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.
Phil. says:
Re: Myrrh “Solar energy is not heating the earth and is not what we feel as thermal energy.
Start there.”
Nonsense
Prove it is nonsense! You are disagreeing with this page on Infrared produced by NASA for kids, http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared. It is the same Science as was well known and taught in schools pre AGWScience mangling. (I was taught in schools before AGWScience mangling, that’s why I understand that real gases have weight and volume, and what that means for CO2 in our atmosphere which is heavier than air..)
What you are saying is what is nonsense here.
[Infrared
Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths..
“Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.
Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
Infrared light is even used to heat food sometimes – special lamps that emit thermal infrared waves are often used in fast food restaurants!
Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.]
Solar energy as depicted in Ira’s graphic above and as indoctrinated by AGWScience, IS NOT CAPABLE OF HEATING THE EARTH, OR US.
ORGANIC LIFE IS HEATED BY THERMAL IR WHICH IS NOT NEAR INFRARED, BUT FAR INFRARED.
SOLAR, (VISIBLE, NEAR INFRARED AND UV) IS NOT THERMAL.
WE CANNOT FEEL IT.
IT CANNOT HEAT THE EARTH.
Once you have fully re-adjusted to looking at the world as it really is, as real science has known and utilised practically pre AGW mangling, and as Real Science continues to know and utilise practically, the rest will fall into place. You’ll be able to untangle the wool that has been pulled over your eyes and knit yourself a real thermal blanket that’s bigger than the 1″sq in 2sq yds that CO2 can manage according to AGW.
Go on, try it out for yourself. Get yourself a lightbulb which carries visible light but not heat and tell us how long it takes to cook your steak..
http://www.ledsuperbright.com/led-hydroponic-grow-light-bulbs-96-watt-p-259
Remember, Phil. and Ira, you’re arguing with that NASA page. Prove it wrong or change that graphic.
wayne says:
March 5, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Phil, I have no “belief” but at least I now have the sites and papers given by others above that verifies nitrogen and oxygen’s role, however small for the emissivities at both sides of the IR spectrum are still hidden, to me at least.
Yes it verifies what I said that their role is nonexistent!
Thanks for not supplying them.
I supplied you with both the N2 and O2 spectra, see above.
And yes, there is massively more nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere. I noticed your objection to even that.
Apparently not the caveat that I added comparing the weakness of the signal!
N2 and O2 are order 1000x greater than CO2 whereas the line strengths are order 100,000,000x weaker.
Pull that “out of context” again as you did to both Myrrh and myself and I will plead with Anthony to apply his rules of conduct.
I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, I’m talking about the science whereas you brought up your intuition.
Myrrh says:
March 5, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Phil. says:
Re: Myrrh “Solar energy is not heating the earth and is not what we feel as thermal energy.
Start there.”
Nonsense
Prove it is nonsense! You are disagreeing with this page on Infrared produced by NASA for kids, http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared. It is the same Science as was well known and taught in schools pre AGWScience mangling. (I was taught in schools before AGWScience mangling, that’s why I understand that real gases have weight and volume, and what that means for CO2 in our atmosphere which is heavier than air..)
Actually you don’t understand it at all and apparently think that the Gas Laws, Stefan-Boltzmann, Fick’s Laws of Diffusion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics don’t apply to the Earth’s atmosphere! (CO2 ‘sinking to the ground displacing air’ would defy both Fick’s Law and the 2nd Law).
That page doesn’t exist apparently, and the statement that ““Solar energy is not heating the earth and is not what we feel as thermal energy”, is clearly nonsense. What is heating the Earth if not Solar energy?
Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths..
“Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.
OK so far.
Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat!
No we don’t, far infrared extends from ~15μm to 1mm wavelength
Myrrh says:
March 5, 2011 at 9:01 pm
“Go on, try it out for yourself. Get yourself a lightbulb which carries visible light but not heat and tell us how long it takes to cook your steak.. ”
———————————-
I will be in the stores first thing in the morning looking for a heatless lightbulb and a steak.
