Guest post by Ira Glickstein
A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
The base graphic is from Wikipedia, with my annotations. There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
The Visible Light Window
To understand how these Atmospheric windows work, we need to review some basics of so-called “blackbody” radiation. As indicated by the red curve in the graphic, the surface of the Sun is, in effect, at a temperature of 5525ºK (about 9500ºF), and therefore emits radiation with a wavelenth centered around 1/2μ (half a micron which is half a millionth of a meter). Solar light ranges from about 0.1μ to 3μ, covering the ultraviolet (UV), the visible, and the near-infrared (near-IR) bands. Most Sunlight is in the visible band from 0.38μ (which we see as violet) to 0.76μ (which we see as red), which is why our eyes evolved to be sensitive in that range. Sunlight is called “shortwave” radiation because it ranges from fractional microns to a few microns.
As the graphic indicates with the solid red area, about 70 to 75% of the downgoing Solar radiation gets through the Atmosphere, because much of the UV, and some of the visible and near-IR are blocked. (The graphic does not account for the portion of Sunlight that gets through the Atmosphere, and is then reflected back to Space by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces such as ice and white roofs. I will discuss and account for that later in this posting.)
My annotations represent the light that passes through the Visible Light Window as an orange ball with the designation 1/2μ, but please interpret that to include all the visible and near-visible light in the shortwave band.
The Longwave Window
As indicated by the pink, blue, and black curves in the graphic, the Earth is, in effect, at a temperature that ranges between a high of about 310ºK (about 98ºF) and a low of about 210ºK (about -82ºF). The reason for the range is that the temperature varies by season, by day or night, and by latitude. The portion of the Earth at about 310ºK radiates energy towards the Atmosphere at slightly shorter wavelengths than that at about 210ºK, but nearly all Earth-emitted radiation is between 5μ to 30μ, and is centered at about 10μ.
As the graphic indicates with the solid blue area, only 15% to 30% of the upgoing thermal radiation is transmitted through the Atmosphere, because nearly all the radiation in the left portion of the longwave band (from about 5μ to 8μ) and the right portion (from about 13μ to 30μ) is totally absorbed and scattered by GHG, primarily H2O (water vapor) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). Only the radiation near the center (from about 8μ to 13μ) gets a nearly free pass through the Atmosphere.
My annotations represent the thermal radiation from the Earth as a pink pentagon with the designation 7μ for the left-hand portion, a blue diamond 10μ for the center portion, and a dark blue hexagon 15μ for the right-hand portion, but please interpret these symbols to include all the radiation in their respective portions of the longwave band.
Sunlight Energy In = Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.
On the left side:
(1) Sunlight streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation towards the Atmosphere. According to the first graphic, above, this consists of thermal energy in all bands ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O, and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by CO2 and H2O. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
The symbols 1/2μ, 7μ, 10μ, and 15μ represent quanties of photon energy, averaged over the day and night and the seasons. Of course, Sunlight is available for only half the day and less of it falls on each square meter of surface near the poles than near the equator. Thermal radiation emitted by the Earth also varies by day and night, season, local cloud cover that blocks Sunlight, local albedo, and other factors. The graphic is designed to provide some insight into the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”.
Conclusions
Even though estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 are most likely way over-estimated by the official climate Team, it is a scientific truth that GHGs, mainly H2O but also CO2 and others, play an important role in warming the Earth via the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”.
This and my previous posting in this series address ONLY the radiative exchange of energy. Other aspects that control the temperature range at the surface of the Earth are at least as important and they include convection (winds, storms, etc.) and precipitation that transfer a great deal of energy from the surface to the higher levels of the Atmosphere.
I plan to do a subsequent posting that looks into the violet and blue boxes in the above graphic and provides insight into the process the photons and molecules go through.
I am sure WUWT readers will find issues with my Atmospheric Windows description and graphics. I encourage each of you to make comments, all of which I will read, and some to which I will respond, most likely learning a great deal from you in the process. However, please consider that the main point of this posting, like the previous one in this series, is to give insight to those WUWT readers, who, like Einstein (and me :^) need a graphic visual before they understand and really accept any mathematical abstraction.
