Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
This series began with a mechanical analogy for the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and progressed a bit more deeply into Atmospheric Windows and Emission Spectra. In this posting, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules. 
DESCRIPTION OF THE GRAPHIC
The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere. (Thanks to WUWT commenter davidmhoffer for some of the ideas incorporated in this graphic.)
- During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
- Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
- The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
- The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
- The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
- The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.
DISCUSSION
As in the other postings in this series, only radiation effects are considered because they are the key to understanding the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. I recognize that other effects are as important, and perhaps more so, in the overall heat balance of the Earth. These include clouds which reflect much of the Sun’s radiation back out to Space, and which, due to negative feedback, counteract Global Warming. Other effects include convection (wind, thunderstorms, …), precipitation (rain, snow) and conduction that are responsible for transferring energy from the Surface to the Atmosphere. It is also important to note that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and a physical greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different. A greenhouse works primarily by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through convection, i.e. sensible heat transport. The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.
That said, how does this visualization help us understand the issue of “CO2 sensitivity” which is the additional warming of the Earth Surface due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? Well, given a greater density of CO2 (and H2O) molecules in the air, there is a greater chance that a given photon will get absorbed. Stated differently, a given photon will travel a shorter distance, on average, before being absorbed by a GHG molecule and be re-emitted in a random direction, including downwards towards the Surface. That will result in more energy being recycled back to the Surface, increasing average temperatures a bit.
RJ says:
April 11, 2011 at 12:56 am
“If you want to be unconfused, you have to understand the ideas yourself! If you admit you are confused, then don’t start with the assumption that something that is confusing is wrong”
I’m confused that something as simple as the GHG back-radiation theory has not been proved beyond doubt.
As said above it’s basic radiational heat transfer, you can read about in Hoyt C Hottel & Adel Sarofim’s text on the subject or their section in Perry, “Chem Eng Handbook”.
If you don’t understand something the cure is to educate yourself about it not to assert that those who do understand are wrong!
We agree, the scare is completely overblown, funds spent to fight it are wasted (or worse), and the supposed mean temperature increase since 1880 is mostly just natural variability.
That is exactly what I have been saying here at WUWT. I even estimated the contributions to the supposed 0.8ºC as follows: Data Bias ~0.3ºC, Natural Cycles ~0.4ºC and Human-Caused ~0.1ºC right here. Please see all my WUWT Topics. The Global Warming “Tiger” is a Pussy Cat.
–davidmhoffer says:
“richard e smith – good lord man, the pump puts energy into the WARM thing which is the freezer. Are you now going to try and explain how putting more watts into the warm freezer makes something else cold without that something else sending some heat energy out of itself to the only place it can – the warmer freezer? Are you even thinking about your answer before you spout off about it? your pathetic diatribe about multiple heaters shows how much you have retained from this discussion so far. Nothing.”
I am not sure what point is being made here. What a freezer demonstrates par excellence is the second law of thermodynamics. The electric energy pumping the gas refrigerant through the compressor is converted into heat and goes out the back of the freezer and there is a net increase in entropy. Inside the freezer the refrigerant expands and cools and so heat passes to it in compliance with the second law. Backradiation, on the other hand, cannot heat warmer things otherwise entropy would be reduced. Consider the following from the radio chemist Alan Siddons, one of the authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon. You will note that he does not deny that all things radiate.
“Say you have a blackbody plate (think of an electric heater) radiating 1000 W/m² toward another plate which, because of distance, absorbs half of that intensity, i.e., 500 W/m². At equilibrium, the receiving plate thus radiates 250 W/m² toward the 1000 W/m² plate. Question: Does the 1000 W/m² plate thereby rise to 1250 W/m²? If so, then, by raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you’ve disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Effectively, you’ve made the radiator heat itself. Moreover, now at 1250 W/m², the radiator will heat the other plate still more, absorb another dose of back-radiated energy, and will reach 1562 W/m². And so on, ad infinitum.”