In the meantime, here’s an interesting experiment you can try.
Take the battery out of your flashlight and put one finger on one end and another finger on the other. Take note of any sensation that you might have.
Then, open your electrical panel and locate a double pole breaker. Put one finger on the red wire contact and one on the black. Record any sensation in any manner you like.
Clearly, if they don’t feel the same they must be different phenomena.
On second thoughts, don’t do the experiment, since we would hate to lose the most entertaining commenter on WUWT.
I actually suspect that you are pulling our legs, but I often misjudge humour!
Myrhh wrote: “Remember, Phil. and Ira, you’re arguing with that NASA page.”
This NASA page is absolute, unconditional GARBAGE. I would like to know who was that ignorant dolt who wrote that “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
By this token, excimer lasers (like KrF, operating at very short, 0.248um UV light) cannot possibly heat targets to millions degrees in studies of confined fusion.
Or cannot directly etch diamond surfaces,
(try “Excimer‐laser etching of diamond and hard carbon films by direct writing”)
Or evaporate landmines and other targets:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/April02/Dane.html
https://www.llnl.gov/str/October02/Dane.html
https://www.llnl.gov/str/October04/Rotter.html
(these BTW use nearly the same light-emitting diodes as in your TV remote).
You’ve been kidded by NASA dupes. I feel very sorry for you.
Myrrh, NASA removed the page your comment above points to.
But I can imagine, very incomplete and thereby misleading. But unfortunately your view of visble not being able to heat is not correct. All E/M carries energy by E = hv that can heat surfaces or cause chemical reactions. There is a big however here. First visible is a very narrow band so its portion of the solar spectrum is rather small. Second is that in order for visible to warm something the visble radiation must be absorbed.
I am light colored and so I would not feel much warmth in shorts on a cold day at all from intense visible only radiation but let’s say my friend of much darker color would say “Hey, thanks for that warmth, I was frreezing MAO.” But a large portion of the visible is reflected back to space so in that respect you could say the Earth doesn’t receive much from the visible range on land but oceans absorb most of it.
Most UV is reflected high above by O3 but what does get through can burn the heck out of you, no matter of your skin color. And that leaves us with the IR.
Just because your TV control is in the near IR doesn’t mean a strong source in that range would not be indetectable, a dark red burner is peaking about there. It would once again depend on any reflection and the surfaces emissivity for the absorptivity is just 1-emissivity, it must be absorbed to feel it. Would think water vapor mainly with I now know a bit of N2 and O2 would absorb in this portion of the spectrum.
But you are right, a great potion from the sun that does get absorbed by land would be in the IR and the darker oceans would absorb a larger portion of the visible along with nearly 100% IR.
Do keep this discussion in proper physics, it’s not a story but correct. I for one always want this to not wander into non-reality with word of always and never which usually both are wrong.
So they removed the page! Ha ha. Maybe they read WUWT… Ah well, you’ve got the important bits here and I’m sure some of you have already seen it so know I haven’t fibbed here. How very, very sad. Reminds me of when the American Meteriological Association website had a page up in its educational section which scuppered the idea of CO2 being capable of global warming, after a few days of increased traffic they took it off, someone had managed to slip it in. This was around the time they gave Hansen their highest award – http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2734
The saddest part of this, is that those promoting AGW, whether in ignorance or in knowledge of the junk science it is, no matter how high up the pecking order they think they are, are just useful dupes for those raking in the real money. The goreygavins are just cannon fodder like the rest of us.
Visible energy is not the same as energy carrying heat into organic matter. The more energetic shortwave are reflective, not absorptive, visible light bounces off surfaces, in intensity they can burn but do not penetrate to give us what we know as heat from the Sun; what actually warms the Earth is Thermal IR.
