunlight it would result [within millions of years] in Earth being like Venus. Earth at Venus distance would could “habitable”- though certainly hotter. And things our roads would melt- they already can, but I mean one have make concrete roads.
“…it would result [within millions of years]..” I meant:
it would *not* result [within millions of years] in Earth being like Venus.
Though that is not surprising.
But oceans nor muddle puddles would boil. {maybe that might surprising]. And would take hundreds thousands of year for earth ocean to get close to equilibrium temperature. And no runaway effect of type CAGW end of world hysteria. But certainly quite few problems with twice as much sunlight.
And solar energy with twice as much sun, still would not work [not be viable way to get electrical energy].
Plus these problems of twice as much sunlight could be cheaply solved {for less than 1 trillion dollars- or, far less than already wasted not solving “global warming”.
{money thrown away pretending any government can solve a problem- and not problem because we are living in a Ice Age- or 10 degree below Earth’s “normal temperature”.}
What would be the temperature of the surface if it were a perfect IR mirror for temperatures less than 50 C? If you can’t answer that question then you will likely not be able to figure out anything about the greenhouse effect.
Your answer can be anything you want after you introduce a singularity in a “perfect IR mirror” that doesn’t exist. No one can prove you wrong…or right.
It’s a thought experiment.
This would appear to be an incoherent question, with the inclusion of “for temperatures less than 50 C”. I don’t know what that constraint is supposed to mean. Do you mean for wavelengths longer than some particular wavelength?
Bob, it was meant to limit the reflection to IR radiated by GHGs. Did not want anyone including solar generated IR. Maybe that’s what I should have said. The result would be the same amount of solar energy absorbed by the surface but no GHG produced IR absorbed by the surface.
Rud,
Good post as usual. The graphic you provided on intensity of Earth emissions shows a large region at maximum intensity around 9-10 microns that is quite a window of relatively free emission to space and covers a large area under the curve. Also there is another large range/region at wave lengths greater than CO2 that is emitted by H2O. Seems C02 has a relatively small niche.
My question is: Is the particular wavelength dependent upon temperature at the point of reemission at altitude that would be at a lower temperature regarding either C02 or H20? I’m focused on properties of cloud tops where the LW emission is coming from liquid water or ice.
I’ve been waiting for a long time to resolve this in my mind and thought this past week would offer an opportunity but the threads are going to 400 – 800 comments.
It (radiation) has generated a lot of interest and discussion. It’s a hot topic for sure.
For the earth to absorb radiant energy from the sun, it has to be cooler on the surface than the sun is (even a degree), as heat flux finds its way to the least resistance energy sink, as energy migrates from the hotter to cooler surfaces in the universe.
In a vacuum, two identical surface temperature spheres (suns, moons, planets) within a non – destructive distance from each other will not absorb each other’s energy (rotation rates neglected). Neither would loose or gain energy from the other, although any other cooler surfaced bodies in the region (for lack of a better term) would gain heat until their surface temperatures became = to them. In the end, all would be = in temperature (max entropy).
As the sun’s fractional luminance at our distance (1/(4xpiixR^2)) warms the earth’s surface, the warmer the earth’s surface gets, the less energy (heat flux) is transferred per unit time, within the confines of the particular area of the imaginary sphere around the sun at our 93e6 mi from it.
When the earth’s surface temperature increases, either from GHE, something else striking it, or a fractionally higher rate of incoming solar irradiance from a higher surface temperature sun, the temperature difference between it and the sun’s surface, that controls all energy transfer (heat flux) flow rates, reduces immediately.
A new point is continually reached (time lag) where the outflowing radiation rate (i.e. dark side) increased (higher earth surface temp) and then in time == the new incoming radiation rate (daylight side), which had decreased (less surface temp differential). A new stability continually is reached (time lag).
When additional GHE from the C02 molecules raises total incoming radiation (as a separate fractional amount proportional to the original outgoing radiation from surface, and was immediately reflected back to the earth (many loops in circular continual fashion), the new incoming heat flow source does not add to what was incoming from the sun, it replaced that fraction of it.
If it had freely (without resistance) added to the flux incoming from the sun in this ‘radiation’ circuit, then the earth’s surface would have no upper bound, as even radiation energy on the dark side of the earth would be partially reflected back. In all cases, more energy is coming in than is being released to space. Essentially an OPAMP with positive feed-back. In microseconds, an OPAMP’s output will hit the rail supply voltage with positive feed back, and these make fast and robust latch circuits.
Rud, here is something you might find interesting.
