Efficacy Of Green House Gas Forcing Compared To Solar Forcing

Guest post by Bob Irvine

SUMMARY

This paper outlines an idea or hypothesis that should be discussed. This idea has the huge advantage of being supported by all the available data both from over the last thousand years or more, the last 60 or 70 years and the last 20 years.

We have a chance here to solve the global  warming debate and standoff.  It is quite possible that both sides of the debate have some truth on their side.  I believe there is a strong case that the climate sensitivity or temperature response to a given forcing not only depends on the size of that forcing but also on the nature of that forcing.  I have attempted to mount a case for the idea that a given  LONG WAVE  GHG forcing will have considerably lower temperature response than a similar SHORT WAVE solar forcing.

The alarmists may well be correct.  There is a lot of evidence from the Last Glacial Maxima and Volcanoes and other areas that climate sensitivity is quite high (about 0.8, i.e. requil. T=0.8xrF).  Certainly, this can be seen on geological scales.  These estimates are based on Short Wave Solar Forcings.  The trouble starts when they try to apply these high sensitivities to the enormous increase in Long Wave GHG forcing that has occurred in the last 60 or 70 years.  They mistakenly assume that a given GHG forcing will have the same equilibrium temperature response as a similar Solar Forcing and then find it difficult or impossible to make the meagre temperature response over recent years fit their high sensitivities.

The riddle is neatly solved if we accept the concept of “Effective Climate Forcing”. In other words, we accept that a given Long Wave GHG Forcing has a lower climate sensitivity than a similar Short Wave Solar Forcing. It is in fact intuitively unlikely that these two forcings have the same efficacy as is assumed by the IPCC and others.

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of a given forcing is an estimate of its efficiency in provoking an equilibrium temperature response in the earth’s system. The IPCC and others assume that a given change in GHG forcing will produce a temperature response that is approximately equal to the temperature response from a similar change in solar forcing.

That this is not necessarily the case is discussed in the literature. Joshi et al 2003, Hansen and Nazarenko 2004 and Shine et al 2003 all conclude that the same forcing can have a different temperature response depending on its nature or geographic location.

Forster and Taylor 2006, “Climate Forcings and Climate Sensitivities Diagnosed from Coupled Climate Model Integrations “ make the case that ”Effective Climate Forcing” is a much more useful way of estimating climate sensitivity than conventional; one size fits all, Radiative Forcing. They make their case succinctly in the following quote;

“Imagine, for example, that the atmosphere alone (perhaps through some cloud change unrelated to any surface temperature response) quickly responds to a large radiative forcing to restore the flux imbalance at the TOA (Top Of Atmosphere), yielding a small effective climate forcing. In this case the ocean would never get a chance to respond to the initial Radiative forcing, so the resulting climate response would be small and this would be consistent with our diagnosed “effective climate forcing” rather than the conventional “Radiative forcing.”

In the quote above a shorter response time at the TOA produces a lower climate sensitivity. Hansen, Sato and Kharecha confirm and support this in their paper “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”, by saying

“On a planet with no ocean or only a mixed layer ocean, the climate response time is proportional to climate sensitivity. ………..Hansen et al (1985) show analytically, with ocean mixing approximated as a diffusive process, that the response time increases as the square of climate sensitivity.”

If it can be shown that the restoration of the flux imbalance at the TOA is quicker for a perturbation in GHG forcing than it is for a similar perturbation in solar forcing, then this would imply a lower climate sensitivity for GHG forcing than solar forcing.

DISCUSSION

It is in fact intuitively unlikely that the earth’s system would respond in almost exactly the same way to a change in Long Wave GHG forcing as it would to a change in Short Wave solar forcing, as the IPCC and others assume.

It is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. The oceans are virtually opaque to these wave lengths. Short Wave solar radiation, on the other hand, penetrates the ocean to a depth of 10 meters or more and it is counter intuitive to assume that this established fact would have close to zero effect on flux imbalance restoration times at the TOA.

Despite this matter being pivotal to any understanding of the earth’s climate response to increasing Anthropogenic GHGs (AGHG), I have been unable to find any literature supporting the IPCC’s position that solar forcing and GHG forcing have the same efficacy after the ocean/ atmosphere interface has been considered. The references mentioned by the IPCC in their reports only refer to the global nature of the two forcings and only take into account feedbacks that are related to a temperature response. These do not apply in this case. Basically, the fact that the oceans are opaque to GHGs is due to the nature of the forcing and not accounted for if the feedbacks considered are only related to a temperature response. Similarly, to assume, as the IPCC does, that GHG forcing and Solar forcing have the same “effective climate forcing” simply because they are both global in nature, also, does not take account of the opaqueness of the oceans to the wave length reemitted by GHGs.

The blogosphere does make an attempt at explaining the IPCC’s position. The only defence I am aware of is that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated up by the Long Wave Radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs. This then acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy from the ocean, thereby effectively warming the ocean by nearly exactly the same amount as a similar solar forcing that penetrates the ocean to a depth of 10 meters or more.

Not only is it highly improbable that these two entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC (Ocean Heat Content), but it can be shown by means of a simple experiment, (Appendix 1), that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation. It, therefore, has little effect on OHC. It is, also, likely that the restoration of the flux imbalance at the TOA is quicker for a perturbation in GHG forcing than it is for a similar perturbation in solar forcing.

It is apparent that the situation described in the Forster and Taylor (2006) quote above is relevant to GHG forcing. In short, the” Effective Climate Forcing” of a GHG change is likely to be considerably less than the “Effective Climate Forcing” of a similar solar change.

CORROBORATION

It is an intriguing possibility that both sides of the Global Warming debate could be correct to some extent. The IPCC and others estimate climate sensitivity by reference to three factors, none of which apply to climate sensitivity derived from a GHG forcing.

These three factors are;

  1. They use “Absolute Radiative Forcing” instead of “Effective Radiative Forcing” (Forster and Gregory 2006)
  2. They use sensitivities based on Solar Forcing which clearly do not apply to GHG Forcing. For example, sensitivities calculated from the Last Glacial Maxima (LGM) or volcanoes are essentially based on Solar Forcing and, therefore, do not apply to GHG Forcing. (Annan & Hargreaves 2006).
  3. They use feedbacks that are dependent on an initial temperature response and, therefore, do not take account of the opaqueness of the oceans to Long Wave Radiation from GHGs. (All the Global Climate Models , GCMS)

The IPCC and others may have produced some good science that gives reasonably accurate climate sensitivity estimates for a change in solar forcing. Unfortunately, these are unlikely to apply to a GHG Forcing.

Interestingly, Idso 98 uses real world experiments that, largely, do apply to GHG Forcing and their climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the IPCC’s consensus.

The sceptics, on the other hand, are fairly obviously quite correct when they say that the high sensitivities postulated by the alarmists do not fit with the measured temperature record of the 20th and 21st century.

The best way to show this lack of correlation is to compare the amount of energy put into the system by human GHGs, as represented by equilibrium temperature, with actual temperature as measured in the thermometer age since 1880.

The green line in Fig. 1 equates to a sensitivity of 0.8 (rT = 0.8 x rF) which gives an equilibrium temperature increase of 3.0°C for a doubling of human CO2, the IPCC’s central position. In 2010 the difference between the green line and blue line (actual temperature) was an unlikely 1.4°C. If present trends continue, as is likely, that gap would be close to 2.0°C in 5 years’ time.

image

FIG, 1 The IPCC’s upper (purple), central (green) and lower (red) equilibrium temperature predictions using their climate sensitivity to forcing. The forcings were calculated for all the human GHGs using concentrations given in 4AR and the generally accepted conversion formula, rF=5.35xln(C/Co) WM-2 where C is current concentration and CO is starting concentration. These are compared with actual temperature (blue). For comparison purposes all graphs were zeroed in 1880.

NOTE; It is generally believed that equilibrium temperatures are approximately 1.5 times transient temperatures (4AR) and that aerosol cooling has masked any human induced GHG warming. These are the two factors the alarmists use to attempt to explain the gap between reality and the IPCC’s calculated equilibrium temperatures from AGHGs.

There are also major inconsistencies with the Ipcc’s explanation for the warming from 1910 to 1940. Bob Tisdale discusses these inconsistencies at WUWT on the 20th April 2013.

The only realistic explanation for this lack of correlation ( FIG, 1) is that the IPCC’s sensitivities are far too high and that the “Effective Radiative Forcing” for Long Wave GHGs is considerably lower than the “Effective Radiative Forcing “ for Short Wave solar.

APPENDIX 1

This experiment is attributed to Tallbloke and shows unequivocally that Long Wave radiation from GHGs has little or no effect on Ocean Heat Content. Short Wave Solar radiation, on the other hand, penetrates the oceans to a depth of ten meters or more and, therefore, adds significantly to OHC.

Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory

Posted: August 25, 2011 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, Energy, Ocean dynamics

68

Some background -

Willis Eschenbach had a guest posting over at WUWT in which he claimed that LWIR could heat Earth’s oceans. Myself and several others on the thread contended that this LWIR was likely to be stopped by the evaporative skin layer and would not slow the exit of heat from the oceans. Numerous requests for empirical evidence to support Willis’s claim only resulted in one inapplicable study used by the “Hockey Team” to support such claims. After several hundred comments without empirical evidence being offered, I gave up reading and designed and conducted an empirical experiment that shows that any effect of backscattered LWIR on the cooling rate of water would be negligible.

What follows is an edited version of the experiment design and results as posted on the WUWT thread. I would encourage others to conduct similar experiments to check my results. The equipment required is not overly expensive and the results can be observed in minutes. The results appear to show the measurable difference between reflecting LWIR back to warm water when it is free to evaporatively cool and when it can only cool through conduction and radiation.

What is required -

- Two identical probe type digital thermometers with 0.1 degree resolution

- Two identical insulated water containers. I used rectangular 200ml Tupperware style containers, insulated on their base and sides with foil and Styrofoam. I cut away the clip on rim from each lid to create a frame to clip down cling film for Test B of the experiment.

- One IR reflector. I used an A4 sheet of 10mm Styrofoam with aluminium foil attached with spray adhesive.

- One IR window. I built an A4 size “picture frame” of 10mm square balsa wood strips and stretched cling film over it.

- One 1 litre measuring jug

- Two small identical computer fans. I used Suron 50mm centrifugal blowers powered by a 6v gel cell battery

- Extra cling film

- Optional extras – kitchen timer, an A4 ”dark cool sky” panel of matt black aluminium with peltier cooling, glamorous lab assistant of choice.

image

What to do -

- Position probe thermometers in identical positions in both water containers. I placed the tips 10mm below the water line by drilling force fit holes in the sides of the containers.

- Position IR reflector and IR window 50mm above either water container. You may need to build two Styrofoam side walls, but air must be free to move over the surface of the water. (The use of the IR window is to ensure that air flow is similar over each water container.)

- Position the computer fans to blow across the water surface of each container, but do not turn on.

- Fill jug with warm water, stir, then fill each water container from the bucket. I used water around 40C as the ceiling was around 18C not a 3k sky.

- When and equal amount of water is in each container, turn on the computer fans.

- Observe the temperature change over time for each tank. Less than half an hour is required for such a small amount of water. You should observe that both tanks cool a the same rate (TEST A).

- Now the important bit – Repeat the experiment, but this time lay a small sheet of cling wrap on the surface of the water in each water tank. This allows cooling through radiation and conduction but prevents evaporation. You do not need the computer fans on in this test. You should be able to observe that while both containers cool slower than before, water under the IR reflector cools slowest (TEST B).

image

Interpretation -

In TEST A the water cools more quickly, however the two water containers temperatures remain very close to each other over time. This indicates that backscattered LWIR has a very limited effect on the rate of cooling for water when it is free to evaporatively cool.

In TEST B both water containers cool more slowly than test A, but a divergence in temperature between the two water containers is readily detectable. The container under the foil sky cools more slowly than that under the cling wrap sky. This indicates that backscattered LWIR from a warm material can slow the rate at which that material cools, if radiation and conduction are the only methods for cooling.