This was bog standard simple science fact before AGW began confusing it all. However erudite and complex mathematically expressed justifications for AGWScience, it will always be junk because it does not relate to the real world in the real atmosphere we have here on Earth.
The real world understands real science – the reason Thermal Infrared is used in therapies is because IT WORKS. Because Heat is its property.
You can argue and nit pick all you like about what heat is, but for those living in the real world feeling the real heat from the Sun and having been educated before AGWScience mangled everything or are in the real world science now using this real knowledge about Thermal IR, your arguments appear ridiculous.
What is so difficult to understand about such examples – http://www.therichwaybiomt.com/infrared-rays.html
And the irony here is that NASA has been one of the leading infrared lights in infrared research…
CO2 in the atmosphere could be doubled to 700ppm without any further contribution to global warming.
At 288 K the black-body radiation or total emissive power from Earth is 391W/m^2 (124 Btu/h-ft^2). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 79.8W/m^2 after 3600m (CO2 absorptivity 0.184 at 350ppm or PcL of 1.24 m.atm). H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 248W/m^2 after 120m (H2O absorptivity 0.573 for a PwL of 2.77 m.atm).
Doubling CO2 to 700ppm would absorb the same 79.8W/m^2 after only 2000m ( CO2 absorptivity 0.195 at 700ppm 0r PcL of 1.4 m.atm).
to Phil.
you wrote: “I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, I’m talking about the science whereas you brought up your intuition.”
Of course you don’t have a clue.
You’re not talking about science. You are simply more like a non-thinking copycat. That isn’t science.
You understand neither science nor intuition. And thus, you cannot see beyond your own nose. That is your problem.
If you ever wish ‘to boldly go where no man has ever gone before’, you had better learn to use your intuition.
The alternative, you see, is to go ‘no where’.
Domenic says:
March 6, 2011 at 8:04 am
to Phil.
you wrote: “I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, I’m talking about the science whereas you brought up your intuition.”
Of course you don’t have a clue.
Quite, that was in response to this statement by wayne, seems like you left out the context for that too! Here it is:
wayne says:
March 5, 2011 at 7:41 pm
“Pull that “out of context” again as you did to both Myrrh and myself and I will plead with Anthony to apply his rules of conduct.”
I talk about the science (including collision induced absorption), give data etc., all you do is handwave and say that measurements haven’t been made when they have and talk about fictitious ‘cavities’ made from solid N2 at 63K (which have no relevance to the emissions of N2 itself).
You’re not talking about science. You are simply more like a non-thinking copycat.
You understand neither science nor intuition. And thus, you cannot see beyond your own nose. That is your problem.
If you ever wish ‘to boldly go where no man has ever gone before’, you had better learn to use your intuition.
The alternative, you see, is to go ‘no where’.
Well you’re not going anywhere with the nonsense you’re spouting!
This appears to be your contribution to the science we’re discussing here:
“But I am pretty confident there will be detectable emissions in the .5 to 50 micron range from playing around with a .5 to 50 micron hand held detector many, many years ago, aiming it at the sky, the sun, etc and comparing the output to a detector using much narrower bands.”
You also seem to think that a photon of a certain wavelength changes absorption characteristics depending on the temperature of its source.
As Al said above (my emphasis):
Al Tekhasski says:
March 4, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Before everybody start jumping on me, I’d like to correct myself. Energy fraction under Planck curve above 30um at 255K is somewhat larger than 0.02%. I pull this number out of my mind meaning that the N2-O2 spectrum corresponds to a blackbody with 100um peak, which would correspond to a body at about 40K with total emission of 45mW/m2. More, the entire region above 15um is already filled with CO2 and water over the top, see Ira’s spectrum above, so there is no way to see any N2 or O2 effect in practice.
Robert Stevenson says: March 6, 2011 at 4:31 am
CO2 in the atmosphere could be doubled to 700ppm without any further contribution to global warming.