Using Bob Wentworth‘s formula for average temperature:
⟨T⟩ = (1/S)(1/D) ∫∫ T dS dt
With time = 1 second, and surface = 1/2 (earth divided into 2 regions, 1 hot and 1 cold) and using Bob.s number for SW and LW radiation, I asked how much the temperature could vary without any change in SW or LW radiation.
Due to the 4th power relationship, it appears that for an average input power of 398.7 w/m2, the earth’s average temperature can vary from 16C to -100C, depending upon the efficiency of heat transfer from hot to cold regions
240.4 w/m2 sw
158.3 w/m2 lw
==========
398.7 w/m2 total
earth max
cold = 289.578k
hot = 289.578k
avg = 289.578k = 16.428C
avg radiation = 398.7 w/m2
earth min
cold = 0k
hot = 344.368K
avg = 172.184k = -100.966C
avg radiation = 398.7 w/m2
This is how the atmosphere is observed unlike a climate model based on sunlit flat earth.
162 w/m2 sw
339 w/m2 lw
==========
501 w/m2 total
earth max
cold = 278.4k
hot = 278.4k
avg = 278.4k = 5.4C
avg radiation = 339 w/m2
earth min
cold = 0k
hot = 380K
avg = 190k = -83C
avg radiation = 339 w/m2
earth’s average temperature can vary from 16C to -100C, depending upon the efficiency of heat transfer from hot to cold regions
===========
some further thoughts.
What the numbers above show is that a great deal of earth’s average surface temperature is due to heat flows and have nothing to do with GHG.
Wrong.
The opening unproven premise for the “Mathematical Proof of the Greenhouse Effect”, in spite of your bias is:
An open and shut red herring. Throw out an opinion, pretend it is fact and then write based on the opinion.
Where LW radiation is allegedly proven to originate from certain atmospheric molecules.
Except, there is no way to determine the source!
Whether the radiating source is a surface molecule, CO₂, H₂O, CH₄, CO, dust, soot, SO₂ or whatever. There are a multitude of sources for LW radiation.
Outgoing radiation is impossible to identify the source solely based upon the frequency.
Instead that graph presumes to assign LW radiation ‘intensity’ based on a hidden standard, especially since none of the imaged sources are surface molecules, land or water or airborne particles.
Including the assumption that ‘intensity’ equitably divides all of the outgoing LW radiation between only two molecules.
Nor does that graphic take into consideration that CO₂ is a heavy atmospheric molecule and less abundant higher in the atmosphere.
Making any satellite radiation assignments to individual atmospheric molecules impossible.
Satellites measure outgoing radiation well above the atmosphere, far above where CO₂ occurs in any concentration.
Again, First prove that there are many “climate change skeptics who are certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real”!!
Until then, the whole exercise is found many places across the internet, all with the same assumptions and bias.
I find that response puzzling.
I didn’t claim that all or most climate change skeptics are certain that the GHE isn’t real. So, why should I prove that there are many “climate change skeptics who are certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real”? That isn’t a claim that I made.
I only claimed that some have that position. And some do. People who post on this site who I have interacted with in the last few weeks have explicitly told me that “the GHE isn’t real.” I’ve heard such claims from many more skeptics on other websites. And, I felt shocked by it.
I wanted to address the issue of the folks who have that position.
What in the world is wrong with addressing the position of some folks who might well be a small minority???
Why would it be incumbent on me to determine the size of that group?
Frequently, there are posts that address a particular theory, often a theory that is believed only by a minority.
Why was there a different standard for this particular post?
You have learned things backwards. Atmosphere (33°C) heats cold earth (-18°C) not cold atmosphere -75°C cools sun 90°C (15°C). This why your confused.
The false assumption is just because certain gases are radiative active doesn’t mean they are the only source of LW. Visible light is lower than 4µm (441w/1kw) Utra violet light is 32 at 10µm. Solar infrared is above 4µm. GHE is the assumption that radiative gases slow cooling when actually they increase cooling so earth isn’t 120°C (temperature of the sun on earth). They are cold gases that solar radiation interacts with on entry cooling by time it reaches earth. Convection slows or speeds heating further due to cold and warm transported air masses.
Convection, coupled with the rotation and tilt of the earth’s axis transfers energy from the hot side of the earth to the cold side. This reduces the temperature differential between the hot and cold side of the earth.
Under completely standard GHG theory, due to the 4th power S-B Law, this decreases average outgoing radiation and will force the earth to warm, increasing the average temperature. Thus, the argument that convection cannot change average temperatures is in error.