Not only serious, but seriously CORRECT.
The problem you are having is most likely where is the energy radiated by the packed snow walls of the igloo coming from? Well, as davidmhoffer (who I believe is the author of the quote you reproduce) says in the quote itself, “…it [the igloo inner wall] does absorb heat from you [the living, breathing, 98.6ºF person in the igloo] and some of it is conducted through the wall to the outside of the igloo, but, BUT … some is radiated back to you, the person in the igloo.
Any mass that is above absolute zero radiates thermal energy. The inner wall of the igloo, having absorbed some of the radiation from you, and because snow has air pockets and is not as good a conductor as an equal thickness of metal, it is cooler than you but warmer than a metal shell, so it does, in fact, radiate some of its warmth and make you warmer than you would be in a metal igloo.
That said, the major reason an igloo helps keep you warm is the restriction of convection (which a thin metal or plastic shell would do as well) and reduction of conduction through the wall (which packed snow does better than metal of the same thickness).
Of course you can help this process along by digging a wide hole at the bottom center, usually terraced with the people at the higher levels, so the cold air has a place to go. And, a firealso helps. See http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae579.cfm
Myrrh says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:42 pm
So, if as Ira says “the filament of the incandescent light bulb is heated to temperatures similar to the Sun’s surface”, and we know such a lightbulb gives MOST of its energy in Heat and not Light, in Thermal IR, 95%, and only a small AMOUNT in Visible, only 5%, then what is really “the most” energy given off by the Sun?
Nonsense which rambles on confusing the english meaning of ‘heat’ and ‘light’ deleted.
Information: sunlight BB temp ~5800K, peaks at 0.5μm, ~5%UV, ~40%Vis, 55%IR
an incandescent lightbulb on the other hand is limited by the mp of Tungsten so
filament bb is less than 3600K so peaks at ~0.7μm, ~10%Vis, 90%IR (depending on temperature).
Wayne wrote:
“Now back to the 8 to 12 µm window. Does a continuum exist there? Yes. That is covered by the water vapors continuum that spans basically the entire IR spectrum to some degree or another”
One (more) correction is in order here. Water vapor (as a gas) does not have much of continuum spectrum other than tails of peaks broadening of various kinds. However, a liquid water aerosols (aka “clouds”) do have continuous spectrum. Therefore, if we include clouds into the definition of “hot air” (from our preceding exchange), then my old formulation will be incorrect.
However, my main objection to formulations of Dr. Glickstein still stands – the atmospheric greenhouse effect occurs not because of real cloudy air has certain non-Planck absorption-emission structure and has fluxes between different spectral bands via local with buffer gas.
Domenic says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm
to Phil
Try to get your nose out of the fake world of assumptions, charlatans, naive scientists, fear mongers and dolts…. and into the real world.
The data you keep pointing to are contrived.
THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY MEASURED.
So all those of us who ran their FTIR spectrometers containing dry air and observed no absorption are naive? Gerhard Herzberg who won a Nobel prize for Chemistry for his work concerned atomic and molecular spectroscopy, and used these techniques to determine the structures of diatomic and polyatomic molecules, was a ‘dolt and a charlatan’? Do us all a favor learn something about the subject before posting more of this dreck.
Please NOTE Myrrh (GRRRH!) that the quote you got is about CONDUCTION, not RADIATION. That is why it says “…if a high temperature object is placed in contact with one of lower temperature,…” If the objects are NOT in contact with each other (i.e., not connected by a good conductor, but RADIATING at each other with vacuum or air or some good insulator between) the hot to cold rule does not apply except to the NET transfer of energy. Got it?