Test A represents the evaporative cooling conditions in the real oceans. Test B represents how the climate scientists have modelled the oceans with regard to backscattered LWIR. From what I have observed, backscattered LWIR can slow the rate at which substances cool. However in the case of liquid water that is free to cool evaporatively this effect is dramatically reduced. It would appear that including the oceans in the percentage of Earth’s surface that could be affected by backscattered LWIR may be a serious error. Earth’s oceans cover 71% of the planets surface. If backscattered LWIR cannot measurably affect liquid water, then CO2 cannot cause dangerous or catastrophic global warming.

I have conducted further tests using a “cold sky” panel cooled with ice water over the top of the cling film IR window. While the temperature divergence in the evaporation restricted test B does not appear faster, it does appear to diverge for longer.
I would encourage others to conduct similar empirical experiments and share their observations. I would be interested in comments in further experimental design, or empirical evidence related to the LWIR question.

Typical TEST A

Time Cling Wrap Screen Foil screen
0 37.1 37.1
5 33.2 33.2
10 29.4 29.4
15 27 26.9
20 25.5 25.5
25 24.5 24.5

Typical TEST B

Time Cling Wrap Screen Foil screen
0 38.2 38.2
5 36.3 36.6
10 34.8 35.3
15 33.5 34.2
20 32.6 33.4
25 31.5 32.6
About these ads
This entry was posted in Citizen science, Climate sensitivity. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Efficacy Of Green House Gas Forcing Compared To Solar Forcing

  1. Stephen Wilde says:

    One can go a step further and propose that the pressure of the atmosphere on the ocean surface sets the energy cost of a given amount of evaporation and thereby allows our oceans to regulate atmospheric temperatures as discussed by me in some detail here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7798

    “The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature “

  2. Steven Mosher says:

    “This paper outlines an idea or hypothesis that should be discussed. This idea has the huge advantage of being supported by all the available data both from over the last thousand years or more, the last 60 or 70 years and the last 20 years.”

    “Mike Gene’s 10 signs of intellectual honesty:

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.”

  3. richard verney says:

    I am one of those who have yet to be persuaded that LWIR can heat the oceans, or even reduce /slow down the heat loss from the oceans. I will expand, in a later comment, on some of the problems that appear to arise with LWIR and the oceans.

    There are a number of reasons why high energy SWIR and lower energy LWIR may have different impacts upon the climate, not least the place within the system where the power is absorbed. For example, if 1 watt per metre squared of LWIR cannot penetrate the oceans to any significant depth, but instead remains in the atmosphere, then the effect of this may be different to 1 watt per metre squared of SWIR which penetrates the ocean to depth and thereby heats the oceans with ocean currents distributing that heat polewards.

  4. Richard111 says:

    “I have attempted to mount a case for the idea that a given LONG WAVE GHG forcing will have considerably lower temperature response than a similar SHORT WAVE solar forcing.”

    My layman observation, high humidity plus clear sky plus sunshine equals rapid air temperature rise. (short wave solar forcing) Conversely, high humidity plus clear sky and NO sunshine equals rapid temperature drop. (long wave GHG forcing). I have noticed the RATE of temperature change seems to follow the humidity level. See here: http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif
    Sadly, humidity level is not specified but sea is not far away, also land is arable.

  5. JohnB says:

    [snip off topic garbage -mod]

  6. “It is, also, likely that the restoration of the flux imbalance at the TOA is quicker for a perturbation in GHG forcing than it is for a similar perturbation in solar forcing.”

    That perturbation would occur overnight, right?

    If so, it would be worth mentioning that fact.

  7. Stephen Wilde says:

    If anyone reads my earlier essay from 2011 please note that I consider the comment about atmospheric composition being relevant to atmospheric temperature in the absence of oceans to be erroneous. It would be relevant to the circulation but not to the temperature which is determined by mass not composition.

  8. THIS is the experiment Bill Nye should have performed.

  9. Realist2 says:

    “It is an intriguing possibility that both sides of the Global Warming debate could be correct to some extent.”

    This is a sloppy generalization. It’s an attempt to be diplomatic, but it sloppily lumps every argument about climate into two categories, then assumes that everyone’s disagreement revolves around this singular point.

  10. Kasuha says:

    I would propose Test C: same as test A, but the air above the water is prevented from escaping and mixing with rest of the air in the room (i.e. the cover is airtight and the fan is inside). This would lead to evaporated water accumulating in the “atmosphere” instead of escaping to “free space” where it stops being part of the observed system.
    I did not do this experiment but I would expect its results to somewhere in between your test A and B, suggesting that the effect of radiation may not be as negligible as you’re trying to suggest.

  11. davidmhoffer says:

    Thanks for the experiment, interesting. That said, there is a far more fundamental flaw in the sensitivity calculations.

    A change in solar forcing adds energy to the system as a whole. A change in ghg forcing adds precisely 0 energy to the system as a whole. It only re-distributes the energy within the system. The IPCC even admits this when they say:

    Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html

    So they speak out of both sides of their mouths, first arriving at a calculation that is defied by the actual physics and then quietly admitting so in another part of their publication.

  12. John West says:

    Sorry, lost interest @ “the enormous increase in Long Wave GHG forcing that has occurred in the last 60 or 70 years”; characterizing a theoretical (less than) 1% increase in LW heat flux as “enormous” and attributing it to GHG without sufficient evidence just doesn’t instill confidence in the author’s sense of scale and reason.

    Some facts:
    Theoretical increase in down-welling LW radiation from 2XCO2 = 3.7 W/m2.
    Approximate average down-welling LW radiation = 333 W/m2.
    Evidence for GHG attribution to warming: Hot Spot: …. missing. & Stratospheric cooling: …… 15+ year hiatus.

  13. alex says:

    ROFL.

    The guy has no idea what energy means.

  14. Stephen Wilde says:

    “the enormous increase in Long Wave GHG forcing that has occurred in the last 60 or 70 years”

    I think that statement is a serious flaw.

    In fact we have previously seen that all the observed warming could have been caused by a reduction in global cloudiness when the sun was more active, the jets more zonal and the climate zones more poleward.

    That process is now in reverse despite increasing CO2.

    Any long wave forcing that may have occurred was when that shortwave came out of the oceans again in longwave form via enhanced El Nino events.

  15. Matthew R Marler says:

    This paper outlines an idea or hypothesis that should be discussed. This idea has the huge advantage of being supported by all the available data both from over the last thousand years or more, the last 60 or 70 years and the last 20 years.

    Maybe, but you have not shown that. You need a review of all such evidence, and a showing that your hypothesis actually explains the evidence. The experiment itself is nice enough, but it supports a more limited claim.

    What would be helpful would be a long time series with Earth mean temperature changes and the changes in concomitant solar irradiation by spectral bands, and a showing that the changes in Earth mean temperature correlate more highly with the changes in short wave radiation than with the changes in long wave radiation or TSI.

  16. Watcher says:

    The hypothesis proposed above seems reasonable– but only so long is it can backed by verified and verifiable science. Verifiability is the key.

    It must be stressed–especially on this website where myths run so rampant– that the preponderance of evidence is still far, far in favor of the AGW theory. Thus far, the science, for all practical purposes, is settled. (Being science, it is always open to unsettling or upsetting with sufficient evidence.)

    I and many others have observed that skeptics often grasp at a straw or two and consider it proof against human caused global warming. That is called cherry-picking the evidence. (More about that later.) Three or four black straws in a massive pile of yellow hay do not constitute evidence that totally upsets a tested and retested theory explaining the color of the massive pile.

    I see several problems with the paper above:

    First, it is part science and part supposition that has not been verified by similar studies. Although it uses science in part to make its suppositions–which gives it the feel of authenticity and correctness–it may or may not be the appropriate science, or it may not consider all relevant factors. Only upon verification and validation by others qualified in the relevant fields could it be considered scientifically valid.

    Second, it is politically oriented. Why was the word “alarmist” used? In a scientific paper there’s no place for such a term. “Alarmist” is pejorative because it assumes– without reasonable evidence–that those who have studied global warming and say it is human-caused are for some unreasonable purpose promoting it or consequent alarm in response. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists who study the phenomenon are alarmed because the facts *are* alarming. and I obviously with good reason. Global warming looks like the most devastating natural event that has been happening to our planet other than the very real possibility, however remote, of a huge meteor strike. It certainly is happening and has been happening for about 150 years. That is undeniable. Second, it is almost undeniable that human causes have created the spike in warming.

    The author is personally biased against those who propose that global warming is human-caused. Use of the term alarmist is intended to cast doubt on verified scientific findings and those who investigate and support those findings. Again, in the strongest of terms, this paper is not promoting only science, but politics as well. Promotion of politics in a paper purporting to be scientific dilutes its intended positive effect and casts doubt on the intentions of the author.

    Third, it is not reasonable to accept this statement as true (although many readers here will do so automatically):
    “The sceptics, on the other hand, are fairly obviously quite correct when they say that the high sensitivities postulated by the alarmists do not fit with the measured temperature record of the 20th and 21st century.”
    It is well known among statisticians and scientists that 15 or 20 years of climate measurement does not make a scientifically valid trend. Skeptics have cherry-picked evidence over such a short period and claimed it is proof the temperature is not rising in the long term. The global temperature may or may not be rising. But it is impossible to know until 30 or more years passes, in order to compare with past trends.

    Therefore the statement above uses cherry-picked evidence to make an unverifiable claim. And this is supposed to somehow validate skeptics’ arguments? this claim highlights the main problem with most skeptics claims: they’re unverified and/or unverifiable. And they rely on cherry-picked evidence or evidence that has already been demonstrated as invalid or flawed. Until anyone’s arguments, however much science-based (it may be the wrong science or the right science wrongly applied), are validated by verified and peer reviewed science as noted in the first point, above, they are only hypotheses or supposition, not science.

    Remember, this is not about winning an argument. It is about finding enough science and the right science to unequivocally reveal what is happening to our environment.

    If, despite the obvious flaws in the paper above, it leads to new evidence regarding global warming, bravo! If it doesn’t, then we’ll see it is just another straw to grasp for those who are afraid of the undeniable reality of human caused global warming.

    So far the *best* evidence reveals humans *are* causing catastrophic global warming, it is something to be alarmed about, and we should be doing all we can to change it.

    Perhaps *more* importantly, even if AGW were not happening, we should *still* do all we can to reduce our impact on the planet as much as possible.

  17. Watcher:

    At April 21, 2013 at 10:36 am you suggest

    Perhaps *more* importantly, even if AGW were not happening, we should *still* do all we can to reduce our impact on the planet as much as possible.

    I disagree completely.

    Firstly, as a matter of fact, AGW is not happening. Global warming was last century.

    Secondly, as a matter of opinion, the world would be a much better place if we could mitigate effects of weather, earthquakes volcanoes and disease, if we could convert wastelands to productive regions which benefit people, and if we could more efficiently utilise natural resources. This is because I value people more than stones, plants, animals and microbes.

    Richard

  18. Bart says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    April 21, 2013 at 9:30 am

    “A change in solar forcing adds energy to the system as a whole. A change in ghg forcing adds precisely 0 energy to the system as a whole.”

    Not necessarily. A change in solar forcing increases the time rate of change of energy coming into the system. A change in ghg indeed provides zero increase to the input time rate of change, but it could momentarily decrease the time rate of change of energy exiting the system, leading to additional accumulation of energy (notwithstanding that observations indicate that a change in CO2 does not appreciably do so in the current climate state).

    Energy and the time rate of change of energy (aka, power) are two different things. A lot of misconceptions about the system arise from this confusion. The radiation flow in and out of the system is a continuous transport phenomenon, as is the flow of CO2 into and out of the surface system.

    Watcher says:
    April 21, 2013 at 10:36 am

    “It must be stressed–especially on this website where myths run so rampant– that the preponderance of evidence is still far, far in favor of the AGW theory. “

    Not even close. The preponderance of cherry-picked evidence by advocates only.