At 288 K the black-body radiation or total emissive power from Earth is 391W/m^2 (124 Btu/h-ft^2). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 79.8W/m^2 after 3600m (CO2 absorptivity 0.184 at 350ppm or PcL of 1.24 m.atm). H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 248W/m^2 after 120m (H2O absorptivity 0.573 for a PwL of 2.77 m.atm).
Doubling CO2 to 700ppm would absorb the same 79.8W/m^2 after only 2000m ( CO2 absorptivity 0.195 at 700ppm 0r PcL of 1.4 m.atm).”
There are TWO effects that contribute to warming from increased CO2.
1) The “edges” of the absorption bands do not absorb so well (dropping to zero over some finite range of wavelengths. By increasing the CO2 concentration, more energy will be absorbed at these edges of the bands.
2) The energy emitted to space is what actually balances the incoming ~390 energy. This is related to the emission from the TOP layer of CO2, not the bottom layer of CO2. With more CO2, the effective “Top of Atmosphere” will be higher, which means cooler, which means less outgoing IR. To return to equilibrium, the top layer would have to warm up. This would in turn warm all the layers below.
Well-stated Tim Folkerts! I agree with you and you have real science on your side.
Just because we reject the CAGW kool aide does not mean we have to consume the Disbeliever DAGW drink of choice :^)
Phil. says:
March 5, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Actually you don’t understand it at all and apparently think that the Gas Laws, Stefan-Bolzmann, Fick’s Laws of Diffusion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics don’t apply to the Earth’s atmosphere!
You really haven’t been following what I’ve been saying, have you?
Re-read what I’ve written. That statement is strawman garbled nonsense, I haven’t said anything like that. And specifically, you have reversed my very important point that the 2nd Law is very much is relevant to our atmosphere, the FULL LAW. Not with the fudging of this imaginary “net” which includes colder warming hotter.. I’m arguing that the 2nd Law applies to each and every state of matter and energy, just as it’s written.
That page doesn’t exist apparently, and the statement that “”Solar energy is not heating the earth is not what we feel as thermal energy”, is clearly nonsense. What is heating the Earth if not Solar energy?
Re-read what I’ve written if you want to continue to engage with me on this, I really don’t have the time to go through all the argument again if you’re going to present me as saying what I haven’t. I’m not going through it all again, but will answer relevant questions or elaborate on what I’ve written. Just this once more for your question here:
SOLAR (according to and as used by AGW and as depicted in graphics such as Ira’s above), is THE VISIBLE and the SHORTER WAVELENGTHS EITHER SIDE, i.e. VISIBLE PLUS UV AND NEAR INFRARED.
THESE ARE LIGHT, NOT HEAT ENERGIES. SEE BELOW FOR NASA EXPLANATION. THEY DO NOT HEAT THE EARTH. THEY ARE NOT HOT. THEY ARE REFLECTIVE, I.E. THEY BOUNCE OFF SURFACES. THERMAL INFRARED WHICH WE FEEL AS HEAT FROM THE SUN ARE ABSORPTIVE, THEY PENETRATE AND HEAT ORGANIC MATTER, THE EARTH AND US.
SINCE AGW (AS IRA HAS DEPICTED ABOVE) CLAIMS THAT SOLAR ENERGIES HEAT THE EARTH, AGWSCIENCE SHOWS ITSELF COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT LIGHT AND HEAT, ABOUT THE PROPERTIES OF THE DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS.
AGWSCIENCE SAYS THAT IT IS SOLAR ENERGY IN, (WHICH IS VISIBLE AND THE UV AND NEAR INFRARED) AND THERMAL IR OUT. UTTER UNADULTERATED NONSENSE. THESE DOWNWELLING SOLAR ENERGIES ARE NOT HOT.
Hope that’s clear.
See below for news on that page.
And re what was written on the NASA page: Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat!