The above is certainly true, but only for statistical reasons. If the inky water is continually stirred, the molecules of ink will assume different positions with respect to the molecules of water. If, to take a very simple example, there were two molecules of ink and 14 molecules of water, in a 4 x 4 array, there are 16 x 15 / 2 = 120 different arrangements of the ink, only a small number of which have the two ink molecules adjacent. However, in this case, you will not have to stir much before you get a situation where the ink molecules are, in fact, adjacent.
OK, do the math for a 10 x 10 array with five molecules of ink, or a 1000 x 1000 array with 50 molecules of ink, or a container of water that may have millions of molecules in each direction, with 5000 molecules of ink, which would give billions or trillions of possible arrangements, only a tiny percentage of which will have all the ink molecules adjacent to each other. However, if you have the time and gumption to wait, you will see all those ink molecules get back together. It may take the age of the Univese, but, it is bound to happen.
Domenic says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:41 pm
They are calculated from various theories, opinions, assumptions, etc. The graphs, etc for absorption/transmission beyond 10 or 15 microns are at best just speculations, and at worst, just wild-assed guesses. Personally, I am of the opinion that they are more wild-assed guesses than anything.
More rubbish, you do know that the UAH MSU measurements are made with the microwave spectra of O2, don’t you? According to you they’re based on wild-assed guesses of the spectra, based on the evidence your opinion is worth squat!
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
March 2, 2011 at 7:58 pm
However, if you have the time and gumption to wait, you will see all those ink molecules get back together. It may take the age of the Univese, but, it is bound to happen.
And as you’d expect based on thermodynamics if you input energy into the system it can be reversed, for example pass it through a suitable absorbent and you can recover all the ink.
Say what?
I have no idea what the above paragraph means. Please restate your objections and I will try to answer, or I will change my mind if I agree with you.
Brian H; (and Ira, please take note)
Igloos and snow caves operate more or less like any enclosed space: they trap warm air. It helps that ice and snow reflect really well, of course. Re-radiation back atcha is trivial in an igloo.>>>
Practical experience trumps theory. I’m assuming you’ve never done any winter camping, or at the very least haven’t been taught how to do it properly. Any shelter constructed of snow, to be efficient and warm quickly enough to be usefull, has dimensions as small as possible while still allowing enought space for the number of people inside. In most cases this is accomplished by having each camper construct their own individual shelter, on of three basic designs that I will explain at the end of this response.
Any camper who constructs a shelter such that it relies primarily on trapped warm air will be exposing themselves to potential carbon-monoxide poisoning. The shelter MUST be built in a fashion to drive several air exchanges per night via convection from the entrance at the bottom through a hole in the top of the shelter for that specific purpose. The ensures a continued supply of fresh air to the camper through the night and has the added benefit that the warmest air, the camper’s breath, is the primary driver of convection and so eliminates itself from the shelter, taking the exhaled carbon monoxide with it. The bulk of the warmth generated within these shelters is in fact heat radiated by the camper’s body, absorbed by the snow, and a portion of it re-radiated back. Oddly if one thinks about it, this is a case of the improperly termed greenhouse effect refering to absorption and re-emission being present, while the properly termed greenhouse effect of preventing convection is actually absent.
There are three types of snow shelters, the most commonly known being the igloo. Oddly, from a camping perspective at least, it is the least common.
Igloo – built from blocks of snow and/or ice cut to shape and used to construct a dome with a short tunnel as an entrance at the bottom, and a hole in the centre at the top of the dome to ensure air exchange. Too much work for a temporary shelter, so seldom used in camping. Of more value when a larger structure is required and/or a structure that will last weeks or months.
Quinzee – very common as it can be constructed quickly even from only a thin layer of snow (igloos need thick packed snow or else ice). Loose snow is scooped by hand or shovel into a large pile as tall as possible. The snow is packed by rolling on it, or by hand, or flats of shovels. Allow to settle for an hour or two. On the SOUTH side of the pile dig a small hole at the bottom just big enough to allow one person in, and then hollow out the pile from the inside. The surface will have formed a stiff shell while the centre remains loose and easily scooped out. Poke a decent size hole in the top, and you are good to go. Do NOT dig the snow inside all the way down to the ground, leave a couple of inches on the bottom. Even at -20 C, with nothing to warm it but the afternoon sun shining through the small entrance at the bottom, exposed dirt will warm up enough to melt. Put a camper in there and the poor child will awake in the morning sleeping in mud.