No doubt Ira and others on this thread will draw the usual analogy with somebody giving away $1000 and then getting $250 back and then receiving another $1000 – thus providing $1250 and so on. But this does not represent what is happening. At all times the blackbody plate is radiating whilst at all times the receiving plate is also radiating. The first plate cannot be warmed by the cooler plate, just as the contents of the freezer cannot be warmed by the circulating refrigerant gas. You cannot sum the radiation from the two bodies and light can only transfer energy to something that is radiating less.
Not to pick on RJ, but some quotes from him are very telling of the state of debate on scientific issues. (And in RJ’s defense, he is admitting more and more that he is driven my curiosity to learn more, not that he is an expert. I always applaud curiosity!)
“I will continue to debate alarmists in various ways. Few understand or are interested in the science even to a small degree…”
This is a problem from both sides (but from what I see, mostly from the anti-AGW side). People with little knowledge cling to “sound-bite science” and parrot talking point without any real knowledge.
“I’m not saying I’m right but just do not know.”
“…it does not challenge my strongly held beliefs.”
Many people who will admit when pressed that they ‘just don’t know’ will profess ‘strongly held beliefs’ about those very same ideas. When ideology supplants science, then a scientific discussion is pointless (and I have seen people on both sides guilty of this).
“Assuming the flawed GHG theory is almost a fact (as you are doing) without understand how weak this theory is, and its flaws, was a hindrance not a help to me.”
“And thankfully all the queries I had were answered and explained in the brilliant slayers book.”
This sort of “ideology first” approach allows people to think they can pass judgment on ideas which they don’t understand, when they are simply clinging to ideas that fit their preconceptions.
Thanks for making that clear, Ira. I agree [as always] that a rise in CO2 will cause some warming. But it is inconsequential, and any money spent to ‘mitigate’ its effect is money wasted.
RJ:
First what I think so you know which direction I am come from:
• There is a misnamed “greenhouse effect” if that definition means strictly that the surface of the earth is warmer than if there were no atmosphere.
• There is only radiation, there is no such separate thing as “backward radiation” or “back radiation” in reality, only radiation. Radiation from gases within our atmosphere are emitted randomly in any direction, though only radiation within the “window” frequencies travel any great distance (see more on that below).
• Radiation of frequencies with short mean free path operate no different than normal conduction (see: http://books.google.com/books?id=ujRFHBWYmoUC&pg=PA545&lpg=PA545&dq=Radiative+conductivity&source=bl&ots=X5A-_jYDSx&sig=pTpJFRjaBCr77ZTMBbzEjDEuzP4&hl=en&ei=AGmjTbfoCsLu0gHh_ZTzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg on radiative conductivity). Notice the critical parameter “mean free path”, in our atmosphere this concept only applies to frequencies that are absorbed strongly as in water vapor and carbon dioxide (GHGs). Bottom line, most of the radiation within our atmosphere can be viewed as faster, longer reaching conduction. Forget the far reaching “back radiation” by GHGs, it does not happen in reality in our atmosphere. (more below)
RJ, you are right to question. I read your four and really you should have a few more. Before you dive into physics books as Phil. suggested you first need some basic knowledge to keep you from getting bogged down. Here
s a few directly related to your four questions. I have more, just ask.
In: http://landshape.org/enm/optical-depth-of-co2-explained/
( excuse… the quotes are all mal-formatted within this post )
“[…] This follows from the fact that the mean free path of the photons that interact with atmospheric components is so short that there are no appreciable temperature differences along this path [order of meters]. Not even higher up in the stratosphere. So almost all heat transfer [save direct IR radiation through the atmospheric window] from surface upwards is by vertical convection, with or without water condensation. […]”
In: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
“[…] The new Miskolczi theory describes this missing greenhouse equilibrium mechanism. He shows that the classical theory does not include all the necessary energy constraints. When these constraints are included in a new theory, the strength of the GHE is determined analytically. The result shows that the Earth’s atmosphere is maintained at a nearly saturated greenhouse effect. […]”
http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi.pdf
RJ;
For example does the example by DavidM above prove that the heat sources temperature increases. Say in my example above if the heat source was an oil filed heater. Heat the oil to say 30 degrees C. Suspend in a vacuum then an outer layer filed with air. Then replace the air with CO2. Back-radiation should noticeable increase the oils temperature. Then replace with air again and the oils temperature should fall again (I’m not concerned about the temperature of the air or CO2 or the radiation levels leaving the outer container). >>>
You reveal yet again that you don’t know what you don’t know. To design an experiment that produced results indicative of the theory you are testing against, the experiment itself has to be designed properly, and you can’t design an experiment to measure things you don’t understand in the first place. Your example above includes no heater in the oil drum. So for your experiment to be valid as you described it, the laws of physics would be rather confounded if the oil barrel heated up when surrounded by CO2 instead of air. The laws of physics dictate that if you did the experiment twice, one with air and once with CO2, you should be able to measure a slightly slower cooling with CO2. But no warming. And you will need very very very accurate instruments to measure the difference. The atmosphere is tens of kilometers thick. So start with understanding what the laws of physics say before you start designing experiments. If you don’t understand the equations and how to apply them, you can’t possibly draw proper conclusions about them from the experiment!
