Spencer on Earth's missing energy

Congratulations, Dr. Spencer! Just read your book too.
Very nice work you are doing.
I feel a bit sorry for the warmers. (Just kidding!)
They dont know much about control loops, I’m afraid.

So far AGW has failed to reproduce or predict climatic history, such as
– the temperature record of the last 20 years
– the missing hot spot in the tropical troposphere
– the lack of cooling in the stratosphere over the past 15 years
– the multidecadal sea ice oszillation in the arctic
– increasing antarctic sea oce
– the medieval warm period
– the little ice age
etc.
…that means AGW proponents could not prove their theory.
Do these new direct measurements actually mean that AGW (based on positive feedback) can now be disproven ?

So…no bailout needed?

TO: Patrick Davis (May 11, 2010 at 11:04 am)
I believe the correct units of complete climate ignorance are diddlysqwatts per square meter.
Of course, the erudite Dr. Spencer is far removed from that realm.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere based on calculations of greenhouse gas capability and the amount of increasing CO2 we are putting into the air outside of natural sources. It is not based on the direct measures of incoming, outgoing, and net heating energy. If the models say heat should be building but we can’t detect it or find it, I would think a reasonable scientist would question the model as the first step to solving the puzzle.

site doesnt seem to working, I am only getting headers and comments, no content?

Patrick Davis says:
So, collectively, “we” don’t know didlesqwat (About this)! Right?
I believe it’s Didlisq-watt, which is ~0W 😉

Maybe the problem with the article is that the URL is misspelled? It says “enery” when it maybe should say “energy” to be loaded properly on the main page?
Or… Maybe I’m just tired. 🙂

In the 1990s reflected shortwave radiation was lower than the previous norm due to earlier high latitude spring snow melts. I believe I’ve read that these haven’t been as early in the last few years. Seven years of data doesn’t go back far enough to detect this change. Given the known problems with the models at high latitudes Andreas Roesch conducted a diagnostic sub-project on the issue. It was the most significant paper I saw during the Fourth Assessment Report draft review, because it reported that ALL of the models had a correlated positive surface albedo bias, and was able to provide a globally and annually averaged figure for the discrepancy.
“The mean annual surface albedo of the 15 AR4 models amounts to 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All AR4 models are slightly above the mean of PINKER (0.124) and ISCCP-FD (0.121).”
When the corresponding downwelling radiation reaching the surface of 198 W/m^2 is applied, the energy is over 3 W/m^2 globally and annually averaged. This is much larger than Hansen’s energy imbalance of under 0.8W/m^2 and is comparable to the AGW CO2 forcing.
It should be noted that the earlier spring snow melt is a positive feedback that is not missing, but is under-represented in all the models. Somehow the models manage to “match” the 20th century climate warming despite missing this energy. Perhaps they “match” it with with increased sensitivity to CO2 forcing elsewhere in the climate, or as Wentz documented, by under-representing the negative feedback from precipitation in the water cycle.
What is particularly pernicious about this model under-representation of the positive feedback to earlier snow melts is that the models do exhibit earlier snow melts in response to warming. What this means is that during climate sensitivity runs and climate projections they eventually catch up with the actual climate response. The earlier snow melts are self limiting, because there are diminishing returns earlier in the season due to the lower solar angle. So the model projections and sensitivity runs have over 3W/m^2 extra energy added to increase their climate warming, in addition to the errors that their false “matches” of the 20th century climate introduce.
The working group I authors buried this result, and obviously didn’t adjust the 21st century projections or levels of confidence for this diagnostic result that was larger than the whole energy imbalance phenomenon of interest. Of course cloud errors are probably a magnitude or two larger, but the significance of this was that it was correlated error, not random error, that one could HOPE might be canceled by combining “independent” model results into ensembles.
Roesch, A. (2006).
“Evaluation of surface albedo and snow cover in AR4 coupled climate models”.
J. Geophys. Res.. DOI:10.1029/2005JD006473.
Here are a couple more quotes from the article:
“The annual mean surface albedo of the AR4 models is 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All climate models are slightly above the average derived from the PINKER and ISCCP climatology. The participating models all capture the large-scale seasonal cycle of the surface albedo quite well. However, pronounced systematic biases are predicted in some areas. Highest differences between the models are found over snow-covered forested regions. The winter surface albedo of CNRM-CM3, averaged over the latitude zone from 50N-70N, is nearly 0.3 lower than in MIROC3.2 and INM-CM3.0. Comparisons with ground-based and remote-sensed data reveal that most AR4 models predict positive biases over primarily forested areas during the snow period. These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.”
“These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.”