Less popular but very effective is to find a natural snow drift with one side as close to vertical as possible and at least three feet high. The campers hollow out a horizontal tunnel directly into the side of the snow drift just about the length of their body. They then sleep with their feet at the far end of the tunnel and their heads just poking out of the opening. You actually want the tunnel slightly downhill so that when the kids are sleeping they ate slightly uphill. The reverse is rather uncomfortable. The slight incline allows heat to escape via convection which is often desired because these tunnels heat up quickly and may get too warm for comfort. As the camper is breathing into the open air, not into the tunnel, there is no risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. I note also, this type of shelter is nearly 100% heated by snow absorbing heat from the camper and radiating some portion of it back into the tunnel.
Al Tekhasski says:
March 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Wayne wrote:
“Now back to the 8 to 12 µm window. Does a continuum exist there? Yes. That is covered by the water vapors continuum that spans basically the entire IR spectrum to some degree or another”
One (more) correction is in order here. Water vapor (as a gas) does not have much of continuum spectrum other than tails of peaks broadening of various kinds. However, a liquid water aerosols (aka “clouds”) do have continuous spectrum. Therefore, if we include clouds into the definition of “hot air” (from our preceding exchange), then my old formulation will be incorrect.
However, my main objection to formulations of Dr. Glickstein still stands – the atmospheric greenhouse effect occurs not because of real cloudy air has certain non-Planck absorption-emission structure and has fluxes between different spectral bands via local with buffer gas.
—
Apologize for the tangle above, it’s just that after following this area of science so long, at arm’s length, I probably don’t have that “many more years of study” that you called for.
The H2O continuum I was speaking of was mentioned in one of the articles or papers I found, most just speaking of one range of frequencies or the other. It was questioning not if the continuum exists, multiple sites verified that, but exactly why a H2O molecule would absorb continuously across the IR spectrum. It brought up the suspect of the dimer tendency which adds so many more degrees of freedom. It didn’t go much deeper on that subject. Search for ”H2O dimmer continuum spectrum” for many links.
Cite from one such paper’s abstract: http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v128/i21/p214506_s1?isAuthorized=no
So to me the jury’s still out on that, and the scale. As physics usually is, if you get too simple of a view, you also have a high chance of being incomplete.
On your second point I would just have you to keep an open mind with proper physics always applying, since each of these molecules (O2 N2 H2O CO2) absorb and then thermalize, that very fact guarantees a high chance of cross spectrum re-emission by a different molecule species, different frequencies. And in the ~10 µm case that would be via a water molecule, dimer, or even a multiple dimer.
It sounds like this area is still evolving, so casual speculation is still rampant and rightfully so.
I’ve been contemplating a cross language conversion of HARTCODE, thanks to Dr. Miskolczi, to a more simple common language for outsiders like myself without Fortran compilers and it is in this area of mysteries, as this post points out, that just might send me on that trek. That is if I can isolated enough time; that does fit squarely in my expertise.
O H Dahlsveen says:
March 2, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Ira, I have spent hours writing an essay in explanation of why we think differently and just now I have accidentally deleted it.- So for now, – Ok the Gods are telling me you are right.
AGW is happening!>>>
The Gods rarely speak plainly, leaving mere mortals to ponder their messages and derive meaning from them as best we can.
The Gods may have suggested to you that Ira’s explanation of CO2 and LW radiance is right. I do not believe it follows that this means AGW is significant, or happening at all when the sum of all feedback is included.
If there are any Gods following along, perhaps they would care to comment? Sorry Willlis, Anthony, Leif, Phil, Ira, Roy, George, and so many others I’ve learned so much from, but I believe you remain ranked at this time in the range of minor deities and demi-gods.