For the experiment to be constructed so that a layer of CO2 would cause warming, there would have to be an energy input to the system. If you started both barrels off at room temperature, put a 50 watt heater in both, the one surrounded by CO2 would reach a higher temperature than the one surrounded by air. If you understood the equations and how to apply them, you would be able to calculate what the difference in temperature would be. For your experiment to be valid, this would have to be done because you would have to show that your measuring devices were accurate enough to measure the difference. A meter of CO2 in a lab will not produce very much difference at all, which is why you do the math first. If the best intrument you can buy has an error rate bigger than the temperature difference, you’ve just designed an experiment that is meaningless. The order of magnitude that the laws of physics say you should expect must be something your instrumentation can detect.
Further, this “experiment” gets done every day, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of times all around the world. The thing you’ve missed is that since the radiative characteristics of CO2 are well known, it is also known that there is no practical effect from the perspective of an engineer trying to design a mechanism or system for some purpose. If the engineer needs to keep a barrel of oil at a certain temperature inside a plant (and every day thing in an industrial plant) she has all the materials in the world to choose from and isn’t likely to choose 5 kilometers of CO2. She might choose an asbestos layer and she can calculate based on the ambient temperature of the room, the size of the heater, exactly how thick the asbestos has to be to achieve a temperature increase of a certain amount. The equations she uses are the exact same equations, just with different constants. When the safety inspector blows a gasket because asbestos is illegal in that application, she’ll do the whole design again with say fibreglass. And once more she will use the excact same equations as were used for a layer of CO2 and a layer of asbestos.
You keep complaining that no experiment has been done, and surely it should be easy. Did you read the critiques of Hans Hugs experiment? If you had you would know exactly how complex an experiment that would be valid in scaling to mimic the atmosphere would be. Not to mention that Hans Hugs experiment proved exactly what you asked for, despite which you are finding new reasons to cling to your belief.
UNDERSTANDING SCALE
I sell large scale compute infrastructures. I’ve sold three configurations life time that actually benchmarked in the world wide 500 list for Linpack performance. One of the biggest challenges in explaining to a customer why his 500 cpu cluster can’t just be rebuilt ten times as big to make a 5,000 cpu cluster is understanding scale. If you just replicate the 500 cpu design, you’ll get to watch your 5,000 cpu cluster melt, literaly, because the cooling systems just don’t scale. Actually it probably wouldn’t melt because when you flip the on switch, the collective power draw would blow every breaker in the power grid if all you did was put in “ten times as much”. Solve those two problems and you’ll find that the job queing software that worked fine on 500 cpu cluster can’t keep up with 5,000. The network connections that just were no big deal in the 500 cpu cluster suddenly are a problem because the latency between some cpu’s and storage is now a big enough difference to other cpu’s to create problems. Putting in 10 1 Gig network connections doesn’t get the same result as putting in 1 10 gig network connection. The management nodes in the 500 node cluster were just a couple of left over servers, the ones you’ll need now are going to be top of the line monsters loaded with as many cpu’s and ram as you can get into them. The little storage array with 10 Terrabytes of data on it is “big” enough, but it can’t service I/O requests at even a fraction of the speed that 5,000 cpu’s will need, so you’ll need a new storage array of the same size in Terrabytes, but much faster. Latency of ethernet may be too high for the code being run, so it might not even be a choice of 10 x 1 GigE versus 1 x 10 GigE, it might have to be Infiniband.