From the same source:
The sea level has risen (IPCC?) by 50 mm (2 in.) in the last 30 years…..MAN THE LIFEBOATS!
Based on the “curves” provided, looks like that “rise” will become a “fluctuation” shortly as it comes back down a bit. The Catastrophic has been tossed and the Anthropogenic is next in line….can Warming be far behind?

I’m a bit puzzled about how trend lines are computed.
Looking at the blue graph with its blue trend line and the pink “recent trend” line; I can not imagine what algorith, would yield that blue line. I’m comfortable with the pink line for the region it is in; but If I was driving the blue line, I would raise its right hand end almost to the pink line; but not quite; and the left end of the blue line I would drop, pretty much all the way down to where the blue squiggle comes in from the left.
Now that position is calculated from my Eyeball Statistical Probablity algorithm; often simply referred to as ESP.
The general principle behind ESP is that the squiggly blue curve, is NOT noise; it is essentially all signal. So the ESP algorithm says drop that line so that the squiggly area above the line is equal to the squggly area below the line.
Now if the squiggles was just noise; then I could see doing an RMS error summation to place the trend line; but not if it is infact real data that we simply want to average.
So I don’t quite get that blue trend line at all.

DirkH,
“Wasn’t WG I lead by a certain Kevin Trenberth?
Thanks, Martin, most enlightening!”
It was quite frustrating. They wanted to express even more confidence than the TAR. But the TAR had the confidence that could only come from blissful ignorance. But we now had high quality diagnostic studies available that showed that the models were not skilled enough to be relevant to the task at hand. Of course they should have expressed less confidence than the TAR, and not reported model projections or climate sensitivities at all, except perhaps as a footnote for the intellectually curious.
Since there is little model independent support for the net positive feed backs, this is far more central to the climate controversy than climategate. How do you get the authors to admit that the models are probably two or three generations and a decade to a decade and a half away from being adequate to the task of attributing an energy imbalance of less than 1W/m^2? The working group I authors are getting a pass when perhaps they and the modeling community are the most responsible for covering up the current state of the science.

From PJB:
“Based on the “curves” provided, looks like that “rise” will become a “fluctuation” shortly as it comes back down a bit. The Catastrophic has been tossed and the Anthropogenic is next in line….can Warming be far behind?”
Oh, there’s probably some up-warming left in the interglacial. Let’s enjoy it before the Earth trends back to its much colder normal state.

Pamela Gray says:
May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
How interesting, Pam. Seems like all we end up with is computer-modeled kits that don’t fly.
Strange as it may sound, it says “hours of fun & enjoyment” right on the box.

James
OLR = Outgoing Longwave Radiation

wayne says:
May 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“Dr. Spencer,
Partially referencing your article “A Response to Kevin Trenberth” on your site, you properly raise to Trenberth the possibility that the drop in temperatures in 2008 could account for at least part of that drop in the Net LW+SW.
I am curious why you didn’t also raise that it could also be affected by the drop in TSI as indicated between the TSI reported by Dr. Svalgaard and other sites of 2008….”
__________________________________________________________________________
There was also a change in the composition of the TSI according to NASA:
“April 1, 2009: …..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996….” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
Does this not mean there has been a drop of 6% in SW? Isn’t extreme UV wavelengths considered short wave?

Well I liked that video of Dr Spencer; he’s a really hansome dude, and not at all what I had expected. And if I may say so; he clearly doesn’t speak his mind; but is constrained by that tradition that we mustn’t get mad at anybody; and of course his research institute expects a certain modicum of propriety.
What I’m waiting for is somebody like Spencer to get up and yell it from the roof tops.
HEY ! it’s the WATER; STUPID !
Roy keeps ballet dancing around the issue of how small a change in cloud cover it takes to negate any amount of CO2 you want to put up there.
The question of what controls the temperature range on earth should be a fourth grade science question on “Are You Smarter, than a Fifth grader ?”
IT’S THE WATER ; and CO2 has almost nothing to do with it.
But we are grateful to havesomebody with Dr Spencer’s stature to carry the colors in this battle; along with John Christy they make a great team.

I don’t get it. As I see it, OLR is down in recent years. And RSW is also down to. So less energy is leaving the earth. Assuming the incident solar radiation remains constant that says that earth is gaining energy, presumably heating up. Am I missing something?