I will allow however that Dr Ravetz, while certainly unable to demonstrate godly capabilities in terms of logic, reason, or fact, may have provided us with a glimpse of a godlike ego.
Myrrh says: “I think there’s a word missing, or concept, (sorry, it’s late…). I was going to used “possible” in “There will [possibly] be millions of transfers of energy from A to B. etc.”, but that’s not quite right, because if the Law states categorically that heat never flows from cold to hot then it isn’t possible if these energies are carrying/creating heat. ”
I didn’t mean “possibly”: I was thinking of two macroscopic chunks of material pressed together. This would put millions of atoms from the two pieces in contact, which will all be colliding many times per second with atoms from the other object. There WILL be many collisions here. There will be millions of microscopic transfers of energy every second. It is just the NET flow of energy for large collections of energy that is governed by the 2nd law, not the transfers during individual collisions.
Phil
UAH MSU measurements are made only at 55 gigahertz for the troposphere and at 57 gigahertz for the stratosphere. They are indicators at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM_spectrum.svg
“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature trends. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Furthermore the satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift in orbit. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Those measurements tell you absolutely nothing about the radiational heat transfer properties of EACH and ALL the greenhouse gases…which this discussion is about. Those measurements tell you nothing about the overall long wavelength emittance, absorption, or transmission of ANY the gases in the atmosphere.
Phil wrote: So all those of us who ran their FTIR spectrometers containing dry air and observed no absorption are naive? Gerhard Herzberg who won a Nobel prize for Chemistry for his work concerned atomic and molecular spectroscopy, and used these techniques to determine the structures of diatomic and polyatomic molecules, was a ‘dolt and a charlatan’? Do us all a favor learn something about the subject before posting more of this dreck.”
His work had nothing to do with radiational heat transfer.
That is what we are discussing here.
The ‘dolts’ are people like you.
Dolts are those who try to make something they don’t understand appear to be something different from what it really is.
Dr. Glickstein.
I believe that if in the vacuum of space you place a blackbody object with (a) a constant (i.e., unchanging energy per unit time) internal thermal energy source, and (b) internal/surface thermal conduction properties such that independent of how energy enters the blackbody, the surface temperature of the blackbody is everywhere the same and you place that object in cold space (no background thermal radiation of any kind), eventually the object will come to a steady state condition–i.e., the object will eventually radiate energy to space at a rate equal to the rate of energy produced by the internal energy source. In the steady-state condition, the surface temperature (assumed uniform) of the object will be non-changing at a value such that according to Planck’s radiation law provides the radiation rate necessary to achieve steady state. If a second blackbody object (no internal thermal energy source but with thermal conduction properties such that independent of the direction of incident radiation on the second object, the second object’s surface temperature will be everywhere the same) is placed next to but NOT touching the original object, when the two-object system reaches steady state (i.e., for each object, the rate of energy leaving the object will equal the rate of energy entering the object), the surface temperature of the original object in the presence of the second object will be higher than it was in the absence of the second object.
Some people attribute this increase in the temperature of the first object to “backradiation” from the second object. The argument goes that the radiation from the original object warms the second object, which then radiates energy from its surface–some of which is directed towards the original object. For lack of a better term, call the radiation from the second object to the first object “backradiation.” People then introduce the concept of “net” radiation–the difference between the radiation from object 1 to object 2 minus the radiation from object 2 to object one. I believe the second law of thermodynamics says that in the absence of any “work being done” the “net” energy exchange must be from the warmer object to the cooler object. However, I also believe it is possible to create two objects having the above properties (blackbody surfaces, uniform surface temperatures, only one object with an internal thermal energy source) such that as the second object (the object without an internal energy source) increases in surface area, the temperature of the first object (the object with an internal energy source) will at first increase but at some point will reach a maximum temperature; and as the size of the second object continues to grow, the temperature of the first object will start decreasing–never achieving a temperature that is lower than the first object’s temperature in isolation, but approaching that temperature. I also believe that if you allow conduction of energy between objects, depending on the rate of energy transfer via conduction, the temperature of the original object will be lower than the original object temperature in the absence of the second object. Note that the presence of conduction does not eliminate backradiation–it will still be present. If true, we have reached a state where (a) backradiation exists and (b) the temperature of the original object is lowered. As such, I find it difficult to buy into the claim that “backradiation results in a temperature increase to the original radiating surface.” To the best of my knowledge, you have never made this explicit claim. However, I infer from what you and others have written, that “greenhouse gas” backradiation increases the earth surface temperature. I believe backradiation is a contributor to final object steady-state temperatures, but not the controlling factor–in that if conduction is allowed, backradiation can simultaneously exist with lower surface temperatures.