Most people who understand the basics of computers can grap these issues of scale pretty quickly. Most people wouldn’t have though of these things on their own either, but once you point them out… they get it. Scale matters.
When I see people proposing experiments with oil barrels and layers of CO2, my point is that scale matters. 400 ppm of CO2 in a column tens of kilometers thick produces something measurable. 100% CO2 a meter thick barely does. In the atmosphere, not only is the column tens of kilometers thick, it has water vapour in it varying at surface from as high as 4% to as little as 0.1% at altitude. Not to mention a whole host of other factors. Laboratory experiments must be valid as scale! And the effects of scale are sometimes very unexpected. I’ve seen a $2 million dollar MELTED compute cluster for example. Not one I sold thank g-d.
My neighbour explained it to me best one day when I was planning on cutting down a 70 foot pine tree in my front yard with a chain saw. He sauntered out of his yard and into mine and said “dave, you ever cut down a tree this big before?”. Nope, I said, but I’ve cut down 20 foot trees with a buck saw, and I’ve used a chain saw to cut up chord wood before… everything should scale nicely.
“dave,” says my neighbour, “that 70 foot tree weights about 25 times what those 20 foot trees weighed, not to mention it is almost 4 times as long. So I figure there’s three possibilities:
1. you’ll successfully fell the tree, in which case your biggest problem will be cutting it up for fire wood.
2. you’ll fell the tree and it will land on your house, in which case your biggest problem will be trying to explain to the insurance company why they should pay for damages you caused.
3. you’ll fell the tree and it will land on you, in which case you will have no further interest in the matter.
“Say you have a blackbody plate (think of an electric heater) radiating 1000 W/m² toward another plate which, because of distance, absorbs half of that intensity, i.e., 500 W/m². At equilibrium, the receiving plate thus radiates 250 W/m² toward the 1000 W/m² plate. Question: Does the 1000 W/m² plate thereby rise to 1250 W/m²? If so, then, by raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you’ve disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Effectively, you’ve made the radiator heat itself. Moreover, now at 1250 W/m², the radiator will heat the other plate still more, absorb another dose of back-radiated energy, and will reach 1562 W/m². And so on, ad infinitum.”
A valiant effort, but wrong.
More details are needed, like the nature of the heater. For example, Consider the first plate by itself. You put in 1000 W/m^2 electrical energy and it radiates 1000 W/m^2 of EM radiation (assuming it is perfectly insulated on all other sides, so there is no conduction or convection).
Now if you add the “back-radiator” then one balance (once equilibrium is reached) would be:
1st Plate:
+750 W/m^2 electrical energy in
+250 W/m^2 IR from the “back-radiator”
-1000 W/m^2 IR out
——————————
NET: 0 W/m^2
2nd Plate
+500 W/m^2 in from 1st plate
-250 W/m^2 out to the first plate
-250 W/m^2 out to “Rest of Universe”
——————————
NET: 0 W/m^2
“Rest of universe”
-750 W/m^2 electrical energy to 1st plate
+500 W/m^2 from 1st plate
+250 W/m^2 from “back radiator”
——————————
NET: 0 W/m^2
The plate radiates 1000 W/m^2 with only 750 W/m^2 electrical energy in. The “back radiator” provides enough energy to warm the plate to radiate 1000 W/m^2 instead of just 750 W/m^2. So the original temperature with 1000W/m^2 electrical energy in with no back-radiator can be maintained with only 750 W/m^2 electrical energy in when the back radiator is in place.
I don’t have time to work thru the case where 1000 W/m^2 is maintained in the 1st plate, but it is pretty intuitive to me that the net will be 1333 W/m^2 from the hot plate, 1333/4 = 333 W/m^2 from the cold plate back to the hot plate.
There is no diverging infinite series. Your chemist friend need to redo his math.
Richard E Smith;
I am not sure what point is being made here. What a freezer demonstrates par excellence is the second law of thermodynamics. The electric energy pumping the gas refrigerant through the compressor is converted into heat and goes out the back of the freezer and there is a net increase in entropy. Inside the freezer the refrigerant expands and cools and so heat passes to it in compliance with the second law>>>
If you consider the freezer as a single system, and the Thing as a single system, then the average temperature of the freezer is higher than the average temperature of the Thing. The only possible conclusion is that the colder Thing transferred energy to the warmer freezer.