Answer to:
Patrik says:
May 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I had the same question. It seems to me that OLR is outgoing longwave radiation, RSW is reflected shortwave radiation so the radiation balance is TSI-RSW-OLR where TSI is total solar radiation; that is, rate in-rate out where rate in = TSI-RSW (total-reflected) and rate out = OLR. Since TSI is supposed to be constant, the variable component is -RSW-OLR.

I wonder how volcanoes (like in Iceland) that send out constant streams of ash and gas for extended periods in the lower and middle parts of the atmosphere would effect the SW and OLR scenario for the region its affecting. I remember dust storms from the Sahara Desert over the Atlantic may have an effect. Ash would do the same, I suppose. The effect on cloud formation/precip is another issue. Just wondering out loud.
Another thing would be how this major oil leak in the Gulf and its possible spreading far and wide would affect SW/OLR scenario of the effected waters and sat SST measurements.

I’d love to see some clear information on albedo effects.
Here in Australia “Our ABC” every now and then interviews kids who are wet behind the ears who invoke “the second law of thermodynamics”. As if the earth’s atmosphere is a closed system and all the energy that enters it stays there!

Att: Mod
Glossary update?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/glossary/
OLR = Outgoing Longwave Radiation

“Anthony Cox says:
May 11, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Pinker’s paper really sums up what Roy is saying;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850
Pinker found from 1983-2001 a TOA decline of SW flux, more coming in, less going out, and a commensurate increase in BOA SW flux, S, which means more sunlight was hiting the deck. Pinker allocates the reason for this as being due to cloud variation which is supported by cloud studies of the relevant period; with less cloud there is less OLR from albedo; the reflected LW from the tops of clouds appears to always exceed the ‘trapped’ LW from the surface by the bottom of the clouds so with less clouds more SW hits the surface then LW leaves. And just think Gore is making a fortune misrepresenting this basic fact.”
That would suit me very nicely.
To fit my New Climate Model all one needs to propose is that the main effect on albedo is the poleward / equatorward shift in the three main cloud bands, namely the ITCZ and the two mid latitude jets.
Throughout the late 20th century warming trend all those bands were further away from the equator letting more solar shortwave in because a poleward positioning of the cloud bands reflects less due to the lower angle of incidence of solar input and leaves more open sky in lower latitudes.
Now that the cloud bands are more equatorward more incoming solar is being reflected from the top of the atmosphere and less energy is getting into the oceans.
I assume that Roy’s RSW is a Bottom Of Atmosphere decline which should be correlated with a Top Of Atmosphere increase which would fit with Pinker’s 1983 to 2001 findings but reversed.
I mentioned long ago that I first noted that the jets were moving back equatorward from around 2000.
Then the final step is to implicate changes in solar activity levels as causing the latitudinal shift of the cloud bands which my New Climate Model does. That then ‘squares the circle’ for a plausible complete hypothesis for global energy budget variability.
Part of that variability being ocean induced and part being solar induced.

Statistically, are these differences significant? And are the trends statistically significant? How do we know it is all not just noise?

Pamela Gray says:
May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere based on calculations of greenhouse gas capability and the amount of increasing CO2 we are putting into the air outside of natural sources. It is not based on the direct measures of incoming, outgoing, and net heating energy.
============
Actually Pamela, you are wrong on this. From what I have read from Roy Spencer’s and Roger Pielkes articles this “missing heat” arises from observed radiation imbalances in the satellite data. I think though, we have a textbook case of confirmation bias; since the observed imbalance appears to agree with model predictions, scientists like Trenberth have jumped on this as “proof” that heat is being sequestered undetected in the earth’s climate system. The problem with all this is in the uncertaintites and the fact that the radiation imbalance is in the short wave whereas AGW theory says it should be in the longwave.

Thanks for another illuminating piece Roy. I thought in light of this article it would be worthwhile to look at solar output vs. absorption. Here is a wiki graph of same:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
I was surprised by this graph showing the delta from top-of atmosphere to sea level and what wavelengths are absorbed by what gases. This simple graphic shows the insignificance of CO2 absorption relative to O3, O2 and H2O. Nothing else gets a mention, and even CO2 is a tiny fraction.