    “Skeptics have cherry-picked evidence over such a short period and claimed it is proof the temperature is not rising in the long term.”

    As have the advocates cherry picked data over an only slightly longer term.

    The global temperature may or may not be rising. But it is impossible to know until 30 or more years passes, in order to compare with past trends.”

    An arbitrary interval with no meaning. Given the ~60 year cycle readily apparent in the temperature records, 30 years is approximately the worst possible inteval to select.

  19. DocMartyn says:

    we sometimes need to shine light in to a cell culture, for measuring oxygen generation in photosynthetic organisms, or to perform photochemical action spectra.
    Essentially all you need do is shine a bright light into your sample and we typically used a slide projector. However, if you use the light from a 3300K tungsten filament lamp you sample cooks as the output of the lamp is mostly IR.

    We used to use a cool-light by passing the beam through a round bottomed flask of water. This lens gives you a power beam of white light and almost completely attenuates the IR. The pathlength of the water is only 10-15 cm, but that is enough to stop almost all of the IR from a powerful light source.
    My guess is that if you has a diffraction grating and dialed your wavelength, an iris and used a pyrometer to measure your output you could examine the amount of sensible heat that you get upon illuminating a body of water.I suspect that blue light gives sensible heating and IR mostly latent heating.

  20. I suggest that an equipment list be printed, each item incorporating a link to an Amazon page where it can be bought, along with an ASID (Amazon stock ID number). Each item’s cost should be noted. This would encourage high school students and others to repeat the experiment.

  21. Manfred says:

    This may be supported by temperature obeservations:

    Since the 1980s, temperatures over land increased much faster than over sea.

    But they increased/decreased at the same rates before, particularly during the increase between 1915-1947.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:10/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:10

    They also increased at the same rates in the lower troposhere measured by RSS/UAH data since 1979.

  22. joeldshore says:

    Interestingly, Idso 98 uses real world experiments that, largely, do apply to GHG Forcing and their climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the IPCC’s consensus.

    “Largely” as in the sense, “except for those that don’t” like “Natural Experiment #3″ on the seasonal cycle or “Natural Experiment #5″ on the equator-pole temperature gradient due to the gradient in solar radiation? ( http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf ) No, the reason that Idso gets low climate sensitivities is because that is what he wanted to get and his analysis of his “natural experiments” is naive in the extreme. As an example, in Natural Experiment #4, Idso considers the gross downward flux due to GHGs, not the net, and ignores the fact the he is treating all of the GHGs as forcings and none (i.e., the water vapor and clouds) as feedback.

    I find it amusing that a contribution like this is published here on WUWT with no sense of self-awareness or irony. After all, if climate scientists tried to claim that the efficacy of longwave forcing was much larger than that of the shortwave forcing, we all know what the response of people here would be. (In fact, even though the climate scientists do not do that, this does not stop people from making completely false claims that somehow the positive feedbacks act only on forcing due to CO2 and not due to solar or other forcings.)

  23. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Home experimentation! I like that!

    You could have a point if you could define a mechanism whereby the Long Wave GHG Forcing impacting the ocean surface is transmitted out of the earth system into space.

    For the moment I have to agree with Kasuha in that you need an experiment with an atmosphere on top of the experimental set-up. If that’s too complicated to do in a home experiment, you might want to think about a method to measure the rates of evaporation in Test A.

    If there would be increased evaporation from Long Wave GHG Forcing this would transfer the energy of the forcing to the water vapour which for a substantial part would return back to ocean by means of rain (directly on the ocean, or via land and rivers; not if it ends up in a lake or gets added to permanent ice sheets).

    Hope you get my drift, looking forward to seeing more experiments!

  24. William Astley says:

    Idso 98 has a case that shows the ocean’s sensitivity to a change in forcing is 0.071°C/(W m–2) based on measurement not theory.
    A possible explanation for how long wave radiation warms the ocean is there are significant and almost constant winds over the ocean, which in turn creates turbulence. The water molecules on the surface of the ocean therefore are constantly changing which distributes the energy in the upper surface of the water.
    The estimate sensitivity to a change in long wave forcing for the ocean is 0.071°C/(W m–2).
    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change by Sherwood B. Idso
    (See below for a link to the Idso paper’s abstract and a link to the paper. I would high recommend a re-read.)

    http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p69-82/

    2.10. Natural Experiment 8
    A final set of empirical evidence that may be brought to bear upon the issue of CO2-induced climate change pertains to the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical oceans (Raval & Ramanathan 1989, Ramanathan & Collins 1991, Lubin 1994). This phenomenon has recently been quantified by Valero et al. (1997), who used airborne radiometric measurements
    and sea surface temperature data to evaluate its magnitude over the equatorial Pacific. Their direct measurements reveal that a 14.0 W m–2 increase in downward-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea increases surface water temperatures by 1.0°C; and dividing the latter of these 2 numbers by the former yields a surface water temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071°C/(W m–2), which would imply a similar surface air temperature sensitivity factor at equilibrium.

    By comparison, if I equate my best estimate of the surface air temperature sensitivity factor of the world as a whole [0.100°C/(W m–2)] with the sum of the appropriately-weighted land and water surface factors [0.3 0.172°C/(W m–2) + 0.7 W, where W is the surface air temperature sensitivity factor over the open ocean], I obtain a value of 0.069°C/(W m–2) for the ocean-based component of the whole-Earth surface air temperature sensitivity factor, in close agreement with the results of Valero et al.

    The very conservative and likely to high estimate (as there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot) for the theoretical increased forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 4 W m–2.
    Idso’s best estimate sensitivity is 0.10°C/(W m–2), which produce 0.4 °C warming for a doubling of CO2.
    As there is no tropic tropospheric hot spot the actual forcing change could be significantly less (say wag it at half?). If one assumes the CO2 forcing is say 2 W m–2 (reducing by half as there is some physical reason why there is no tropic tropospheric hot spot.), then the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could be around 0.2 °C.
    If the above assertions are correct, then a majority of the 20th century warming has caused by non greenhouse gas warming.
    It appears we are rapidly approaching the period when the planet will cool, at which time observations will assist with the correction of obvious scientific mistakes as well provide an explanation as to how solar cycle changes can cause the planet to warm and cool.

    Comments:
    High altitude cloud (cirrus) are also modulated by ions. There are less cirrus clouds when ions in the troposphere increases and more cirrus clouds when ions decrease. I have not seen a published explanation as to how cirrus ion modulation mechanism works but a thought would be an increase ions results in larger crystals that are no longer supported in the atmosphere.) High altitude cirrus clouds warm the planet particularly in high latitudes regions in the winter by the greenhouse effect.

    As noted solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions via the mechanism electroscavenging. (Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere.) Solar wind bursts normally occur when the solar cycle is high and therefore due not affect cloud modulation as the solar heliosphere is strong which deflects GCR which also results in low ions. However at the end of solar cycle 24 there were very large frequent CME which created solar wind bursts.

    As noted for some unexplained reason the north magnetic pole drift velocity increased mid 1990 (coinciding with the start of the warming period) by a factor of 4 to 5 from 10 to 15 km/year to 50 km/year. The geomagnetic specialist hypothesized a hidden north pole magma plume that suddenly started up as on explanation. As there are cycles of abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field that coincide with solar produced cosmogenic isotope changes, the sun should be on the suspect list. As it appears solar magnetic cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle perhaps we will have a chance to resolve this problem by observation.

  25. Greg House says:

    Guest post by Bob Irvine: “I have attempted to mount a case for the idea that a given LONG WAVE GHG forcing will have considerably lower temperature response…
    …What follows is an edited version of the experiment design and results as posted on the WUWT thread. I would encourage others to conduct similar experiments…”

    =========================================================

    Your GHG forcing is also known as “greenhouse effect” and as presented by the IPCC, the back IR radiation from the so called “greenhouse gases” should warm the source of radiation, namely surface (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html). A an sorry to disappoint you, but such an effect on the temperature of the source of IR is physically impossible. Even on the theoretical level such an effect must lead in some cases to an endless mutual warming without additional energy input, which is absurd.

    To your experiment, I told you some time ago (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/a-comparison-of-the-earths-climate-sensitivity-to-changes-in-the-nature-of-the-initial-forcing/#comment-1267467) that your result did not prove any “greenhouse gas” forcing or “back radiation forcing”, because the slowing down of the cooling rate can be explained by suppressed convection due to differences in covers. I remember your reply, where you recommended another “experiment”, namely holding something 2cm close to the cheek and seeing the result of “back radiation warming”. Then I told you that it would be suppressed convection as well. It is very sad that you just can not get it, it is actually a middle school stuff.

    The solar forcing is real, “greenhouse gas forcing” is not, it is a fiction. A real CO2 effect (in it’s present concentration) due to his well known thermal properties would be like 0.0001C. It can also contribute to cooling by preventing some solar IR from reaching the surface. But again, no warming/slowing cooling back radiation effect as presented by the IPCC is physically possible.

  26. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Something I forgot to mention. The comparison of present temperatures and the IPCC’s predicted equilibrium states is silly. It takes some time to reach the equilibrium state. If I want to boil an egg for breakfast, I put a pan of water on the cooker and turn up the forcing. I predict the water temperature will reach it’s equilibrium state at 100º C (actually this depends on air pressure as well). It will take some while however (depending on starting temperature, volume, forcing and the rate in which the pan+water looses energy to the greater kitchen environment). ;)

  27. jorgekafkazar says:

    John West says: “Sorry, lost interest @ “the enormous increase in Long Wave GHG forcing that has occurred in the last 60 or 70 years””

    John, I didn’t get past “This idea has the huge advantage…”

    The idea needs a lot of further work. I suspect there’s much of value therein, but the writing is too over the top.

  28. “top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated up by the Long Wave Radiation”

    Are there no waves or turbulence on the ocean in your conceptual model? Bit of an oversight.

    “sensitivities calculated from the Last Glacial Maxima (LGM) or volcanoes are essentially based on Solar Forcing”

    Not true. The change in the concentration of greenhouse gasses between the glacial and the interglacial is one of the largest forcing factors (though not the prime mover).

  29. geran says:

    Yes, I will have to try the experiment–thanks for the info.

    Long wave vs. short wave, such a hard concept to factualize. The reason is that the temperature of the “receiving” body is in play. Sea surface water molecules receive or reflect IR based on their initial temperature. It’s so confusing….

  30. RERT says:

    Mosher –

    Nice touch that Mike Gene’s ode to humility is sweeping and arrogant. Must be another of those ‘humour’ things that got a recent post so confused.

    That said, I think what we have in the post is a fairly naive writeup of a great idea, namely that an assumption that climate sensitivity is the same for all forcing types is probably false. This really does deserve some attention.

  31. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @RERT

    “That said, I think what we have in the post is a fairly naive writeup of a great idea, namely that an assumption that climate sensitivity is the same for all forcing types is probably false. This really does deserve some attention.”

    No! It is just an idea! I can have ideas on all kinds of things. Doesn’t make ‘m true. If there is no mechanism proposed for why the energy of LONG WAVE GHG forcing impacting the ocean surface is ditched into space faster than the energy of SHORT WAVE solar forcing, then “an idea’ is all that it is.

  32. Rob R says:

    A few years back when Willis was outlining his global-scale Steel Greenhouse model there was some discussion of the relative effectiveness of solar (short wave) vs greenhouse (longwave) forcing of temperature. My impression was that the efficacy of a change in solar forcing was shown to be about 1.6 times that of a change in greenhouse gas forcing. Solar adds heat to the entire system, but with greenhouse forcing there are losses that reduce its effectiveness. Someone with a better memory might like to comment further.

  33. rgbatduke says:

    temperature of the source of IR is physically impossible. Even on the theoretical level such an effect must lead in some cases to an endless mutual warming without additional energy input, which is absurd.

