Spencer on Earth's missing energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

wayne says:

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

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

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

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

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