Dear Dr. Spencer,
I am very happy for your illuminating resolution regarding the missing energy. However, I would be most pleased to know whether you also can explain the “missing energy” between the ever increasing UAH satellite temperatures and the cold Siberian temperatures we experience in Europe these days. I suspect it must be terribly hot somewhere else to account for this – and I wonder where?
Another question is whether you know for how long the negative North Atlantic Oscillation and negative Arctic oscillation will last?
Best Regards,
Invariant

Today I overheard a German TV weatherman stating that average May temperature in Berlin has dropped from 18 to 9 degrees Centigrade in the last 20 years. Now I don’t trust that’s necessarily correct (although it seems plausible, just looking out of the window at passers-by in winter overcoats), but anyway it was like a gust of fresh air to hear a statement like this in the mainstream media of my country. Looks like the recent Euro crisis has knocked some sense into some heads about what’s really and imminently important and problematic….

George E. Smith says:
May 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“But we are grateful to havesomebody with Dr Spencer’s stature to carry the colors in this battle; along with John Christy they make a great team.”
Hear! Hear!
A big HURRAY for Spencer, Christy and their teams !
Real scientists, using real data from the real world.

John Karajas
May 11, 2010 10:27pm
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with an open or closed environment. It does however have everything to do with the transport of heat in thermodynamic processes. Heat in a system is always OBSERVED to move towards
a colder region. This movement produces work. The 2nd law is essentially a law of “heat power”. If you think this law is irrelevant or doesn’t hold water then don’t get involved in engineering. Those who design real world equipment absolutely must take the 2nd law into account or the final design will fail in short order. With regards to the atmosphere, the top of the troposphere averages around -55 oC, the top of the mesosphere -100 oC. Since hot air rises any kinetic heat in the atmosphere will make its way to first the tot then on to the mesophere. From here it makes its way to space which is of course the coldest at -273 oC. There is simply no mechanism for moving or redirecting heat flow in the opposite direction. To do so EXTERNAL WORK must be applied! Warmers attempts to invalidate the 2nd law are laughable, pitiful and LAME. For an example of this see the website (pseudo) science of doom’s website. Current climate scientists(and I use that term verrry loosely) are like magicians trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Sheer magic.

I would like very much to see the spectral intensities of light reflected from the Moon, the brighter asteroids, Mercury, Mars, and Pluto. Have the IR and UV intensities reflected from these bodies changed? I would also like to see mapping of incident Solar radiation versus time on our various Solar observatories (in orbit around Earth and the Sun).
Does the mix of energy depend on sunspots, solar storms, and solar radio flux?
If so, how? I am not one to believe that the variation in solar storms has no effect on the mix of Solar energy, nor do I believe that the sources for the different wavelengths are fully understood.
What is coming FROM the Earth has changed. What kind of change is there for what is coming TO the Earth?
It is all a question of apples and oranges.

Brian W says:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with an open or closed environment.
….
There is simply no mechanism for moving or redirecting heat flow in the opposite direction. To do so EXTERNAL WORK must be applied! Warmers attempts to invalidate the 2nd law are laughable, pitiful and LAME. For an example of this see the website (pseudo) science of doom’s website. Current climate scientists(and I use that term verrry loosely) are like magicians trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Sheer magic.

We are not “attempt[ing] to invalidate the 2nd law”. We are attempting to apply it correctly. You are right about what the 2nd Law says in regard to heat flow but this is the NET heat flow. If you put a cold object near a hot object, it doesn’t magically detect the hot object is there and stop radiating. Rather, the Second Law just tells us that the heat from the hotter object that is absorbed by the colder object will be greater than the heat from the colder object that is absorbed by the hotter object.
If you work out any model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, whether it be a line-by-line radiation code or a toy model like Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, you will find that the net heat flow is from the hotter earth to the colder atmosphere, just as the Second Law requires.
Why then, you might ask, does this result in warming? Well, the important point is “warming” compared to what. The comparison case for the greenhouse effect is the case where the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation and hence all of the radiation that the earth emits is radiated back out into space. The fact that an IR-active atmosphere causes some of that radiation to return to the earth means that the earth ends up warmer, even if the amount returned is only some fraction of the amount that the atmosphere absorbs.
See here for more details: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

george
“I’ve been following this subject now for about 30 years in some form or another; and I have yet to see either theory or data to support a logarithmic temperature to CO2 connection; or for that matter any other form of such a connection.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL01908.shtml
Start there. that will get you part way home.