    Or, as anyone with a shred of knowledge of actual mathematics and the laws of thermodynamics can easily show, when the object being “warmed” is actually being warmed by a heat source like Mr. Sun, it never overtly leads to a runaway solution, violation of the first law (energy conservation) or violation of the second law (entropy increase for irreversible processes). On the contrary, one can show quite easily that a sphere heated by the sun and cooled by outgoing blackbody IR radiated to space as a cold reservoir will “warm” if one interpolates an layer of gas that is opaque/absorptive in (bands in) the outgoing IR, in the specific sense that its dynamical equilibrium temperature will increase. One can show that at no time is energy conservation violated. One can show that entropy of the Universe is increased by the net heat transfer(s) involved in the process. One can do this with elementary physical and thermodynamic arguments.

    Leaving out the source of heat as you implicitly do in the statement above is of course going to get you in trouble. You should listen to Bart, above. It’s easy to get these things wrong.

    rgb

  34. John Finn says:

    Greg House says:
    April 21, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Guest post by Bob Irvine: “I have attempted to mount a case for the idea that a given LONG WAVE GHG forcing will have considerably lower temperature response…
    …What follows is an edited version of the experiment design and results as posted on the WUWT thread. I would encourage others to conduct similar experiments…”
    =========================================================

    Your GHG forcing is also known as “greenhouse effect” and as presented by the IPCC, the back IR radiation from the so called “greenhouse gases” should warm the source of radiation, namely surface (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html). A an sorry to disappoint you, but such an effect on the temperature of the source of IR is physically impossible. Even on the theoretical level such an effect must lead in some cases to an endless mutual warming without additional energy input, which is absurd.

    Greg

    Many WUWT readers will recognise the flaw in your argument and will probably ignore it, but the problem is that AGW advocates see your comment and present it as typical of the sceptic position.

    Let’s make this as simple as possible.

    The earth receives a ‘constant’ source of energy from the sun. In order to maintain a stable temperature the earth (and it’s atmosphere) must get rid of (or emit) an equivalent amount of energy. If the rate of energy emission from the earth is reduced then the earth will heat up.

    There is no “endless mutual warming “. The warming is from the sun. The earth then warms and emits energy to space. Eventually there is an equlibrium whereby the incoming energy is in balance with the outgoing energy. This is basic thermodynamics. ‘Greenhouse gases’ reduce the rrate at which outgoing energy is emitted to space. The earth will therefore warm until the incoming/outgoing balance is restored.

  35. Cynical Scientst says:

    My comment is that the system in your experiment isn’t sealed. You are blowing air across the water with a fan and the heat extracted in this way is venting back into the room. The water with the backscattered LWR is receiving more heat into a thin surface layer. Unsurprisingly the forced convention via the fan immediately extracts almost all of this extra heat into the air. The air coming off the backscattered LWR container will be fractionally hotter and more humid than the air coming off the other container. That is where the heat is going.

    Your experiment does not support the contention that backscattered LWR causes no heating over the 71% of the globe which is covered by water, which is the spin you seem to be trying to put on it. What it suggests is that the main effect of backscattered LWR over water is not to heat the water itself, but rather to heat the air above the water. The heat goes somewhere. Over the oceans it goes into making the air fractionally hotter and more humid.

    This does however underline just how difficult it is going to be for Trenberth to come up with any plausible explanation for how his ‘missing heat’ from the greenhouse effect is ending up in the deep ocean where he says it is. Your experiment underlines the fact that you simply can’t heat water from above with LWR if it is exposed to convection because the heat goes straight into the air.

  36. arthur4563 says:

    Watcher:
    This is quite a settled science : no one in the AGW camp can provide a scintilla of data that
    settles anything. If the issue were settled, there would exist models capable of accurate prognostications. There are none, so the AGW extremists are simply left to proclaim the issue settled. In fact, I know of few, if any, scientific disciplines which have settled their primary issues. In the past many disciplines thought they had figured it all out, and considered the science settled,
    only to find out later how wrong they were. In terms of logic, a science can never “prove” that
    any of its theories are correct : that would require affirming the antecedent, an impossibility.
    And as for changes to the Earth, exactly why do you think you are either qualified or have been
    empowered to make judgments?

  37. Joseph Bastardi says:

    I truly believe there are alot of people that dont want this argument to ever end because it brings them attention and status. I for one am tired of it, I was born to forecast weather, but knowing the climate is essential in providing a base for a good forecast. Its no different than a general understanding past battles or the enemies tendencies in previous fights. People want to dismiss such things today, but all we see now is the similar events in the past observed much more intensely. So I have proposed a simpler test. Look at the global temp in 1978 when the PDO flipped to warm and the satellite era of objective temp analysis truly started, and see what it is in 2030 now that pdo has flipped to cold and the atlantic will follow in about 10 years. So far the triple crown of cooling, introduced on Oreilly 4 years ago along with this test proposal to Bill Nye seems to be carrying the day, as seen here:

    The sun, the oceans and stochastic natural events rule the climate. I am sorry if that destroys alot of arguing but I have proposed the test and its running and in the end I am confident of the result. Most likely when dealing with the massive power of the sun, and then the earths reaction, the simple, most obvious answers are most likely correct. Man is just not as important as many believe he is, IMO. If that lessens my “status” in this debate, so be it. The whole thing we be proven to be an overblown sham that wasted alot of time and money in a world that needed it in other more dire places

  38. Rob JM says:

    Big Problem, Short wave climate sensitivity is not high at all!
    You have made a massive assumption that Solar TSI is the forcing responsible for the temp change without considering the much larger forcing from cloud changes.
    In the satellite period we have observed a 5% decrease in cloud cover between 1987 and 2000.
    This is a 0.9w/m2 forcing (after adjusting for increases OLR) and caused only 0.3 deg C of warming.
    Climate sensitivity for a shortwave forcing is therefor less than 0.4
    The question on whether sensitivity is the same for different forcing types is still valid, Its just that in this particular instance both sides have clearly been wrong!

  39. Tom Jones says:

    I hate to be a bucket of cold water, but I really doubt there is any proof whatsoever that will convince the true believers. Max Planck once quipped, “Science advances one funeral at a time”. The objective is not to win an unwinnable argument. The objective is to prevent committed zealots from getting the government to do something that is very expensive and totally useless.

  40. Henry Clark says:

    “There is a lot of evidence from the Last Glacial Maxima and Volcanoes and other areas that climate sensitivity is quite high (about 0.8, i.e. requil. T=0.8xrF). Certainly, this can be seen on geological scales. These estimates are based on Short Wave Solar Forcings. The trouble starts when they try to apply these high sensitivities to the enormous increase in Long Wave GHG forcing that has occurred in the last 60 or 70 years. They mistakenly assume that a given GHG forcing will have the same equilibrium temperature response as a similar Solar Forcing and then find it difficult or impossible to make the meagre temperature response over recent years fit their high sensitivities.”

    The first part neglects how total solar-related forcing, including fluctuation in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field impacting cosmic ray flux and indirectly Earth’s albedo via cloud cover change, is around 3 to 4 times as many W/m^2 as that of variation in more near-constant sunlight (TSI) alone, and looking at the total correspondingly drastically drops the climate sensitivity seen. Illustrations include blatant correlation of GCR variation with medium altitude humidity in http://s7.postimg.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif , Dr. Shaviv’s estimate of a 4x ratio in http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf discussed at http://sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity , and a good intro in general at http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf .

    The only realistic explanation for this lack of correlation ( FIG, 1) is that the IPCC’s sensitivities are far too high and that the “Effective Radiative Forcing” for Long Wave GHGs is considerably lower than the “Effective Radiative Forcing “ for Short Wave solar.

    Or, like Rob JM just noted, the W/m^2 figure used for short wave solar variation is too low effectively by not counting indirectly-caused cloud cover change, as prior links illustrate.

    This thread’s article, for unclear reason, is more or less like the last one at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/a-comparison-of-the-earths-climate-sensitivity-to-changes-in-the-nature-of-the-initial-forcing/ except missing some of the better illustrations in the prior article, while not having an improvement to the experiment like removing the thick styrofoam backing from the aluminum foil as my comment there suggested.

    Maybe I should try submitting an article.

  41. davidmhoffer says:

    Bart;
    Not necessarily. A change in solar forcing increases the time rate of change of energy coming into the system. A change in ghg indeed provides zero increase to the input time rate of change, but it could momentarily decrease the time rate of change of energy exiting the system,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well certainly. But this is a temporary condition as you yourself state. In a theoretical “doubling of co2″ we might even be able to quantify it and measure. For practical purposes though, we’re only increasing CO2 at a rate of 2 ppm per year. The heat capacity associated with such a small change is miniscule. So technically I agree with you, I just don’t see it as being significant in the climate context.

  42. Bart says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    April 21, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    “But this is a temporary condition as you yourself state.”

    It is temporary because an increase in retained heat would increase the outward bound radiation until the net energy making it past the barrier balanced that coming in.

    As I stated though, there is no apparent significant dependence of global temperatures on CO2 in the climate data , so you are probably right about that. In fact, the data indicate the converse, that atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost entirely dependent on temperatures, and so I disagree that “we” are increasing CO2 at 2 ppm/year.

  43. Rob says:

    Some fairly clear biases in outlook and in the strength of conclusions on one test, to be fair. And looking at the linked ‘irrelevant’ study I’m not sure that it was, I’m wonder if someone could explain why it would be so? However it would appear that the level of investigation on this basic question by warmers is at least matched by this. Even if valid their linked test was done as something of a lark. Wouldn’t it be fun to take a look as to how the proposed CO2 effect on warming affects oceans? Yes, it would be fun – it might even be science…

  44. Rob says:

    *I wonder

  45. Alec M says:

    For heaven’s sake, there is no net LW forcing. The operational emissivity [radiation only] is ~0.4, 1/3 rd minor side-bands and trace gases, the rest the atmospheric window. Taking account of the convection and evapo-transpiration, the average earth emissivity is 63/396 = 0.16, and you predict this exactly using standard physics.

    The main GHG bands including CO2 switch off that net emission. This is radiative physics equilibrium 101.

    Because of this error by the meteorologists mistaking the S-b output of pyrgeometers for a real energy flux, we have wasted 10s of billions on stupid science.

  46. george e. smith says:

    Well the issue of warming air or warming ocean is one that gets a lot of attention.
    Case in point; the local PBS T&V stations in the SFBay area; ch-9 and ch-54, have both now gone to a 24 hour, 365 days a year money cadging program schedule. All they run, is some lecturer or other, talking about your yoga exercises, and medication pills, or else they have an obviously senile Bill Moyer, listening dumbfounded to some nutcake or oth , rtalking about their latest readers digest article or book maybe.

    So for about the last month, pbs has been begging us to watch Moyer trying to make sense out of the monotonous utterances, of some supposed biologist, who is now a climate expert, and also an expert on chemical toxicity. She complains that the EPA only regulates a few hundred chemicals, out of the 80,000 chemicals used by industry, as to their toxicity to children or fetuses. Now she did not list which of these 80,000 chemicals are commonly fed to children or fetuses. Well she’s a biologist; not a chemist, so why doesn’t she complain about the millions of known plant species that are toxic to children or fetuses, and are not currently regulated by epa.

    So this Sandra Steingruber, says that fracking rock structures miles deep for energy supplies, releases ozone and unburned methane into the atmosphere. I often fish a popular California lake, that is always venting unburned methane, that bubbles up through the water; and nobody is fracking that, or the rotting vegetation in arctic peat bog and permafrost areas.

    Today she told Moyer; who lapped it up, that burning fossil fuels heated the air and the oceans, killing off many lifeform species.

    Her book that she is pushing, is about raising her son. I don’t think she explained to Moyer, why; as an environmentally concerned biologist, she even allowed herself to have a son; knowing how overtaxed the earth’s resources are, by over population.

    That this person, is so ill informed about how thermodynamics works to control heat flow, and about how radiation physics varies greatly with wavelength as to its interraction with earth materials, like water oceans, and common gaseous atmosphere.