No we don’t, far infrared extends from ~15mu to 1mm wavelength
Shrug. The NASA page is back. It has been updated and moved to: http://missionscience.nasa.gov.ems/07_infraredwaves.html but will be available on the URL I posted until May 31, 2011, at which point you’ll automatically be re-directed.
So, still up on http:/science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
And it still says the above which I’ve put in bold which it then goes on to describe as the heat that we feel from sunlight etc.:
Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. NASA
So, go argue with NASA. Because:
It still says: Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are ones used by your TV’s remote control. NASA
Will come back to this tomorrow, night night.
Myrrh
Nd YAG lasers that operate in the near IR (1.06 um) are used to burn thru things – hot enough to vaporize the materials they are cutting. How can they do this if the near IR is not “hot” and can’t heat things? I guarantee you would get burned if you put your hand in front of such a high-powered near IR laser. (And for surgery, lower powered lasers are used to focus IR and/or visible light to heat and destroy various cells.)
Myrrh says:
March 6, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Phil. says:
March 5, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“Actually you don’t understand it at all and apparently think that the Gas Laws, Stefan-Bolzmann, Fick’s Laws of Diffusion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics don’t apply to the Earth’s atmosphere!”
You really haven’t been following what I’ve been saying, have you?
Yes I have, the trouble is that you don’t understand what you’re saying!
You’ve claimed that the ideal gas laws don’t apply in the atmosphere:
“Just as an ideal gas has no volume etc. and so cannot actually describe what is happening to a real gas which has volume etc.”
……..
claimed that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn’t work (based on some SPPI post),
further claimed that Fick’s Law doesn’t work, separation of CO2 out from the atmosphere is contrary to the 2nd Law, apparently you don’t know that!
“just as Carbon Dioxide is treated as an ideal gas without volume etc. capable of doing impossible things like defying gravity to spread in the atmosphere without work being done even though its heavier than air because it bounces off all the other molecules in the atmosphere ‘diffusing’ as if an imaginary ideal gas in a jar.
Re-read what I’ve written. That statement is strawman garbled nonsense, I haven’t said anything like that.
So yes you have!
And specifically, you have reversed my very important point that the 2nd Law is very much is relevant to our atmosphere, the FULL LAW. Not with the fudging of this imaginary “net” which includes colder warming hotter. I’m arguing that the 2nd Law applies to each and every state of matter and energy, just as it’s written.
Given your statement about CO2 separating by its mass it’s clear you don’t know what the 2nd Law means.
As for that NASA page for schoolchildren there’s a good reason they’re in the process of replacing it, it’s nonsense!
Tim Folkerts says:
March 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Myrrh
Nd YAG lasers that operate in the near IR (1.06 um) are used to burn thru things – hot enough to vaporize the materials they are cutting. How can they do this if the near IR is not “hot” and can’t heat things? I guarantee you would get burned if you put your hand in front of such a high-powered near IR laser. (And for surgery, lower powered lasers are used to focus IR and/or visible light to heat and destroy various cells.)
I used a Nd:YAG laser at 1.06 μm for Laser Induced Incandescence of soot, the temperature of the soot got up to ~4500K, not bad for ‘cold light’!
Al Tekhasski says:
March 5, 2011 at 11:46
This NASA page is absolute, unconditional GARBAGE. I would like to know who was that ignorant dolt who wrote that “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
And to all responding on this theme:
This is so funny/sad, we get some NASA pages with real science and because you’re all so used to AGWScience mangling, which technique misattributes affects, properties, laws and so on, you can’t understand it. This is bog standard REAL WORLD SCIENCE. Utilised in countless applications where the difference in properties is understood.