George E. Smith says:
May 12, 2010 at 10:29 am
George if you want to understand the logC02 stuff as I noted you can start with the paper above.
and if you want to understand the models, just google GENLN2
add ‘remote sensor’ to your search and you’ll see other resources that should be of interest
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/itsc/itsc14/proceedings/A40_Qi.pdf

wayne says:

Take for instance the geometry of the earth and it’s atmosphere. Look up “dip of the horizon”. You won’t find it in Wikipedia, that is for sure! Know why? It goes directly against AGW and GHG effects.

Okay, so are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia doesn’t discuss this (at least under the search term you entered) because it might have some obscure application to AGW and GHG effects? Doesn’t that strike you as just slightly paranoid?

Look at the diagram. See the point ‘O’. That is a water molecule or CO2 molecule. If it radiates, how much will go back toward the surface and how much will go to space? At about 1000m high the difference is already 1%. Not 0.1% or 0.01% but a whopping 1%. At about 3000m it’s two percent, 51% to space, 49% toward the ground. You see, the odds are stacked against re-radiation back to earth, like Las Vegas casinos. You can never win and that is using simple geometry, not fancy computer models.

And, you expect this to have a significant impact how exactly? So, you use a computer model where a rise in GHGs results in the additional absorptions and re-emissions sending only 49% back to the ground and I use one that results in them sending 50% back to the ground. Do you honestly expect this to make a big difference? I don’t think we even know the radiative forcing to an accuracy of 1%…and we certainly don’t know the climate sensitivity to anything close to that. I think you are making a big deal about an effect that is effectively in the noise, whether it is currently accounted for in the models or not.

Joel Shore says:
May 12, 2010 at 5:22 pm
“Doesn’t that strike you as just slightly paranoid?”
Paranoid? Are you kidding? Or just uninformed? Try to enter anything regarding global warming that goes against the gospel. Will not last 5 minutes.

george:
“I did look at that paper, and never did find anything about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 atmospheric abundance and mean global surface Temperature; which is my understanding of what Dr Spephen Schneider defined as “climate sensitivity”.”
But you did find the reference to the log of forcings correct? If you want C out of that you should know how to get there.
“They had a lot of things about “radiative forcings”, including an interesting one of -0.06 W/m^2 due to CO2 absorption of incoming solar spectrum energy. Funny thing; unless I missed it, they din’t have any radiative forcings due to H2O, either for solar spectrum, or LWIR thermal emissions.”
The models ( called Line by Line radiative transfer models ) will also calculate these forcings. If you are writing a paper on trace gases, I suppose one can restrict the discussion to the topic. if its a chemical in Hitran, then the codes will calcualte the result.
“And of course all of that information is from computer models; and they apparently don’t have any measured values from real observations to support those tabulated numbers”
these models are a class of models that we use EVERY DAY to do a wide variety of engineering tasks. Like sensor design
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-44-29-6274
You see, if you want to design a sensor that sits in space and looks back at the earth at an IR source, you have to have a physics that tells you how that energy is propagated through the atmosphere. personally, I used lower order models ( like modtran) to work on things that went boom and made bad guys disappear from the face of the planet. Do the models work? yes. ask the dead guys.
or read>
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Uu0VqoPLdocJ:rtweb.aer.com/docs/aer_codes.pdf+verification+of+line+by+line+radiative+transfer+models+observation+data&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
or gosh here.
http://www.rtweb.aer.com/

“”” Richard Sharpe says:
May 14, 2010 at 11:58 am
CRS, Dr.P.H. says on May 14, 2010 at 10:35 am
*ahem* This is all bunk….carbon dioxide supplementation of greenhouses has been practiced for many years, with very positive results. ADM uses waste heat and carbon dioxide from ethanol fermenters to boost growth of hothouse tomatoes in Illinois.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
“For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.”
According to my cool WUWT desktop widget, the Earth’s CO2 level is 389.64 ppm.
Crops should grow just fine. I’d expect extra nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers to be required anyway, as those would become growth-limiting.
Get ready for another green revolution.
I am sorry Dr P.H, but I put my faith in the Peer Review Process. It is fool proof and the way to true enlightenment. You have been fooled by those charlatans in industry again! “””
Well David; you know the rant wasn’t aimed at you; and sometimes the rant is the only way to get the message out.
I just have this problem. I can go to NOAA Mauna Loa and get CO2 data; well some version of it at someplace on a mountain at some time. And I can go to; well no; there is nowhere I can go to get the earth’s temperature; any measure of it; I can get “anomalies” which however are not Temperatures but unless I know the baseline Temperature to which those anomalies refer; I can’t get earth’s temperature; but let’s just for laughs say I can.
So I have CO2 and I have Temperature; and I have both 4 and seven digit log tables so I know how to get log(CO2).
I also know how to plot Y = m.x + c so I can plot a line.
But what I don’t know is:- WHAT Temperature measured WHERE at WHAT time do I plot against log WHAT CO2 measured WHERE at WHAT time.
AlGore in his book shows that Temperature is linear with CO2 for the Temperature measured 800 years before the CO2 that caused it, is measured.
Evidently if I get Temperature and log CO2 more or less at the same time like now I get a linear relationship between those. I don’t think even the IPCC knows what to plot against what to get a log relationship; and when you have a 3:1 error band; how do you prove that it is still a log relationship, since a linear one fits just as well with a 3:1 error band.