As shown in my previous post, heat transfer at the extreme can change the earth’s temperature by more than 100C without any change in GHG (assume emissivity 1). Reference:
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator – Free online Calculator (byjus.com)
You have horizontal cooling with had-mid- polar cells and you have vertical cooling. Sun 120°C hitting TOA (-80°C) 70% of 40°C = 28°C(had). 90°C hitting TOA (-65°C) 70% of 25°C(mid) 17.5°C. (polar cell ) 17.5°C hitting -50°C -32.5°C (winter) or 51°C hitting -50°C = 1°C (summer). Cooling happens faster above clouds despite long sunlight hrs. Radiative transfer doesn’t effect temperature above surface or clouds. Air conducts heat from objects heated by radiative transfer. Vertical cooling is (reduced pressure and expansion of air). -6.5*11=-71°C below 6.5°C stopping at -64.5°C.
1 + 2 (mod 1) = 1.
Failed again.
Cheers.
Ref. https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
“There are only two even semi-rational (but still erroneous) arguments why the CO2 GHE might not exist despite Tyndall’s experimental GHG evidence”
Tyndall showed evidence that GHGs absorb heat. What he didn´t show is that GHGs can warm anything. Nothing in his experiments is evidence that cold GHGs can warm a hot body.
GHE=The hypothesis that gases at -18C warms a hotter body to 14C. It has never been proven in any experiments.
Body isn’t 14°C unless flat. Radiative gases at -75°C receives 91°C of solar energy heating body to 14°C. Equator radiative gases -80°C receives 106°C solar energy heating surface 27°C. Mass air 5.5 x 10^21 grams at 0.287/g has 70°C per 10,780kg column air.
Global mean temperature in the months of April- May was 5-8.5°C (338-357 watts per meter square) 10.03-10.31µm. At the tropopause the global mean was -65°C (106 watts) 13.93µm the insulation is 70°C 235 watts. That insulation is air not trace gas water vapor and carbon dioxide. (0.3 J x 3.5kg=1.05) x 70. (60% of 120°C sun). Moist air is cooler than dry air. Air cools the sea when air is below 273 watts. Water cools by 20% and convection cools the earth by 50% of the total solar input 1kw sunlight(at zenith).CO2 absorbs in the 106 watts. 668*0.08w/cm-1 53w. So there is no greenhouse effect at all.
The back radiation greenhouse effect phantasm of colder air warming the warmer ground warming the ground by some 30 degrees has been mathematically concocted in order to justify the very high CO2 climate sensitivity in the climate models which in reality it doesn’t have. It is purely a product of imagination.
The back radiation is measure of insulative properties of the atmosphere [though it’s incorrect}. The ground on earth can heat to 80 C if convection heat loss is blocked.
A solar pond {can not be affected at all by back radiation} can get to temperature of 80 C
in the water in pond which has about 1/2 meter of cooler water above it {cooler water is salt gradient which blocks convection heat loss of the 80 C Water below it. So surface water could be around 30 C and 1/2 meter below is water which 80 C {which is heated by sunlight and will stay around 80 C even in night time].
Or just a insulated box with window on top that lets in sunlight but slows convection {though insulated box doesn’t does keep hot, like solar pond does}.
To be clear back radiation is long wave IR, and long wave IR radiation does not go thru any amount of water.
But if the earth stays warm at night, then next day it warm to higher temperature, as compared to if a surface start the day cold.
Or back radiation is a way to express equilibrium temperature.
Normally a ground if one has 1000 watts sunlight will heat to about 60 C, and not be able to get hotter because air not warm enough, loses more convectional heat due the larger the difference between heat ground and air above it.
Rud Istvan
Home2021June6A WUWT “Comment Rebuke”
ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS
A WUWT “Comment Rebuke”
2 days ago Guest Blogger 507 Comments
Guest post by Rud Istvan
A few days ago, I posted another Lindzen Bode ECS reconciliation. It should have been controversial, stimulating many comments because of the divergence to higher climate models and also to Monckton’s often here posted much lower estimates. It was only mildly so, most about my penetration f/(1-f) versus Bode 1/(1-f) one phrase in one sentence goof, which did not affect the post’s conclusions since it only used Lindzen’s correct curve posted here decade ago.
Recently, Dr. Wentworth posted a ‘mathematical proof ‘ that the GHE must exist, even though misnamed (because real greenhouses retard local convective cooling, while greenhouse gases retard radiative cooling to space). This misnomer is no different than the equivalent ocean acidification misnomer we are also forced to live with in popular discourse. Warmunists long ago picked their definitional terms of debate, and WUWT skeptics are mostly stuck with them. Definitional quibbling may satisfy some, but probably isn’t an effective tactic.