You’re all going to have to go through a rather strange paradigm shift if you’re going to understand what I’m saying here. Visible Light is NOT HOT. You have been conned into thinking that because a wavelength is in a higher energy state, shorter wavelength, it means it has the ability to penetrate and heat things up. But these wavelengths are REFLECTIVE, and not thermal. Which means they have the property of bouncing off matter, they do not penetrate into matter as do the longer wavelengths of IR.
http://www.johnthawley.com/journal/2010/10/14/learn-to-see-the-light.html
For real world science example. Same with the shorter IR wavelength Near, it is REFLECTIVE. A Near IR camera picks up on the shorter reflective wavelengths of IR bouncing off the subject. Near IR penetrates deeper than Visible, UV penetrates less than Visible.
By this token, excimer laser (like KrF, operating at very short, 0.248um UV light) cannot possibly heat targets to millions of degrees in studies of confined fusion. Or cannot directly etch diamond surfaces,..
UV light does NOT PENETRATE organic matter to any great extent, it doesn’t even get through the layer of skin on our bodies. It might just make it through the first layer, the epidermis. Why? BECAUSE IT IS REFLECTIVE LIGHT. It is its high energy state which can burn, but it doesn’t penetrate to heat the matter to any real extent unless it is intensified as in a laser.
Do you see the difference? Longer wavelengths of IR become PENETRATING, they penetrate organic matter and heat it up, spreading.
You’re confusing high energy states for high heat penetration which is the property of longer less energetic waves, as above in Ira’s diagram, this has been misappropriated by AGW to describe the wrong wavelengths.
Because thermal IR waveslengths are less ‘energetic’ does not mean they are less potent in heating matter, but more potent. The shorter which are absorbed by the outside layer of matter will burn if in greater intensity, but they do not heat up matter.
So, what we have is Visible light which is not hot going into UV at one end and into IR at the other. UV is even more energetic than Visible and that intensity of energy like a high powered drill can burn the top layer of matter. We cannot feel it, it is not hot, it is not producing penetrating heat in us. We do not notice we are being burned.
All light can be intensified as in laser use, even Visible colours if intensified can burn. But note, burn, not heat. The longer ‘less energetic’ waves of IR when intensified produce more HEAT.
The property of Visible light and Near IR and UV is reflective, they bounce off matter, they do not penetrate. So, in real science speak, these energies are simply called Light and ‘light’ energies which create heat are called Heat.
This knowledge is well known and understood in all areas of the real world science which utilises it. Like growing plants hydroponically using Light to help photosynthesis and not adding extra Heat, by using a lightbulb that produces minimal Heat IR.
By using intensified longer IR waves to penetrate into bodies in various healing therapies by adding greater heat internally.
So first of all you’ve got to junk the mistaken idea from AGW that higher energy states produce Heat and are capable of Heating the Earth. They can’t. They can’t penetrate deep enough to heat up organic Earth, but can burn the surface by UV which is a higher energy state than Visible Light. Visible Light is benign. We cannot feel it. It does not burn us as the higher energy state UV. Sure, you can take any colour of the Visible spectrum and intensify it artificially and it can then be used as a laser to burn, but will not be as efficient as using a UV laser.
Please, do try to get your heads around what I’m saying here, the world is full of applications which understand the real difference between the Light and Heat energies.
Ira must change his graphic or he continues to promote junk AGWScience in this.
Light energies, Solar of Visible, UV and Near IR, DO NOT HEAT THE EARTH.
Neither plants nor rocks nor we are being heated by Solar.
Visible will be taken in by organic surfaces to an extent, what isn’t bounced off, and has benefits not only for plants which use a couple of the colours for photosynthesis, but for us in producing vitamin D, for examples. They are Light energies not Heat energies, they are benign, we cannot feel them, they do not heat the Earth. We need both Light energies and Heat energies for Life.
We are being misdirected by AGWScience by this reversal of properties, and by the misdirection of using ‘laws’ such as Boltzmann and Planck out of context into thinking that these ‘prove’ that the more energetic shortwave are Heat energies, and, that because the ‘peak’ is in Visible it means that there is a greater amount of this energy heating the Earth, by misappropriating the word “most”.
Take an ordinary old fashioned light bulb, 5% of its emitted energies are in the Visible Light energies, 95% in the Infrared Heat energies. Which then is “most”?