Joel Shore May 12,2010 2:42
Oh yes you are. You are attempting to redefine the 2nd law with “radiation”. The 2nd law is a kinetic thermal law, not a law with regards to radiation. I used the term magic because you and Mr Doom like to use it. Science is not “magic” nor is it a “guess”.
You said “If you put a cold object near a hot object, it doesn’t magically detect the hot object is there and stop radiating”. First off, what is “cold and what is hot”? Secondly depending on the distance between the objects the cold object will have no sensible (usable or practical) effect on the hot one and vice versa.
I do not subscribe to the “greenhouse effect” whatsoever. The earth is NOT a Greenhouse thanks. With regards to rte and line-by-line I wouldn’t waste my time.
Then you say “or a toy model like Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, you will find that the net HEAT flow is from the hotter earth to the colder atmosphere. Here is where the confusion starts. The steel greenhouse is a radiative model. Radiation is NOT kinetic heat. The interaction of EMR impinging on matter produces heat by raising its vibrational rate. It is a conversion process. Radiation flow is NOT kinetic heat flow. You have satisfied the 2nd law with radiation. Not.
On the so called “radiating layer” . Gases have a VERY LOW radiating power. Only a solid body has the ability to radiate with any kind of power. This would require a density increase at 5km(that’s where it is right?) in the atmosphere approaching at least very close to a solid. No such thing has ever been observed. The temperature at this altitude is -18 oC. Now I ask you, what body or gas in this universe can radiate anything at this temperature. It’s NOT HAPPENING. There is something seriously wrong with the Stephan Boltzmann Constant. Using two planar surfaces radiating towards one another when only one surface exists is surely a joke. Gases have no surface!
The wattage figures in the K&T diagram are presented as static figures. For example 390w/m2 it is presented as occuring all over the surface BUT due to the effects of insolation this wattage would have to vary by latitude. In addition soil, vegetation, water, plastic, cement, asphalt etc. all present different emission characteristics. A pyrgeometer is a “thermopile in a case”. It measures voltage in the microvolt range. Watts is a measure of electrical work done and is V(volts) x I(amps) = watts. Thermopiles can supply no usable current to anything (100uv = .00001volt) so how can watts be calculated without a measured current flow into a load. Perhaps the real equation is v x magic = watts. Watts is an unphysical measure better to use btu or calories. No time left so I leave a saying, as George E Smith would say HEY! IT’S THE WATER!

Brian W,
The 2nd law of dynamics is statistical not absolute. A warmer mass interacting with a cooler mass will will have particle distributions with a higher average kinetic and/or vibrational energies. The energies will tend to average out which will look like heat flow to the cooler mass until they reach equilibrium. But although the average energy is higher in the warmer mass, the distribution of energies may overlap and there will be some particles with higher energies in the cooler mass, so some energy at the micro level may actually flow in the opposite direction. At the macro level the numbers are so high that the statistics rule, and we get the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In the radiative case that Joel described, warmer and cooler black bodies in proximity in a vacuum will exchange black body radiation. In other words, energy in the form of photons from the cooler body will be hitting and absorbed by the warmer body and vice versa. Over time an equilibrium should be achieved, where they are both radiating at the same temperature because the warmer body is transferring more energy to the cooler than vice versa.
You are correct that solids are generally better radiators than gasses. However gasses vary, and what are generally called the greenhouse gasses are called that because they are better radiators than the major constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen which are poor radiators. They can perform the radiating of their wavelengths at the appropriate level in the top of the atmosphere. There doesn’t have to be anything solid-like. So, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, NO and other gasses do radiate into space.
If you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect, how do you explain the much greater diurnal temperature swings in arid climates than in humid climates? What you are calling kinetic heat, should flow faster in humid air, since the increased percentage of H2O molecules are lower in mass than the chief components of arid air, N2 and O2. At the same temperature (average kinetic energy) the lighter water molecules will have higher velocities and should transmit energy faster, and thus cool the warmer ground faster.
In reality, the lower water content of arid air allows the ground to radiate more efficiently directly into space, since there is less of the greenhouse gas, water. The ground itself then can actually become cooler than the air and assist in cooling the air. You can have ground that is radiatively cooler than air in other circumstances, such as when you get dew or frost. If there is a 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against the AGW hypothesis, I don’t think you are making it well, perhaps you can supply a link?