    Conduction and convection, act in concert, to prevent significant transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ground or the oceans, and the absorption coefficient of water acts to prevent LWIR radiation, from transporting significant amounts of radiation energy from the atmosphere to the deep oceans; but promotes evaporative transport of latent heat from the ocean surface, to the upper atmosphere.

    Moyer, just sits there, and never questions her assertons about the effect of energy exploration on the lives of children or fetuses. In general, the more energy, the more of those children and fetuses will get to actually have lives.

  47. HenryP says:

    I also have to agree with Greg and others who see (most) of the heat of earth coming in via the water where the energy from the sun <0.5 um is the highest and where water absorbs, meaning most of that radiation is changed to warmth because there is mass. A (GH) gas has little mass, hence it deflects where it absorbs.!!
    Most recently they also discovered CO2 absorbs at some places in the UV which is why they can identify it on other planets.
    I don’t want to give the CAGW crowd more food for turning the whole CO2 scare into CAGC but I will explain it again to those who still "believe" in CO2 as being a factor in unnatural warming of earth by approaching it from another angle,
    Check this graph:

    The red is what you get on your head. Do you all get that? The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, O2, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it (ti.e. he absorption spectra of these gases) as it bounced back to earth from the moon. All these gases are GHG’s, agreed?
    Now, do you understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling.
    Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.
    The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments – by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show the one side of the coin. The absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 1-2 and 4-5 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Furthermore, as I have shown in an earlier post, there is little or no absorbency of water at 14-16 um so it (i.e. the 14-16 coming back to earth) cannot heat the water. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
    Do you now see what the problem is?
    I just hope that people are not going to see the current natural global cooling

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    and turn it into some AGC or CAGC……..

  48. Kristian says:

    rgbatduke says, April 21, 2013 at 3:52 pm:

    “On the contrary, one can show quite easily that a sphere heated by the sun and cooled by outgoing blackbody IR radiated to space as a cold reservoir will “warm” if one interpolates an layer of gas that is opaque/absorptive in (bands in) the outgoing IR, in the specific sense that its dynamical equilibrium temperature will increase.”

    Yes, one can ‘show’ it theoretically using plain arithemtic and add the ‘back radiated’ flux from the absorptive gas layer to the sphere’s outgoing flux. But it is of course not what happens in the real world. Not if there is a vacuum separating the sphere and the gas layer so that only radiative heat loss comes into play. The layer would simply come in between the sphere and its cold reservoir, get warmed by part (half) of the absorbed heat flux and let the rest (the other half) escape to the cold reservoir. Just like a Carnot engine in a Carnot cycle, only the part of the heat flux from the hot reservoir ‘captured’ by the gas layer doesn’t lead to any mechanical work done, but rather to heating the layer itself:

    (No heat ‘flowing’ back to the hot reservoir making it even hotter when the engine is heated. Only reduced heat loss to its cold reservoir. Where does the rest go? To do work. Or, as with the gas layer, into warming and maintaining its temperature.)

    http://books.google.no/books?id=PfadZy35Wh0C&pg=PA442&lpg=PA442&dq=blackbody+sphere+surrounded+shell+radiation&source=bl&ots=TDbus0Dwu4&sig=3Aj5S6SlUB55MY9ry_MBXzTBm84&hl=no&sa=X&ei=d6VxUfOHC8Os4ASGsYCACQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=blackbody%20sphere%20surrounded%20shell%20radiation&f=false

    (Problem 27. As you can see, the shell simply reduces the heat loss to space. It doesn’t heat its source, even when this is heated by its own source. I quote: “A sphere of radius R is maintained at a surface temperature T by an internal heat source (Figure 3).” It doesn’t say ‘PLUS the back radiation from the surrounding shell.

    This is also how Multi-layer insulation on spacecrafts works:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

    “The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, at 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 watts. Now imagine we place a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, thermally insulated from it, and also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 watts from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 watts from the original plate. 230 watts is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 watts to space. The original surface still radiates 460 watts, but gets 230 back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 watts. So overall, the radiation losses have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer. More layers can be added to reduce the loss further.”

  49. Frank says:

    Bob: Your experiment may have several flaws. The surface of the “IR reflector” that is facing the warm water will be warmed by the water and the styrofoam may reduce the rate at which it transfers heat to the room. So the surface of your “IR reflector” could be warmer than the ceiling and walls of the room, which are radiating towards the water through your “IR window”. So your “IR reflector” could simply be acting likely a winter coat on a cold day – the inside of the coat is warmed by your warm skin (analogous to the warm water) and the insulation in the coat (styrofoam) slows down conduction of heat to the environment (the room).

    When the fan is blowing, the surface of your IR reflector could be cooled by convection and be closer to the temperature of the room which is “shining” through the cling wrap. You should certainly try your experiment with and without the cling wrap while keeping the fan running in both cases, so that the only thing you have changed is evaporation.

    You should also make your “IR reflector” as similar as possible to your “IR window” – two similar frames covered with cling wrap or aluminum foil. Since aluminum foil is thin and a good conductor, once you eliminate the styrofoam, your “IR reflector” should conduct and block convection more like your “IR window”.

    The fact that thermal IR penetrates only the top few microns of the surface of the ocean turns out to be unimportant. Both the atmosphere and the ocean emit thermal IR, with the ocean emiting slightly more because it is usually warmer and has higher emissivity. All of the thermal radiation that leaves the water is emitted from the same few microns at the surface of the ocean. (If thermal IR can travel downward through only a few microns before being absorbed, thermal IR can’t get out unless it is emitted from the same few microns.) When you consider both the upward and downward flux (which both involve about 350 W/m2 of energy entering and leaving a very think layer), NET thermal IR makes the surface of the ocean cooler than the water just below. Evaporation – which also comes from the top layer of water molecules – also cools the top few microns. During daytime, some short wavelength solar radiation is absorbed by the top few microns, but the bulk of the energy is deposited in the top few meters. Without heat from the top few meters, the top few microns of the ocean would freeze, not boil of into the atmosphere. At night, loses by net thermal IR and evaporation cool the surface, making it dense enough to sink and convecting the water warmed by the sun to the surface. The bulk of the ocean is warmed by the sun and that energy is convected or conducted to the top few microns where it is lost by evaporation and radiative cooling – and those losses are far bigger than the thermal IR arriving from the atmosphere.

  50. peterg says:

    Regarding your point: I have attempted to mount a case for the idea that a given LONG WAVE GHG forcing will have considerably lower temperature response than a similar SHORT WAVE solar forcing.

    If differential absorption at the planet’s surface is what you are trying to prove, then I have absolutely no interest.

    The only way that the Earth’s surface can be 30 degrees Kelvin higher that it would be in the absence of GHG is if it absorbs and emits long wave radiation. The emittance of long wave radiation is close to unity. Absorbance and emittance must be identical, otherwise it would be possible to build a perpetural motion machine and violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    If you had a piece of material that emitted, but did not absorb long wave radiation, it would cool spontaneously, and you could insert a thermocouple and get free electricity.

    And if it is being asserted that emittance/absorbance is quite low, then how is the Earths natural temperature to be explained? There is not enough solar radiation to raise it to 290K odd.

  51. johnmarshall says:

    Why has LIR GHG forcing increased over the last 60-70 years? You assume, wrongly, that GHG’s have increased over the past which is not true. Atmospheric CO2 content has varied from over 20% on the primordial planet to thousands ppmv millions of years ago. Measurements taken in Victorian times gives a CO2 content of up to 500ppmv. CO2 content varies diurnally, seasonally and with each hemisphere. Our measly input is but 3% of the total.
    And #peterg there is more than enough radiation for 290K. Measured zenith radiation is ~1000W/m2, average hemispheric radiation 500W/m2 giving ~+34C average temperature before the heave losses which reduces it to ~+14C

  52. Kristian says:

    April 22, 2013 at 1:17 am, I said:

    “Yes, one can ‘show’ it theoretically using plain arithemtic and add the ‘back radiated’ flux from the absorptive gas layer to the sphere’s outgoing flux.”

    The ‘outgoing flux’ should read ‘incoming flux’, i.e. the heat input from the sphere’s heat source.

    I also said: “As you can see, the shell simply reduces the heat loss to space. It doesn’t heat its source, even when this is heated by its own source.”

    I would change the ‘It doesn’t heat its source’ to ‘It doesn’t make the surface of the sphere (its heat source) warmer than what the sphere’s own heat source could manage on its own, neither by adding to its heat gain or subtracting from its heat loss’. It does reduce its heat loss, but that doesn’t mean it makes it warmer – check the links. This is where the confusion arises.

  53. cba says:

    Lots of interesting comments here so far. As usual, understanding the basic physics concepts is vital to gaining an understanding of how things behave out in the real world. It would seem that this experiment is good for understanding one very important concept – what happens with LWIR w.r.t. water surfaces (Trenberth’s missing heat). The total details of what happens in the atmosphere and ocean surface cannot be duplicated on the lab bench. However, we can through various experiments deduce what happens.

    As for what is happening overall, we have observations of the real system that can be combined with our experiments to help gain an understanding of what actually is going on and / or what is not going on.

    First, a few little reminders of what the real system includes:

    Earth is 70% ocean
    Oceans have very low albedo, less than 0.04
    Land has much higher albedo, averaging somewhere around 0.12 to 0.16
    Sky with clouds provides most of our 0.3 albedo
    Land is concentrated mostly in the Northern Hemisphere and oceans in the Southern Hemisphere
    North and South Hemispheres are fairly close to each other in average temperature
    More solar energy arrives to a hemisphere during the summer than the winter
    Earth’s elliptical orbit provides significantly more power at aphelion (December) than at perihelion (June). Peak to peak difference at the TOA is about 90 W/m^2 out of about 1365 W/m^2.

    What we see is that with rather little average temperature difference between hemispheres, we have substantially more solar energy arriving at the TOA along with a surface that will absorb significantly more energy in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere. This is not the case since the temperatures are not diverging. What we see is an incoming power difference many times the size of that added absorption achieved in a CO2 doubling.

    What is happening is the water cycle. The added heat coming into the Southern Hemisphere goes into evaporating water at the surface of the ocean and then convects up to form clouds that shade the ocean from some of the incoming solar. This also increases the LWIR downwelling as there is added water vapor and the clouds absorb and emit LWIR as well. Moist air is ligher weight because the molecular weight of water is 18 versus the atmospheric average of 28.8 so it should be no surprise that it will rise conveying that excess heat up above must of the ghgs where it can radiate to space.

    This expermiment presented is important in that it shows incoming LWIR energy evaporates water (which can then take it back up into the atmosphere for dispersal) rather than is absorbed, warming the lower ocean depth – per Trenberth’s imaginary missing heat.

  54. Richard111 says:

    NASA reports CO2 is a COOLANT in the atmosphere.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

  55. commieBob says:

    Watcher says:
    April 21, 2013 at 10:36 am

    … the preponderance of evidence is still far, far in favor of the AGW theory.

    AGW theory says that human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming. There isn’t actually a lot of DIRECT evidence for that assertion per se. A lot of what people seem to think passes for evidence is little better than conjecture.

    … the preponderance of conjecture is still far, far in favor of the AGW theory.

    There. Fixed it for ya.

  56. HenryP says:

    Watcher does not get it yet,
    He is relying too much on “public” opinion
    not realizing that that will change fast, once the global cooling sets in..

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Richard111 is spot on.
    How come Nasa knows all of this, and Hansen does not?

  57. HenryP says:

    cba makes a lot of sense
    I want to add something
    I have a swimming pool here and an elaborate system to heat the water.
    However, no matter how much energy I put in
    the water will never get much above 32 here, no matter how much energy I put in.
    All it does is evaporate faster when I try to make it hotter,
    Does somebody know why this is so
    (seeing that the oceans’ temps. don’t go much higher either…..)
    and why this is important to what we are discussing here?

  58. Stephen Wilde says:

    “All it does is evaporate faster when I try to make it hotter,
    Does somebody know why this is so”

    Atmospheric pressure sets the limits by fixing the energy cost for a given amount of evaporation at the sea/air interface.