I was very surprised at the number of negative comments at WUWT (now well over 600) to this rigorous post with an obviously verifiable conclusion. They spanned the gamut from epistemological (really a proof, or something else?), to the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’, to the new ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does), to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down). I chose not to name names; this possible guest post is only a general rebuke.
________________________
the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down).
________________________
Rud Istvan – “Earth’s atmosphere” ain’t a “pressurized tire”.
Rud Istvan – “Earth’s atmosphere” is an ending open to the interstellar atmosphere / space
without pressuring tires to protect gases on top of the atmosphere from influences like meteorites, coronal sun ejections or simple
https://www.google.com/search?q=Brownian+motion&client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ALeKk02aheZO-3JrvuyIDTK71bfcoHupRA%3A1623190652700&ei=fOy_YMGFKsOvrgTk_a2IAQ&oq=Brownian+motion&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQgAEJECMgUIABDLATIFCAAQywEyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoHCCMQ6gIQJ1DgjwFY4I8BYP2ZAWgCcAF4AIABswGIAbMBkgEDMC4xmAEAoAEBsAEPyAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
at TOA
The Green House Effect is easily rebutted as to many of the comments. And there for doesn’t exist.
First Known Use of greenhouse effect1907, in the meaning defined above:
“: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet’s surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenhouse%20effect#h1
The rocky surface of Venus is not warmed by sunlight.
According to this definition the greenhouse effect does not cause the rocky surface of Venus to be hot.
If count the clouds as a surface, then you might have some chance of some kind of argument.
The above definition not does say how warming is from this greenhouse effect or long it takes. The definition seems to suggest that “reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases” seems to have a effect, it doesn’t.
The atmosphere {the mass of atmosphere] is why the rocky surface air of Venus is hot.
The atmosphere {the mass of atmosphere} is why Earth has high average temperature.
Earth’s high average is more then 20 C. Earth is in an Ice Age in which the average global surface temperature can be 20 C to 10 C, and is currently about 15 C. Past interglacial periods have been warmer than our interglacial period {Holocene} and warmer interglacial {when they are the warmest] have warmer ocean the our ocean. Our ocean current average temperature is about 3.5 C. If ocean were to warm to about 4 C, there would be about 12″ rise in sea level due to ocean thermal expansion. In last hundred years it’s estimated we had a 2″ rise of global sea level due to ocean thermal expansion. And total rise coean sea level as been about 7″ {there a number of factors which cause sea level to rise [or fall]}.
There a number of factors which cause the atmosphere to warm or cool. With Earth major factor responsible for global surface air temperature is the temperature of the ocean surface which has higher average temperature than all land surfaces. And due ocean surface covering 70% of Earth surface, the ocean surface temperature controls our global average surface temperature.
The average land surface air temperature is about 10 C, the average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C. Ocean surface warm land surfaces {without such warming of land temperatures, land surface air temperatures would be cooler than 10 C}. Ocean surface also “warms” global surface air temperature due simply due to it being warmer and increase what call global surface air temperature. Or humans live on land and say the average temperature of earth is about 15 C. but where live which is on land, which it only averages 10 C.
Or human are C student which can claim the class averages an A, because the class has bunch better students other than the humans. And the C student’s test results are as high as C, because the smarter students, help them
Meanwhile on planet Earth real warming continues to fall behind model expectations. I read something interesting today that could put the cat among the pidgeons. Rising CO2, we are admonished to believe, traps IR in the lower atmosphere causing warming. However there is a parallel effect of CO2 in enhancing – for obvious reasons of the photosynthesis reaction – plant 🌱 growth worldwide.
Thus global leaf area has recently increased – not decreased – by an amount in the tens of percent. Specifically because of CO2 enhancement of photosynthesis.
But that’s well known – the interesting thing I learned today is that recent infrared spectroscopy research has found that plants’ leaves are surprisingly good at backscattering and re-emitting incident near infrared light. Indeed – trees and plants look unexpectedly bright in IR camera images (see below).
This points to yet another feedback working against warming by CO2. The increased leaf area caused by CO2 rejects an increasing percentage of ground incident IR back upwards – effectively increasing near IR albedo.
Could this be one of the factors causing CO2 warming to have been less than expected? I always suspected and felt that the great efforts to conceal and down-play global CO2 greening are unhelpful to a full scientific understanding of the total effects of rising CO2.
Still gotta love the GHE proponents believing Earth is a thermodynamically closed system and will pull the most intense level of sophistry in denying they believe it.
Earth is’t closed. GHE peeps say they don’t believe it’s closed. Yet, here we are, forever and ever.
I doubt the fanboys have ever used an air compressor… that air comes out cold for a reason… even with a tank in the sun. HMMMMMMMMM….