I have created a Power Point file with the mathematics of just such a two-object system. I am in the process of creating a shorter Word file that summarizes that file. If you are interested, I’ll figure out how to make a PDF file of the Power Point file and E-mail it (the PDF file) to you.
Dr. Glickstein wrote: “I have no idea what the above paragraph means. Please restate your objections and I will try to answer, or I will change my mind if I agree with you.”
My objections were briefly formulated here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/#comment-610460
(please make sure to separate quotations from my actual remark, I forgot to properly close italics)
See also http://climateclash.com/2010/11/28/g2-greenhouse-gas-effect/
The other neat thing about igloos is that you can plop a chunk of seal-meat down in the middle of it, then go out to hunt a polar bear. When you come back the meat is cooked to perfection. The radiation from the meat has been converted to heat and redirected at the said meat, thereby heating the dinner. Fortunately, the walls of the igloo are not melted in this process, so you can come back and exhale all the “carbon monoxide” you want.
Okay, I’m sure the carbon monoxide was a simple mistake, but repeating that everything radiates all over the place, although uncontroversial, doesn’t make a good case for “heating”. Two objects in TE will radiate merrily. Neither will heat the other.
Here’s another igloo trick. Take a thermometer out of your parka pocket and place it in the igloo. Observe the thermometer through the clear ice window you ingeniously included in the igloo wall. Phone us when the mercury goes up, because it’s probably Spring and the ice is breaking up.
Domenic says:
March 2, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Phil wrote: So all those of us who ran their FTIR spectrometers containing dry air and observed no absorption are naive? Gerhard Herzberg who won a Nobel prize for Chemistry for his work concerned atomic and molecular spectroscopy, and used these techniques to determine the structures of diatomic and polyatomic molecules, was a ‘dolt and a charlatan’? Do us all a favor learn something about the subject before posting more of this dreck.”
His work had nothing to do with radiational heat transfer.
That is what we are discussing here.
The ‘dolts’ are people like you.
Dolts are those who try to make something they don’t understand appear to be something different from what it really is.
That would be you when you produce such rubbish as this:
“the graphs, etc for absorption/transmission beyond 10 or 15 microns are at best just speculations, and at worst, just wild-assed guesses. Personally, I am of the opinion that they are more wild-assed guesses than anything”, which is exactly what Herzberg worked on and wrote about.
Oliver Ramsay says:
March 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm
The other neat thing about igloos is that you can plop a chunk of seal-meat down in the middle of it, then go out to hunt a polar bear. When you come back the meat is cooked to perfection. The radiation from the meat has been converted to heat and redirected at the said meat, thereby heating the dinner. Fortunately, the walls of the igloo are not melted in this process, so you can come back and exhale all the “carbon monoxide” you want.
Okay, I’m sure the carbon monoxide was a simple mistake, but repeating that everything radiates all over the place, although uncontroversial, doesn’t make a good case for “heating”. Two objects in TE will radiate merrily. Neither will heat the other.
Here’s another igloo trick. Take a thermometer out of your parka pocket and place it in the igloo. Observe the thermometer through the clear ice window you ingeniously included in the igloo wall. Phone us when the mercury goes up, because it’s probably Spring and the ice is breaking up.