    Evaporation is a net cooling process so it is easy for it to put a limit on the maximum temperature that can be achieved at our ocean surfaces.

    Then, since the energy capacity of the oceans is huge compared to that of air, it is but a trifle for the oceans to control air temperatures.

    See here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735

    “Our Saviour – The Hydrological Cycle by Stephen Wilde
    Friday, July 17th 2009, 3:23 PM EDT “

  59. Phil. says:

    Richard111 says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:07 am
    NASA reports CO2 is a COOLANT in the atmosphere.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    Yes as they say, “SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere”, above 100km! Also ““Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
    “For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”

    HenryP says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:16 am
    Richard111 is spot on.
    How come Nasa knows all of this, and Hansen does not?

    Hansen does and has done for a long time, unlike Richard111 who apparently didn’t read the post he referred to!

  60. HenryP says:

    henry@stephen
    there are not too many of us who figured it out
    it is the water cycle that keeps everything within limits
    so that life can carry on
    but the CO2 has little or nothing to do with it
    i.e. with the temp. on earth
    we do need more CO2 for life to thrive
    i.e more crops, more lawn, more trees, etc…

    don’t worry about Phil.
    he never got anything from what I tried to tell him….

    henry

  61. vukcevic says:

    Note to Anthony
    Nnew facility ‘Rate This’ is open to misuse by deleting cookie, I just put up 5 ‘thumbs up’ on the previous comment, with apologies to Stephen Wild.

  62. vukcevic says:

    Note to Anthony
    ‘Rate This’ new facility is open to misuse, by deleting cookie, I just put up 5 ‘thumbs up’ on the previous comment, with apologies to Stephen Wild.

  63. vukcevic says:

    Then I put 5 ‘thumbs down’ on my post. With apology to the Anthony and mods.

  64. oldfossil says:

    I remain skeptical. The most important part of the experiment, viz. the glamorous lab assistant, is not shown in any of the illustrations.

  65. rgbatduke says:

    This is also how Multi-layer insulation on spacecrafts works:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

    “The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, at 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 watts. Now imagine we place a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, thermally insulated from it, and also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 watts from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 watts from the original plate. 230 watts is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 watts to space. The original surface still radiates 460 watts, but gets 230 back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 watts. So overall, the radiation losses have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer. More layers can be added to reduce the loss further.”

    Yes, but when I try to explain this simple model to the crazy dragonslayers as a reasonable model for a “colder object” heating a “warmer object” they seem incapable of understanding it.

    This specific example is ALMOST a perfect (if oversimplified) model for greenhouse warming, if you switch from a constant temperature source to a constant power source. Suppose we have the same square meter of unit emissivity surface in outer space containing a heat source producing 460 watts, it will heat to 300K by the same argument you give above. If we surround it with a thin but opaque layer 1 cm away, separated from it by vacuum, and also of emissivity 1, it will be warmed by heat from the inner object until IT is losing power on its outer surface at a rate of 460 watts, because the system in steady state MUST lose 460 watts (the rate at which it is being heated). But if the opaque surface is radiating 460 watts outward, it is also radiating 460 watts inward. In order to be in detailed balance, the inner object has to be radiating 920 watts — 460 watts from its internal power supply, 460 watts it receives as “back radiation” from the surrounding opaque blackbody shell. To radiate 920 watts, it has to increase in temperature to 300 * (2^{1/4}) = 357 K. The outer shell will actually end up at a temperature slightly under 300 K (as it has a slightly larger surface area from which to lose 460 watts).

    If you raise the shell so it is further away, you further increase its area and hence decrease its temperature when it is radiating 460 watts away, and also reduce the absorption cross-section of the object inside to the back radiation itself (some of which starts to travel from the opaque shell to the opaque shell without hitting the inner object at all). Overall this decreases the back radiation but leaves it strictly positive — the inner object will always heat up a bit (compared steady state 300K with no shell at all) as long as ANY back radiation is received from a surrounding shell. The Earth is a teeny, weeny bit warmer than it would be if it were steady heated and there were no 3K blackbody radiation from outer space, if outer space were perfectly dark and empty and hence had a “temperature” of 0K.

    Voila! A cooler object (the shell, in steady state) causes a heated object to increase its temperature! And yet heat always flows from hot to cold, entropy increases, the gods of thermodynamics are pleased and shower one with rose petals.

    The GHE in the atmosphere is complicated by the fact that it is only one of many things going on, and by the fact that to a large extent it is saturated in all bands associated with all the components of the atmosphere — opaque is opaque, and the logarithmic increase expected from increasing CO_2 concentration is almost an accidental result of (IIRC) pressure broadening of its particular quantum spectrum. So sure, differentially heating and cooling the atmosphere causes convection, conduction, latent heat transfer, and modulation of lots of other relevant stuff such as albedo and water that might well overwhelm any part of the GHE associated with increasing CO_2 BUT that does not mean that the mechanism itself is not valid or important in raising the mean temperature of the Earth compared to the atmosphere-free moon, only that most of the benefit we get from CO_2 was gotten by the first 100 ppm or so, and most of the total benefit (warming) we get now is from water vapor, not CO_2, by somewhere between one and two orders of magnitude.

    At this point, since one can now see that there is nothing contradictory about an externally heated object becoming warmer when one interpolates an absorptive/emissive layer of gas between it and outer space at 3 K, one can actually look at the spectral data to try to understand it a bit better without trying to claim that it doesn’t exist at all. At which point I usually recommend that people buy a copy of Grant Petty’s book, because it has actual TOA and BOA spectrographs that are direct photographic evidence for the GHE — if you know how to read a spectrograph and mentally integrate over frequencies.

    But kudos for finding the article above on multi-layer insulation. One can do even better, of course, if one has an surrounding layer that is truly reflective, has a high albedo on the inner surface. But atmospheric gases like CO_2 aren’t reflective in that sense; they really are opaque and diffusely absorptive (and re-emissive).

    rgb

  66. rgbatduke says:

    (Problem 27. As you can see, the shell simply reduces the heat loss to space. It doesn’t heat its source, even when this is heated by its own source. I quote: “A sphere of radius R is maintained at a surface temperature T by an internal heat source (Figure 3).” It doesn’t say ‘PLUS the back radiation from the surrounding shell.

    Just in case you want to make this an issue, don’t misread this problem. The point is that the power source is variable and is adjusted to keep T constant so that the problem can be solved easily using the stuff in the chapter. However, it is just as easy to solve for constant power input into the sphere. In this case you will find that T of the inner sphere is a function of (among other things) the radius of the surrounding shell and (implicitly) its temperature.

    I will also point out that when the outer shell is at radius e.g. 2R and not R+\Delta R for \Delta R << R, there is a nontrivial correction factor for the cross section of the inner sphere, given that thermal radiation is not given off only perpendicular to a small surface element of the curved inner surface of the shell. But as I also noted in the previous post, there will always be power GAIN from the back radiation and it will strictly raise the steady state temperature of the inner sphere.

    rgb

  67. george e. smith says:

    The question that is the crux of much of this thread, is simply:- Does LWIR EM radiant energy that propagates downward from earth’s atmosphere, and cloud cover when present, HEAT (verb) the ocean; which implies that the ocean Temperature (whatever that means), is increased by the existence of such radiant energy ? Or does that not happen ?

    Now it is well known (by observation) that in the Atlantic/Caribean waters, following the passage of a hurricane, and maybe lesser tropical storms, the surface waters in the track of the storm, are colder than before the storm passed through. Huge amounts of energy in the form of latent heat of evaporation, acompany the megatonnes of water that is in the cyclonic clouds of the storm. The ocean surface heat (noun) is the energy that powers the storm.

    Not surprisingly, the high surface wind speeds rapidly remove water vapor from the reaction interface between ocean and atmosphere allowing further evaporation to occur. At the microscopic level, the H2O molecules with kinetic energies on the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution of the surface water molecules, are the ones that break free of the surface intermolecular forces, and escape from the surface. Chemical engineers know much better than I do, that removal of reaction products from the reaction interface, is essential to maintaining the process. Without removal, the increasing concentration of high energy molecules on the gaseous side of the reaction, results in increased flux of water molecules, back into the liquid phase, stopping the evaporation process. As a result, the liquid surface is depleted of higher energy molecules, resulting in a lower mean molecular kinetic energy. And the words we use to describe this are “lower Temperature”.
    Evaporation naturally depresses the surface Temperature relative to the bulk of the liquid. Well that is simply the latent heat of evaporation.
    As a result, there is a negative Temperature gradient at the surface, and this gradient, is the driving force causing conductive heat (noun) to flow from the bulk, towards the surface, to replace the latent heat of evaporation. If this did not happen, the evaporation must eventually cease.

    So now consider what happens at this microscopic level, when we add in the downward LWIR EM radiant energy. Note I said “energy”. This is NOT heat (noun), it is radiation energy that knows nothing of Temperature, which is a macroscopic property of materials.

    We know that this LWIR EM energy is very strongly absorbed in the top few microns of the surface; about 30 microns absorbs 95% of the 10 micron wavelength center of the atmospheric EM spectrum.

    Absorption of this ENERGY is a microscopic process; it takes a molecule of water (or perhaps some molecular water complex) to absorb that LWIR photon; it is not a thermal (heat (verb) ) process.

    But that absorbed quantum of energy will raise the kinetic energy of THAT WATER MOLECULE or complex, without raising the Temperature of the macroscopic body of water.

    The kinetic energy bonus, that results in molecular escape (microscopic process) , can be supplied either by heat (noun) from the bulk of the water (macroscopic) or by the absorption of the LWIR photon, which is a microscopic process.

    The negative Temperature gradient remains at the surface, and the surface is colder than the bulk; but evaporation rate is increased, because the downward EM radiation supplies the energy offset, to a single molecule or perhaps complex, to break that microscopia loose from the surface.

    I can conceive of no process going on here, that results in heat (noun) propagating DOWNWARD from the surface, into the bulk of the ocean. The negative surface Temperature gradient maintains heat flow from the bulk to the surface, a macroscopic process, resulting in evaporation, and the microscopic process of adding photon energy to single molecules, accelerates the evaporative process. Note that the EM photon energy exits the surface along with the water molecule, and is returned to the atmosphere.

    So I invite all comments showing me the error of my ways, and the glitch in my narrative ??

  68. Kristian says:

    rgbatduke says, April 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm:

    “Just in case you want to make this an issue, don’t misread this problem. The point is that the power source is variable and is adjusted to keep T constant so that the problem can be solved easily using the stuff in the chapter.”

    Yes, that’s quite rich. Assume you’re right first and then interpret what the problem is actually saying afterwards. Good one. You can never be mistaken that way …

    It doesn’t say anything about a variable heat source. That’s only your interpretation. Because in your mind that’s the only solution. That’s how it has to be. No, it simply states that the surface temperature of the inner sphere is maintained by its internal heat source … and nothing else. You didn’t read anything of the rest of the post? The example with the multi-layer insulation, exactly the same. You will of course again posit that the inner surface is somehow heated by a variable heat source even though no such premise is being laid out. Just to be right.

    Show it rather than assert it.

    Half the heat goes into warming the shell, the rest goes out to space. That’s it.

    A black body in a vacuum at 290K emits 400 W/m^2. It does so no matter what. This flux is a function of its temperature. Based on heat gain from its heat source, a warmer body than itself. Its corresponding emission is dictated by the laws of physics.

    If this body then receives a flux of 200 W/m^2 from another body adjacent to it at temperature 244K, then this flux will not be able to do anything in the way of increasing the level of thermal energy and thus the temperature of the 290K body. Its temperature is already set by its incoming flux from an even warmer body, say 6000K, its hot reservoir.

    If you want to claim that the 290K body warms up to a higher steady-state temperature in the presence of the 244K body, then you are in effect saying that the 244K body operates as a second, independent heat source for the 290K body.