Joel Shore says:
May 12, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Just read my second explanation to George above. Even George thinks half up and half down. If your sharp with an imagination you will know exactly what I am saying. How’s your geometry? Have you ever navigated the seas by sextant? 😉
I am primarily speaking there of warm clouds though it equally applies to CO2 molecules. Nothing escapes the geometry! (To be super critical you would also have to apply a tiny refraction corrections to those calculations above depending on the density of the air at a given altitude but that is generally insignificant.)

wayne says:

Just read my second explanation to George above. Even George thinks half up and half down. If your sharp with an imagination you will know exactly what I am saying.

I understand fine what you are saying. My point is simply that the impact of this effect on AGW will be essentially negligible. It may already be taken into account in the atmospheric radiation codes but even if it isn’t, the error introduced will almost surely be smaller than the current uncertainties in those calculations.

Martin Lewitt
May 14, 2010 8:14pm
“The 2nd law of dynamics is statistical not absolute.”
With reference to my previous post. Try telling that to the guy waiting to take posession of his new house. The 2nd law is not statistics. Statistics are used to quantify observation. Observation first, then stats. The micro level is unimportant as is quantum physics to this issue of the atmosphere. The “macro” level ruined those houses. What is “hot” and what is “cold”. The Draper Point illustrates this.
Your second paragraph are “statements without proof”. Air is a very poor radiator of heat (not radiation). To illustrate this, if one heats an oven to 450 oF then opens the door just enough to stick your arm in the air will not leave you with 2nd or 3rd degree burns, yet the walls of the oven(solid, metal) will fry your skin. Air is the only thing we are talking about. Co2 is both a poor absorber of IR, and fast at reemitting its heat when compared to O2 or N2. CO2s rate of absorption is inversely proportional to it’s rate of emission(slow absorption, fast emission) and I can show you an experiment that proves it (a good one with a control).
Explaining the diurnal swings in temperature is easier than you think. Take a desert for example. If you examine sand, due to the irregularity of the shape of the grains, each grain has most of its surface area exposed. This allows for a high level of kinetic heat dissipation. This is exactly the same as adding more fins to a heatsink to increase its surface area as manufacturers do. This increases its ability to thermalize with the air surrounding it. Sand is simply lousy at RETAINING kinetic heat. This brings specific heat into play. As soon as the sun goes down heat is dissipated quite rapidly and in a short time. Soil, grass, cement, buildings, rocks, vegetation and especially water are all far superior than plain sand at RETAINING heat. As we all know these things are in short supply in arid climes. Molecular mass and velocities are IRRELEVANT to this particular issue as is “radiation”. In a humid climate all this is REVERSED. You will find people (lots of em), animals, vegetation, buildings, roads and cities. The surface in humid climes can retain heat much more effectively and for a much longer time than a desert. Now water as you know has the highest specific heat of any common substance bar ammonia. This means it can absorb a lot of energy. Adding water vapor increases the specfic heat content of the atmosphere thus allowing the atmosphere to also retain heat longer. All of this MODERATES temperature reducing temperature swings. THAT is what in reality is taking place.
No, the overwhelming aspect of kinetic heat movement in the atmosphere is due to THERMALIZATION not RADIATION and it’s not IMAGINARY and neither is the 2nd law!