It takes an immense amount of heat to produce the shorter wavelengths of Visible Light, meanwhile it has already been producing great amounts of Heat (Long wave IR) and heating further continues to produce more and more of it. How is our Sun any different in this principle? The longer wavelengths or IR are able to pass through water vapour and such more easily, where visible light is stopped by being reflected away, think mist, fog.
So, are you now clear about the difference?
Remember, the shorter wavelengths of Visible and UV and IR intensified, in such as lasers, will burn because they are not hot but reflective lights, intensified to a greater degree they will burn deeper, but they are not spreading that heat, they are not warming the matter. These can be fine tuned to enable surgery even on the eye. If that intensity of high energy UV was matched by its ability to spread the heat to warm matter up the whole head would be cooked in an instant..
High energy does not mean high penetrative power. The longer wavelengths intensified spread Heat deeper and deeper into matter, cooking it. Near Infrared penetrates deeper than Visible, not so deep as longer wave IR. It is used in a variety of ways in the medical sciences, I’ve given examples previously above.
NASA has done an immense amount of research on Light and Heat via its Space interests, and has a very good understanding of how Light and Heat energies of IR can heal internally. Even used in cancer treatment.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2003/photos03-199.html
At the moment I have a sick dog, I’ve put on an infrared heater for him to speed up his recovery and keep him warm.
NASA through its Space programme has been a real world leading light in research of all kinds, we’ve all got items around the house which have come from this research and its work has inspired further research from others. It is such a great pity that it has been hi-jacked by the junk AGWScience, so be aware of that when you go to NASA sites. If you get it straight, untangle, the AGWScience from RealScience, you’ll get a lot more sense out of the NASA sites. The RealScience is amazing.
You’ll also be able to spot more easily how AGW takes one concept or law or property and misdirects you into believing it belongs to something it doesn’t.
So Wayne, I’m the one here trying to keep the discussion to proper physics.. I hope I’ve made myself clearer now.
Phil. there’s a technique for seeing both sides of the argument, you have to follow what the other person is saying first..
aggghhhh! Please Mods would you put a close italics after the first paragraph which is quote?
[Like that? Robt]
Links to NASA research on http://www.lightforpain.com/research-media.html
Just bear in mind that this research into the healing power of IR is grounded in seriously looking at its effects in difficult medical conditions and maintaining the health of astronauts, don’t let ‘fantasy face’ distract you from that fact.
But do your own search, you’ll find lots of links to the work being done and findings in the spread of this knowledge: NASA atronauts healing infrared
Just like that! Many thanks, at least now it looks like it makes sense…
Myrrh says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:13 am
So Wayne, I’m the one here trying to keep the discussion to proper physics.. I hope I’ve made myself clearer now.
Phil. there’s a technique for seeing both sides of the argument, you have to follow what the other person is saying first..
Amazing, a century of science completely ignored, there should be a warning attached to this nonsense.
Myrrh, I now see where you are coming from.
Thank goodness there are enough people of science like you who have learned it best to ignore that century old Arrhenius type “science” in this case. I approach it from the astrophysics-solar side and watched weekly what the sun was doing in the prior decades and that is over for at least for a time. I am now trying to find out exactly why all GHGs have no (well, very tiny) effect and appears in gravity, no kidding, how the atmosphere stays supported. That is where science is heading. I thank Miskolczi on the IR optical thickness and Spencer on population density daily for their great insight, they are the real scientists.
Myrrh,
I think you (and perhaps the rest of us too) are too caught up in labels.
* All photons carry and energy of E = hf [or h(nu) in some notations]. There are no “hot” or “cold” photons per se. We can certainly say 1 photon of visible light has much more energy than 1 photon of thermal IR.
* All photons of any energy can reflect and can get absorbed to varying degrees by different materials. Shiny metals absorb <5% of visible and IR. Glass tends to absorb Near IR, but not visible or thermal IR. Every material is different.