Check out the Weather Channel, Stephanie Abrams did exactly this within the last year, measured the temperature difference with time in both a snow cave and an igloo. Probably on line somewhere, certainly didn’t have to wait very long for the mercury to go up.
>>
Phil. says:
March 1, 2011 at 7:55 pm
No, how do you propose that the atmosphere gets hotter than the surface?
<<
I can think of at least two cases: 1) radiation fog is caused by the surface radiating away energy and cooling enough to bring the temperature of air lying above it down to the dew point or below; 2) advection fog is caused by warmer (moist) air passing over a cooler surface. In both cases, the surface is cooler than the air above it.
Jim
Domenic says:
March 2, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Phil
UAH MSU measurements are made only at 55 gigahertz for the troposphere and at 57 gigahertz for the stratosphere.
No, the MSU/AMSU system uses more frequencies than that, they are measurements made using frequencies from the 50-60 GHz absorption band of O2.
Those measurements tell you absolutely nothing about the radiational heat transfer properties of EACH and ALL the greenhouse gases…which this discussion is about. Those measurements tell you nothing about the overall long wavelength emittance, absorption, or transmission of ANY the gases in the atmosphere.
On the contrary they explicitly measure the absorption by oxygen, just in that region of the spectrum where you said it was a wild-assed guess.
Like this paper here:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/journal_articles/liebe_journ_quant_spectrosc_radiat_trans_vol48-1992/liebe_journ_quant_spectrosc_radiat_trans_vol48-1992.pdf
Domenic said:
“Try to get your nose out of the fake world of assumptions, charlatans, naive scientists, fear mongers and dolts…. and into the real world.”
It is my observation that, unfortunately, relative number of dolts (including all other eloquently described categories) is approximately equal in both, pro-AGW and anti-AGW groups. I would say it is about 98%. 🙂
Reed Coray says:
March 2, 2011 at 9:40 pm
“….I also believe that if you allow conduction of energy between objects, depending on the rate of energy transfer via conduction, the temperature of the original object will be lower than the original object temperature in the absence of the second object. Note that the presence of conduction does not eliminate backradiation–it will still be present. If true, we have reached a state where (a) backradiation exists and (b) the temperature of the original object is lowered….”
No point in putting on a coat in cold weather then…
I said:
“Here’s another igloo trick. Take a thermometer out of your parka pocket and place it in the igloo. Observe the thermometer through the clear ice window you ingeniously included in the igloo wall. Phone us when the mercury goes up, because it’s probably Spring and the ice is breaking up.”
Phil. says:
“Check out the Weather Channel, Stephanie Abrams did exactly this within the last year, measured the temperature difference with time in both a snow cave and an igloo. Probably on line somewhere, certainly didn’t have to wait very long for the mercury to go up.”
——————————
I’m sorry I missed that!
I found Stephanie online but not her igloo. She is pretty hot so she’d have to be extra careful that she wasn’t in the igloo with the thermometer.
Do you happen to remember just how toasty it got in that igloo, in how much time?
Do you think it would just keep getting hotter and hotter with time?
Do you think it would work with a tarpaper shack, or does it have to be snow?
Do you have other educational TV programs to recommend?
Oliver Ramsey;
thanks for allowing that having been up for near 24 hours due to deadline with only swatting briefly at annoying gnats on WUWT as my occasional breaks, i may have messed up between di- and mono-
I do not recall however, saying that an igloo would generate enough heat to cook meat. In fact, I don’t recall even saying it would warm up without an energy source at all. Sun shining in at the opening, or through that clever window made of ice. Or from little campers snug in their sleeping bags. Of course as the scout troop gets older, hits their teens, some of the rascalls sneak out to go visit the girls camp down the road. No harm done for the most part, although there was one case of mono… no… di… no… mono… sleep. need sleep.
If the igloo or quinzee has a large enough vent to result in several air exchanges every night, the warmth inside couldn’t be from warm air being trapped, could it? So, its warmer inside trhe quinzee because….?
C’mon Oliver. S’plain it. I’ll ridicule…. I mean read it in the morning.