Brian W: I suggest that you write your new theories of physics up for a journal and submit them. I am sure the reviewers will find them most “interesting”! In the meantime, the rest of us will ignore all of your ramblings and use the physical laws that have been very well verified rather than the rambling ideas of someone who seems to think he knows a lot more than he actually does. Here, by the way, is a description of how IR night vision goggles work: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/nightvision.htm

“” wayne says:
May 15, 2010 at 1:58 am
George E. Smith says:
May 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Hi George, thanks for the reply.
You kind of went way deeper than my comment about the “dip” deserves, it is only about e/m rays, not specifically co2 but any radiating molecule. It is just a purely geometric fact known for centuries but forgotten since radio and GPS navigation. It only applies to spheres (like the Earth) and radiation in a geometrical sense. It’s base is in ancient celestial navigation when sailors take sextant sightings of incoming radiation from stars or planets but the exact same principles apply to outgoing radiation from warm droplets in clouds or any radiation. “””
Wayne, I believe what you are describing, is simply the geometrical consequence of the earth being a sphere; so that radiation emitted from some altitude in the atmosphere “sees” slightly more than 2 pi steradians “above it”; as in clear of the surface, and slightly less than 2 pi below it. Then one can go into atmospheric refraction, and show that some of the “escaping” radiation will slightly curve past the geometrical horizon; and thereby further increase the escapable component.
And I believe that Joel Shore’s position is that, this is such a small difference in equal split of the 4 pi steradians as to not constitute a significant effect.
And I am in agreement with Joel; that this really amounts to the beating of a butterfly’s wing in a Brazillian Jungle; it isn’t going to spawn a tornado in Kansas.
The phenomenon, that I was referring to, relates to the whole question of the multiple absorption and re-emission of thermal radiation caused by GHGs such as CO2 The CO2 near the ground may be the most important component, and may be close to “saturation” as some claim; although I have not seen good data on that; but even if it were saturated; the addition of more CO2, simply reduces the thickness of the atmosphere necessary to reach that “saturation” level; but it is the reabsorption of the thermal radiation from that lowest atmospheric layer, by the next layer of CO2 and other GHG components, that will keep the total interference with escape, from increasing with increasing CO2.
That multiple emission/absorption cycle is what is extremely difficult to exactly compute; and the added kink that I offered is that the changes in the spectrum, and the absorption bands as the density, and temperature of the atmosphere changes with altitude; should result in favoring the escape route, over the earth return route; BUT, by how much ? The calculations are beyond the capabilities of the computing power available to me at this point; plus I have a job to do rather than solve that knotty math problem.
I don’t think it is fruitful to deny the effect that GHGs like CO2 (and H2O) have in delaying outgoing thermal LWIR emissions; that is really a tough hill to try and defend.
But it is in the contrary actions primarily due to clouds; where I see why the earth temperature regime is so stable; and the postulated thermal runaway due to CO2 is quite impossible.
Earth’s CO2 “warming” to the extent that there is much at all, is a consequence of the 15 micron bending mode line of CO2; coupled with the roughly 10.1 micron peaked earth surface LWIR emission.
On Venus it is the 4.0 micron assymetrical stretch mode, that is active at the Venus surface temperature of about 450 deg C.
A very simple black body radiation argument can be made to show; that CO2 in any conceivable amount in the earth atmosphere, cannot possibly drive the earth Temperature through the absorption trough between those two lines and significantly activate the 4.0 micorn line.
If at 288 K mean surface tempertaure, the LWIR emission peaks at 10.1 microns; while CO2 sits on the declining tail at 15 microns; the total thermal radiation emitted below 5 microns (half the spectral peak) is only 1% of the total emission. So to move that 1% threshold down to 4.0 microns to excite that band, the mean temperature would have to increase by 25%, from 288 K upt to 360 K; an increase of 72 deg C (because of the Wien Displacement Law). At that temperature the total thermal emission would be about four times as high; which would result in a very high cooling rate. The CO2 line would now be at nearly twice the peak wavelength rather than 1.5 times the peak; so the relative effect of the CO2 15 micorn line would go down, even though the total energy it absorbs goes up. Also that 25% in crease in temperature would cause about an 11.8% increase in the Doppler width of the 15 micron line; so additional CO2 capture; but nowhere near enough to actually cause that 7 2 deg C shift.
And in the last 600 million years, the earth temperature has never exceeded 22 deg C (based on proxy data).
So thermal runaway due to CO2 is total nonsense; and I haven’t even invoked the stern reaction that H2O would have to any attempt to raise the earth surface temperature by 72 deg C.
Joel is right; although your horizon dip effect is a fact; it’s somewhat inconsequential in the numbers game.