    Why? Because nothing else has changed. The original heat source still sends but the 400 W/m^2 of 6000K spectrum radiation to the warm body. This will upon absorption in itself not warm it past the 290K it did before. The body also still emits its corresponding 400 W/m^2 flux of 290K spectrum radiation to its cold reservoir based on its temperature.

    So if the temperature then still rises, then this must somehow be caused by something else. It must be caused by extra absorbed heat from somewhere. A positive transfer of (a gain in) thermal energy.

    Well, the only other body in this system is the 244K one. The only thing that’s different is the 200 W/m^2 flux from the cool body to the warm.

    You want to claim, I guess, that this radiative ‘counter-flux’ slows the cooling rate of the warm body, thus heating it indirectly. But how specifically does it accomplish this without itself transferring HEAT to it and thereby raising the warm body’s kinetic energy level beyond what it would be otherwise – and hence its temperature? Does it somehow disallow half of the 400 W/m^2 of 290K spectrum radiation from leaving the surface of the warm body?

    Remember now, if the warm body is provided with a constant energy/heat supply from its ultimate heat source, it will not cool in the meaning ‘temperature dropping’. Its emission temperature is kept up, sustained. So the cool body can do nothing to reduce its ‘cooling rate’. There is no cooling rate to be reduced.

    What is reduced is ‘the heat transfer rate’ between the warmer body and the cooler. Q. This does not affect the surface temperature of the warmer body. Only the surface temperature of the cooler one.

    Temperature is set by absorbed heat.

  69. LdB says:

    Sorry Bob most of your argument fails as most comments have already highlighted. There is a problem with the IPCC projections and it’s much more basic it’s not the understanding of greenhouse effect. The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood and outside the ability of climate science or pseudoscience types on here to challenge because it falls into the Quantum Mechanics field the classic physics approximations used by the IPCC are reasonable at the level they use.

    So now as a scientist looking at the whole stupidity of climate change from the outside there is an obvious problem of the AGW IPCC disaster scenario

    Start with wiki on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing and go to the climate sensitivity section first we get the IPCC calculation:

    A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.

    Now move down the page to the next section “Forcing due to atmospheric gas”

    The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

    Two views of the same equation expressed a different way both saying the same thing you need a logarithmical increase in CO2 production to support a linear temperature rise.

    Now go look at the CO2 figures for the atmosphere and then look at the IPCC CO2 projections

    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html

    See the problem only the A2 and A1F1 scenarios give you an exponential CO2 levels and they both look impossible scenarios based on the amount of fossil fuels you would have to burn and the growth of fossil fuels is not following that projection

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

    The last 15 years of climate slowdown is because the CO2 levels are not exponentially increasing the rate will continue to slow from the early prior based on the IPCC’s own figures and science.

    Looking at the numbers CO2 will be at 550-650ppm by 2100 so 1.5 degree K warmer than now based on the science.

    My problem is this suddenly becomes 4 degree C in the IPCC release.

    Look at the US EPA page for example

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

    Look at the graph of CO2 only the two much higher emission scenarios project the levels of CO2 to the required 800 ppm CO2 levels to get a 3 degree K rise.

    The problem isn’t the science its the politics because the real thing climate science needs to show is that we are following a A1F1 and A2 scenario because that’s the only ones that put 4 degree C rise as even a possibility and the disaster scenarios.

    The problem for climate science is the developed countries have leveled there fossil fuel consumption and only the big developing nations like China, India and Brazil are increasing there emissions and it is not at a logarithmic rate and they have to do better than natural log 2 rate to make up for the rest of the world that is relatively flat. China and India increased C02 by 9% and 6%, respectively, in 2011 but this lead to a modest increase in emissions for the world of 3%.

    Hence emission scenarios A1F1 and A2 fall based on economic data and common sense that CO2 emission can not and are not following a logarithmic rate.

    This is sort of an extension of the same stupidity Anthony took Joe Romm to task on about a 6 degree F rise by 2050 which would require CO2 levels to be 800ppm by that time. If you go an look at the CO2 graphs you will see we have moved the CO2 levels from 310 in the sixties to 400ppm now so around 90 ppm. Think about how much fossil fuel you are going to burn to lift it a further 400 ppm and tell me do you really think that can be done in 35 year time frame?

  70. Stephen Wilde says:

    “george e. smith says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:36 pm”

    That is pretty much how I see it too.

    Additional evaporation will always remove all the energy that provokes that evaporation because evaporation is a net cooling process.

  71. LdB says:

    @Richard111

    Your link (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/) comes from a hard sciences unit where we don’t care about the stupidity arguments the pseudoscience in climate change argue about.

    You can’t energy pump the atmosphere without it reacting because it is has an equilibrium loop the sort the pseudoscience types want to emit to justify their view on why AGW does or does not exist depending on there political view.

    Real scientists actually realize the atmosphere can cool or heat depending on the energy balance but that has little to do with climate change where you assume the suns intensity is relatively constant over time and therefore the equilibrium loops should hold the temperature stable.

    AGW is saying you are changing the gas mixture in that exact loop that the scientist in the report measured and therefore the temperature of earth is changing. No physicist ever said CO2 only heats it is simply acts like all quantum active gas in the atmosphere in it’s energy pump loop.

    There is something unique about all the Greenhouse gases you can build lasers from them because it utilizes the same quantum energy pumping effect

    Nitrous oxide lasers operate in far infrared typically 10.8 μm wavelength
    CO2 lasers operate in the far infrared range typically 9.6 µm and 10.6 µm
    Water vapour lasers operate in the infrared typically 27.97, 47.7, 78.46, and 118.6 µm

    For me coming from a QM science background I find it sort of funny when you get people try and claim they can prove using some classic physics garbage they dream up that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist …. sure it doesn’t and my laser tubes don’t work either according to your classic physics you just mashed up.

    There may be problems with the IPCC science like feedbacks and UHI like Anthony has written on but I am sorry to the pseudoscience fringe the greenhouse effect is real and well beyond the scope of climate science stupidity to overturn the science on.

  72. Kristian says:

    rgbatduke says, April 22, 2013 at 9:00 pm:

    “This specific example is ALMOST a perfect (if oversimplified) model for greenhouse warming, if you switch from a constant temperature source to a constant power source. Suppose we have the same square meter of unit emissivity surface in outer space containing a heat source producing 460 watts, it will heat to 300K by the same argument you give above. If we surround it with a thin but opaque layer 1 cm away, separated from it by vacuum, and also of emissivity 1, it will be warmed by heat from the inner object until IT is losing power on its outer surface at a rate of 460 watts, because the system in steady state MUST lose 460 watts (the rate at which it is being heated). But if the opaque surface is radiating 460 watts outward, it is also radiating 460 watts inward. In order to be in detailed balance, the inner object has to be radiating 920 watts — 460 watts from its internal power supply, 460 watts it receives as “back radiation” from the surrounding opaque blackbody shell. To radiate 920 watts, it has to increase in temperature to 300 * (2^{1/4}) = 357 K. The outer shell will actually end up at a temperature slightly under 300 K (as it has a slightly larger surface area from which to lose 460 watts).”

    I didn’t see this until now. Er, rgb, you got this exactly wrong. It says it is 300K radiating 460 W/m^2 both before AND after you put the opaque layer outside it. What the insulating layer does is reducing the heat loss to space, not the heat loss from the inner layer, the heat source of the outer (opaque) layer.

    Notice what it says: “The principle behind MLI is radiation balance.” There IS radiative balance when the inner plate radiates 460 W/m^2 to the opaque layer, keeping it at a temperature of 252K (230 W/m^2 going out from each side). Reread the quote:

    “(…) imagine we place a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, thermally insulated from it, and also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 watts from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 watts from the original plate. 230 watts is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 watts to space. The original surface still radiates 460 watts, but gets 230 back from the new layer, for a net loss of 230 watts. So overall, the radiation losses have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”

    Why do you think the opaque layer cools until it’s radiating 230 watts from each side? Because it receives a constant flux of 460 watts from the inner plate. Because it starts out at some temperature but has no heat source of its own so will equilibrate with its newfound one (the plate). This dynamic equilibrium is achieved at the point where the constant flux of 460 W/m^2 from the plate is balanced by the opaque layer’s emission – temperature 252K, radiative flux 230 W/m^2 outwards and inwards.

    Also, look at this problem from another physics textbook:

    Why do you think they don’t seem to concern themselves at all about the purportedly necessary change in the black sphere’s temperature T when the shell is emplaced? That would be a relevant point to delve into, no? All they’re asking for is how the temperature of the shell will relate to T and also how this radiative equilibrium temperature will affect the total power radiated to the surroundings? If R ~ r, then the shell (if considered fully absorptive) will be ~19% cooler than the sphere. It doesn’t say anything about the shell necessarily having to get 19% warmer than before in order to be able to maintain the shell’s temperature. Note (b) where the black sphere and the heat shield is likened to a star with a surrounding dust cloud. A star is pretty constantly heated, wouldn’t you say so?

    A final request:

    rgb, could you direct me to a controlled real-world experiment conducted in a vacuum chamber where the surface of a central sphere, internally and constantly heated, reaches a new steady state temperature at a minimum of 19% (R ~ r) warmer than the old one, when a shell is placed around it, enclosing it? Well, maybe 19% is a little bit too much to ask for, but at least way beyond any margins of error.

    You see, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any such results being presented at any time during these discussions. But I guess that doesn’t mean they don’t exist …

  73. HenryP says:

    henry@all here who are confused by the remarks by LdB

    perhaps LdB should also first read what the argument was about:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/21/efficacy-of-green-house-gas-forcing-compared-to-solar-forcing/#comment-1283346

    this argument has nothing to do with politics…..
    we were arguing science….
    we were in fact asking those who claim to know, to show us that the net effect of more carbondioxide in the air is that of warming, rather than that of cooling.
    Richard111 merely pointed to a fact that what we already knew, namely that (more) CO2 also acts as (more of) a coolant…..

    Perhaps as a chemist, I should try to explain a point that may be confusing to some.
    We know that water has strong absorbency in the UV. The oceans also have lots of mass, so as the UV from the sun hits on the water, that specific radiation where water has absorbency, is easily converted to heat.

    However, a gas has little mass. A GHG is gas that has (some) absorbency both in the sun’s emission spectrum and in the earth’s emission spectrum. CO2 is a GHG. As the sun’s radiation falls on the molecule, it can absorb in the absorptive regions only until it itself is saturated (with heat). Remember also that most of the neighbor molecules (N2, O2,) are transparent to the absorptive regions anyway, so it is not possible for the molecule to pass that radiation specific to the absorptive regions on as heat as happened in the water. So all it can do is re-radiate here. To try to understand what happens up there, it is perhaps simpler to imagine that in the absorptive regions, the molecule starts acting like a little round mirror as soon as it is saturated by that specific radiation. That still means that approx. 50% of incoming radiation in the absorptive regions is sent in a radius of 180 degrees back in the the direction where it came from. Hence we are able to measure even as it comes back from the moon.

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

    For example, they measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.

    This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):

    http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf

    There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
    We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

    So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results?

    From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, rather than that of cooling, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years. (plants need warmth and CO2, you know)

    There are no such results in any study, let alone in the right dimensions. For example, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions.

    For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The above results suggest that a natural cooling cycle started around 1995.
    We will stay in that cooling loop until ca. 2040.
    Believe me, global warming is over. It is not only me who says it.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend

  74. Bart says:

    Kristian says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    I think you are continuing the mistake of equating energy with time rate of change of energy. I’m not entirely sure, because your posts are turgid and meandering, and try as I might, I cannot seem to find a point.

    The time rate of change of energy does not have to balance instantaneously. Energy will accumulate over any time interval in which the rate of change is not balanced. Watts is not heat. Heat is energy. Watts is a unit of the time rate of change of energy.

    Now, with that as an initial given, please succinctly state your position: Are you saying that an opaque shell about a body with internal heat source will or will not increase the surface temperature of the body?