* 4.18 J of absorbed energy of any wavelength will provide 1 calorie of heating to the object that absorbs that energy.
The question becomes "How much energy is available in the photons and how much actually gets absorbed in important real world situations?"
IR photons tend to get absorbed well by soil and plants and concrete (the emissivity for IR is close to 1 for many IR wavelengths). So IR with an intensity of 1 W/m^2 hitting 1 m^2 of ground will provide close to 1 W of power to the ground (warming the ground, or at least slowing the cooling). That fact increases the importance of IR photons.
Visible photons reflect much better (which we can see easily with our eyes since we see the reflected photons). So visible light with an intensity of 1 W/m^2 hitting 1 m^2 of ground will provide considerably less than 1 W of power to the ground.
For 1000 W of sunlight, perhaps 40% = 400 W is visible. Of this, if 10% gets absorbed and 90% gets reflected (which is a quite white surface like typing paper!) , that would provide 40W of energy. For sunlight, about 3% = 30 W is longer wavelength than 3 um. Even if all that is absorbed, it will only be 30W — about the same as the power from the visible.
WAIT! I just realized the perfect simple experiment! Set out two pieces of paper — one white and one black. Both will absorb IR well, so that is the same for both. (in fact, according to this table http://www.omega.com/temperature/z/pdf/z088-089.pdf, flat white paint will absorb IR slightly BETTER than flat black!) The only difference is how much visible is absorbed. If the black paper gets warmer in sunlight than the white paper, the ONLY explanation is that the absorption of the visible light from the sunlight made the difference.
To Myrrh
You are pointing towards some interesting areas, BUT your language terms, choice of words, and their traditional accepted meaning by scientists, is a bit muddled.
For example, reflection is not a property of light, or any electromagnetic wave ALONE.
It is a property of the INTERACTION of light, or any electomagnetic wave, with specific matter: atoms, molecules, cells, etc.
It’s a dance between two. Not a solo act.
So when you say something like you just did
“The property of Visible light and Near IR and UV is reflective, they bounce off matter, they do not penetrate.”,
that is quite a bit nonsensical.
There are lots of examples of matter that can absorb them.
It depends on the matter they interact with. The dance.
Whether they are absorbed, or reflected, or transmit through, depends on the matter they interact with AND the specific wavelengths of interest. The dance between the two.
But you are correct in that there are HUGE holes in science, LOTS of misunderstanding of how that interaction works.
The variations are far, far greater than most scientists imagine. That is why I keep on insisting that the only valid tests are those that reproduce as closely as possible, the actual real life conditions of whatever phenomena is to be tested.
The real world is loaded with surprises. Always will be.
NASA’s tests on plant life that you pointed me to are of much more interest to me than those of the ‘healing effects’ on humans. The ‘placebo effect’ when working with humans and healing is very tricky to deal with in such tests. With plants, less so, of course. Plants are more indicative of overall natural processes.
Now, theoretically, when a plant absorbs very certain wavelengths of energy, it need not produce any ‘heat’. Thus there is no increase in temperature whatsoever to detect, as a byproduct of the interaction. So, those wavelengths are not re-radiated back into the atmosphere contributing to any ‘greenhouse effect’. If those wavelengths are truly captured energy, they are simply converted into matter: new cells, new molecules, etc. with no waste heat. It’s simply the reverse of E = mc2. (I know, I know… the chemists are going to scream that it’s just chemical bonding energy, etc, etc…but that’s still a part of E = mc2.)
So, I agree with you that there are many, many things that go on in the real world that completely escape the consciousness of the closed minded. Hint: the closed minded are not scientists at all, they are simply copiers of whatever limited thoughts or beliefs from others that they can grasp.
And until someone goes out and measures them IN NATURE (or, in other words, observes their ‘dance’ in nature) rather than in a lab, it will completely escape them.