If you break the freezer down into componants, yes, the refrigerant expands and becomes colder. You can’t draw any conclusions though by just examinging one piece of the system and exclaiming that THIS part doesn’t work like that. You have to either model the system as a single entity, or as the sum of ALL its working parts.
If a single entity, then it is warmer than the cold Thing, despite which the cold thing gets still colder.
If the sum of ALL its working parts, yes, the refrigerant gets cold when it goes from high pressure to low pressure. Now all we did was change the pressure and it got colder. Meaning that the w/m2 it is radiating went way down. It is aborbing energy from the environment around it more than it is radiating to the environment. Now circulate it back to the outside of the freezer at the back. It gets pressurized. Its temperature goes up, it starts radiating more w/m2 than the area around it. Now here’s the part you missed Richard.
The AMOUNT it radiates out is EQUAL TO the WORK DONE on it by compressing it PLUS the ENERGY IT ABSORBED FROM THE COLD THING while it was at low pressure inside the freezer. For the laws of thermodynamics to work (and they do) the only possible conclusion is that energy from the cold Thing got transferred to the much warmer refrigerant at the back of the freezer. How? Since the amount of energy radiated at the back of the freezer EXCEEDS the amount of energy that went into the compressor, the EXTRA energy must have come from somewhere. It did. From the colder Thing that radiated its energy through a series of processes to warmer things.
If it were not possible for colder things to radiate energy to warmer things, then air conditioners, freezers and refrigerators would not work. It matters not in the least if you model the freezer as a single system, or the sum of several smaller systems, you still have energy coming out of a cold thing and going into a warm thing.
Richard E Smith says:
Look, Richard, the authors of “Slaying…” are purveyors of pseudoscientific nonsense. The quote doesn’t even make any sense. What does it even mean to say will the “plate thereby rise to 1250 W/m²”? Those numbers aren’t temperatures. They are amounts of radiation emitted and absorbed…and the rules are that each object in steady-state must emit the same amount of power that as it absorbs and that it will emit according to its temperature. As Tim has explained, the whole setup is ambiguous from the quote that you gave us. I’m not sure if it would make more sense in context, but my guess is that Siddons is thriving on this ambiguity.
What you fail to realize is that once Siddons emits that all things radiate (and absorb), then the game is over. He can run you around in circles chasing your tail for as long as he likes to try to distract you from the central point: The steady-state temperature of the hotter object depends on balancing its emission and its absorption. If its surroundings are at some temperature T_0 and you raise the temperature of those surroundings, the object is going to have to raise its temperature in order to restore radiative balance.
You are playing right into the hands of people who are purposely trying to bamboozle you!
Tim Folkerts says:
Once again, I give up!
Myrrh, it is unrealistic to expect strangers to teach you all of physics and climate science for free via the internet.
You, and some others here, appear to under some misapprehension, I’m not looking for teachers, and if I was I wouldn’t be learning from from you lot who claim ridiculous impossible things and call it science. I am here challenging you to prove what you claim. Do you understand the difference?
Ira for the last time, I challenge you to prove that Solar energy of the AGW Budget, as you’ve been promoting here, actually heats the Earth, i.e., UV,Visible,Nr IR.
These are not Thermal Energies as you claim. These are not what we feel as heat from the Sun, as you claim.
I have given you tradition, standard, accurate, normal, intelligent, rational, Science, in two references above, I give you a third, another one from NASA.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#sunenergymass
“30
How long for the Sun’s heat to Reach Earth?
Q. How long does it take heat created on the Sun’s surface to reach Earth? Is it the same as the speed of light?
A. Heat is transmitted through conduction, convection, and radiation. The heat that reaches us from the Sun is infrared radiation, which travels at the speed of light. So, it takes about 8 minutes for it to reach Earth from the Sun.
Dr. Louis Barbier
The heat we feel from the Sun is Thermal IR. Heat in transit from one location to another through radiation.