    LdB says:
    April 22, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    “…you need a [exponential] increase in CO2 production to support a linear temperature rise.”

    The increase in CO2 concentration is not exponential, it has been approximately quadratic, and for the past 15 or so years, has essentially been linear, as the rate of change has leveled off coincident with the leveling off of temperatures.

    The derivative of an exponential is an exponential, which is a convex function. In the plot at the first link I just gave, you can clearly see that the derivative here is concave.

  75. John West says:

    Kristian says:
    “What is reduced is ‘the heat transfer rate’ between the warmer body and the cooler. Q. This does not affect the surface temperature of the warmer body. Only the surface temperature of the cooler one.”

    Uh …. if the rate of heat loss is reduced then the temperature of the “warmer body” will be higher at some time interval later than it would have been without the “cooler body’s” radiation.

    http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf

  76. george e. smith says:

    I take it that the “hitch a ride ” and the “off with his head” flags that made a brief appearance, are now in the “don’t try this at home”, folder. Good place to store them, I say.

  77. wayne says:

    Kristian: “Er, rgb, you got this exactly wrong. It says it is 300K radiating 460 W/m^2 both before AND after you put the opaque layer outside it.”. Maybe review the words…

    RGB said: “This specific example is ALMOST a perfect (if oversimplified) model for greenhouse warming, if you switch from a constant temperature source to a constant power source.” So, in that case, you are no longer at a constant temperature and therefore no longer at constant 460 W/m². Seems you shouldn’t have tried to correct him there. Robert’s describing what was just discussed in depth over at Tallbloke’s TalkShop.

    I just wish rgb would have made the logical jump to include in his comment with a partial of non-interacting window radiation (the non-GHG lines) simultaneously escaping then he indeed would have a very close model for a planet’s atmospheric greenhouse effect. Would have been good hearing how he would see that view of a “leaky shell” around a sphere of constant power.

  78. Kristian says:

    Wayne,

    The plate has a constant temperature because it has a constant energy supply from its heat source. With a variable heat source, the temperature would not be constant.

    So rgb got it wrong. It says very clearly that the plate is at a temperature of 300K, radiating 460 W/m^2 as a result, both before AND after the insulating layer is in place. After the new layer has reached equilibrium with the plate (its heat source), it emits 230 W/m^2 to space, half of what the plate emits to it. Radiation balance at this point. The plate has the same temperature and the same emitted power as before.

    It also states very clearly that the insulating layer cools down to equilibrium with the plate, hence it was warmer than 252K to begin with but has no heat source of its own, so will depend on the constant flux of 460 W/m^2 from the plate.

    The total heat loss flux from the plate, Q = 460 W/m^2, goes half into warming the insulating layer and keeping up its equilibrated temperature (Q’), half from the new layer to space (Q”): Q = Q’ + Q”, 460 W/m^2 = (460 – 230) + 230. This is the exact equivalent to the Carnot cycle: W = Qh – Qc, where Q=Qh, Q”=Qc and Q’=W:

    No need to invent secondary heating of the plate to achieve radiative balance, beyond what its heat source can manage on its own. Before the insulating layer was emplaced, the power from the plate’s heat source went into warming the plate only (one object). After, the same amount of power goes into warming the plate AND the new layer (two separate objects). Hence the smaller flux to space. It’s that simple …

  79. Stephen Wilde says:

    The leakiness of a shell around a sphere irradiated by a constant power source is important.

    In the real world that leakiness is achieved by non radiative mechanisms and is given huge power by evaporation with its 5 to 1 net cooling effect (see enthalpy of vaporisation).

    Add to that the minimal resistance to changes in energy flow rates from space at near absolute zero and the fact is that changes in the internal energy flow rate from any factor other than more mass, more gravity or higher ToA irradiation are easily cancelled by equal and opposite changes in the energy flow rate from changes in circulation enabled by changes in total atmospheric volume.

    In theory of course one ‘needs’ a higher temperature to support a faster flow rate if there are no volume and circulatory adjustments but when such adjustments are as freely enabled as they are around a sphere floating in space no significant change in temperature is required.

    As soon as one tries to ‘add more energy’ from any cause other than more mass, more gravity or more irradiation it goes straight to PE (not heat) at the cost of a volume and circulation change.

    As a gas expands, the average distance between molecules grows. Because of intermolecular attractive forces (see Van der Waals force), expansion causes an increase in the potential energy of the gas. The increase in potential energy thus implies a decrease in kinetic energy and therefore in temperature.

    So, if GHGs slow down energy throughput (which is not certain anyway), the atmosphere changes volume and circulation pattern to negate that effect for little or no change in system temperature because the extra energy in the air goes readily to PE rather than KE.

    The similar volume and circulation changes induced by solar and oceanic variability are magnitudes greater than those achievable by all GHGs combined let alone CO2 on its own or our contribution to CO2.

    If one were to propose a residual ‘warming’ effect it could not be measured within natural variation in any event.

    In the end, for all practical purposes, the atmospheric temperature around a planet is set by mass, (held within a gravitational field and irradiated) and not composition though composition can influence the circulation pattern.

  80. beng says:

    ***
    rgbatduke says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    ***

    rgb, the dragonslayers can’t seem to be reasoned with. They give legit skeptics a bad name…

  81. wayne says:

    “In the real world that leakiness is achieved by non radiative mechanisms…”

    Sorry Stephen, no, you read me wrong, that leaking through the shell is the “window” radiation that exits directly to space and has nothing to do with non radiative mechanisms.

  82. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne.

    In your radiative thought experiment you are right but in the real world there are additional non radiative energy transfers between surface and the shell.

    I hope I am not disrupting your flow of logic by opening it up in that way.

    In fact the real world is comprised of a vast number of shells each one molecule deep stacked upon one another from surface to space.

    Non radiative mechanisms determine the rate at which energy flows up (and down) through the stack of shells with the net outcome only apparent at the top where energy out inevitably equals energy in subject to oscillations around the mean.

  83. Phil. says:

    HenryP says:
    April 22, 2013 at 11:08 am

    don’t worry about Phil.
    he never got anything from what I tried to tell him….

    Because what you were trying to tell me was nonsense. As you have repeated in this thread you don’t understand the results of the earthshine paper you linked to. Absorption by the atmosphere in the near IR bands of the incoming solar spectrum heats the atmosphere, it doesn’t cool it!

    Richard111 merely pointed to a fact that what we already knew, namely that (more) CO2 also acts as (more of) a coolant…..

    Indeed it does…..in the thermosphere, as pointed out in the NASA paper! It also acts as a coolant in the stratosphere as is well documented by Clough and Iacono (e.g. JGR, vol 100, 1995)

  84. wayne says:

    Kristian: “So rgb got it wrong. It says very clearly that the plate is at a temperature of 300K, radiating 460 W/m^2 as a result, both before AND after the insulating layer is in place.”

    I’ll not go much deeper into this here, but Kristian, Dr. Brown changed the parameters, but I do now see where he also made a mistake bt stating 230 for the layer. But also, you seem to be thinking that the temperature of the center object will not change, that is not correct. If the power is constant, not the temperature, like from all of the equipment inside the ISS, yes, the temperature is going to rise with each isotropically radiating layer added about it. That is why the ISS needs such a sophisticated system to keep it cool — not to keep it warm.

  85. HenryP says:

    Henry@Phil.
    you did not get it
    but don’t worry, not too many do
    even Anthony does not get it
    Richard111 is spot on,. CO2 is a coolant.
    Co2 is both a coolant and “warmant”
    as is water
    that is why, ultimately, in the final analysis
    CO2 and water are like your father and mother.
    Anyone wanting less of either (or talking bad about either)
    must be daft
    Love you father and your mother!

  86. george e. smith says:

    In my earlier post up above, about the energy flows in the atmosphere, I commented that I couldn’t see any mechanism for moving any significant amount of energy from the atmosphere, back to the non gaseous part of the planet (to warm it more, if yoy will); and I still can’t.
    But it seems unavoidable, that the earth’s surface Temperatures are higher than they would be, if the atmosphere was absent. I don’t dispute that it is.
    The argument above about shells and things, seems like a waste of time and energy to me, as is the dispute between Henry , Phil, et al as to whether CO2 cools or warms the atmosphere; well any GHG for that matter. Clearly if nothing in the atmosphere absorbed any radiation of any species, then the radiation would pass on through and escape, heating nothing. Cearly some of these gases in the atmosphere capture energy, coming and going. Solar radiation coming in, and LWIR going out, both get captured, and raise the atmospheric Temperature, where that occurs. My comment simply asserts (based on physics) that the hotter atmosphere does not raise the Temperature of the surface.

    Well of course it doesn’t have to. There is that guy behind the curtain, Sol, who can, and does raise the Temperature of the surface. The sun is really the only source of energy to heat (verb) the surface. (so I discount geothermal energy from the planet, as inconsequential, besides being fairly constant.).

    In my view, the way the atmospheric GHGs cause the surface Temperature to be higher, than sans GHGs conditions, is simply the escape delay time.

    Some LWIR photons emitted from the surface escape directly to space in under a millisecond, never to be seen again. But the photons captured by the GHG undergo a cascade of absorptions and re-emissions from the same GHGs, and other delaying processes, so that if they do escape it is a delayed escape. I have no idea, what the average delay time is for those intercepted photons, but during that time delay, the sun continues to pour in energy, which can and does heat (verb) the surface.

    So eventually, the average inflow from the sun, and the average outflow from the earth, are equal, but there must be a Temperature offset caused by the solar heating during that time offset. Some of the delay processes are quite short, but some are quite long. Together they result in the observed Temperature offset. It’s a Sorcerer’s Apprentice problem. The broom splinters add water to the tank, faster than Mickey Mouse can bail it out again so it overflows.

  87. RACookPE1978 says:

    OK.

    So, the atmosphere (O2, N2, and Ar) is transparent to IR and LWIR. In theory, at least.

    But 33% of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the atmosphere.

    So where in Trenberth’s famous diagram showing the 3 watts of “missing” energy supposedly supplied the greenhouse gasses by his simplified CAGW theory does this “missing” 480 watts of energy get disposed of?

    Where is it radiated from, and what does it heat up?

  88. HenryP says:

    george e. smith
    some of the delay processes are quite short, but some are quite long. Together they result in the observed Temperature offset. It’s a Sorcerer’s Apprentice problem. The broom splinters add water to the tank, faster than Mickey Mouse can bail it out again so it overflows.
    henry@george
    You are not that far away from the truth. You got it mostly: a lot of the delay is actually caused by the evaporation of water (cooling) due to UV radiation of the seas and subsequent condensation of water vapor to clouds and rain (warming) of the atmosphere.
    hence the critical situation of the amount of UV coming through the atmosphere

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    As I have been studying climate science for the past 3 or 4 years I have become more and more in awe of the creation and the Creator of how clever the system was designed…….
    we only just get to see a glimpse….

  89. Stephen Wilde says:

    “It’s a Sorcerer’s Apprentice problem. The broom splinters add water to the tank, faster than Mickey Mouse can bail it out again so it overflows.”

    Quite so. It overflows.

    The amount of energy in the form of KE (heat) that the system is capable of holding on to is fixed only by mass, gravity and insolation.

    If any other factor tries to slow down energy throughput (for example an increase in GHGs) so as to raise the temperature of the system then volume and circulation changes occur so as to convert any excess KE to PE (increase in volume) or to accelerate the flow of energy through the system (more convection and evaporation).

    Of course the system is never in equilibrium due to a vast number of internal system features that constantly interact to disrupt the KE content set by mass, gravity and insolation so one constantly sees oscillations around the mean.

    The observable manifestation of those oscillations is latitudinally shifting jets and climate zones which are the negative system response in action and that constitutes climate change,

    The effect of our emissions being an imperceptible fraction of natural variability from solar and oceanic influences.

  90. HenryP says:

    Quite right. Obviously global cooling causes a shift of clouds and precipitation towards the equator, amplifying the cooling effect due to less insolation….

Comments are closed.