I am, quite frankly, appalled at your lack of civility in replying and non-replying, to this point. You posted a piece for discussion and not only do you fail to engage properly with me on this, but are rude and crass to boot. You have now lost whatever ‘scientific’ credibility I gave you because you carry on regardless, not of course that it matters a jot what I think you, but it does matter if you continue repeating such nonsense and passing it off as real science because of your claim to scientific credentials, that is, if you continue teaching this to those who don’t know better.
Perhaps, and it is something I’ve seen before, you have taken such on trust from AGWScience without fully exploring it for yourself. This deliberate misdirection in science ‘facts’ from AGW promoters has now become widespread in teaching children in schools in the US and Britain. And as all great cons, there is just enough of the truth to make the following lie believable. It’s a subtle and very clever con, and once one begins to spot the technique one sees it showing up in much of the AGWScience claims.
And seen for example in other traditional scientists arguing a point believing that what they are arguing from is a shared traditional science base, that it’s Thermal IR heating the Earth and not knowing that Trenberth and Co have changed the premise to unadulterated nonsense.
The result of this is a maelstrom of confusion in such papers and discussions, but what is really absurd is what this says about AGWScience, but only to those who know the real science. Those people really thinking that our atmosphere is empty space with oxygen and nitrogen atoms zooming around at stupendous speeds creating Brownian motion have come to believe in such an imaginary world because they were first taught it. They defend such absurdities by sending one off to pages of ideal gas laws claiming these explain how a carbon dioxide molecule behaves, only proving they have no real grasp of the concepts of these laws even if they can do the maths..
As here. I don’t see any real grasp of the concept of energies for all the sending off to look at pages of ‘laws’ supposedly proving their points. Ignorant of properties because everything in AGWScience is twisted to ‘creating heat’, they don’t know that energies are capable of other actions besides ‘creating heat’; that a plant for example takes in some of the Visible light spectrum energy not to create heat, but to enable a chemical change in photosynthesis. Or not knowning the difference between an artificially intensified light such as in a laser and one at normal levels. And they’d still rather blather on about ‘photons’ and ‘energy’ as if they know what they’re talking about, but which it has become obvious they don’t.
So, what you, Ira, are promoting here in AGWScience, that Solar energies Heat the Earth, is irrational and without scientific credibility in traditional, proven Science.
Therefore: Prove that shortwave UV,Visible and Near IR are capable of doing this, of actually producing the amount of Thermal IR it’s claimed in the AGW Energy Budget, or start learning and teaching real science about it and help others get out of the AGWScience through the looking glass with Alice trap.
To all promoting “AGWScience’s Solar in Thermal IR out” – anyone with any real science thinking, natural curiosity, would have questioned AGWScience claims on this immediately on learning of the real world example of Blue light being used in growing plants and that this can be placed close to the plants because the amount of heat the lamp gives off is insignificant and will not damage the plants, the blue light is not hot and does not create heat.
Go on, think about it.
Re: where Thermal Infrared begins.
################
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html
“In wavelengths longer than one millionth of a meter (micrometer or um), energy takes the form of heat.”
Source: L.I. Grossweiner, The Science of Photobiology, ed. K.C. Smith (New York: Plenum Press, 1989), pp. 1-77.
################
Myrrh!
If you want to decide science issues based on “the inscrutable authority of websites”, well the very next answer on the page you quote as an authority says:
“Why Doesn’t the Sun Heat Space?
Why do the Sun’s rays heat up the Earth — and me — yet the same rays don’t seem to heat up outer space?
The Sun’s rays carry radiant energy from the Sun in all directions (some is visible light, some is not visible). If the rays hit matter, the matter absorbs part of the energy and heats up. Thus the Earth, Moon and other material bodies are heated. A transparent object such as glass would be heated less than a black solid object. A white object reflects much of the radiant energy and also is not heated as much as a black object, which absorbs more of the energy.”
This question (specifically about energy and not speed) clearly says that visible light can cause the difference energy and temperature of real objects! Even a rudimentary knowledge of science should have let you interpret the original statement to mean “much of the heat that reaches us from the Sun is infrared radiation”!
“This deliberate misdirection in science ‘facts’ from AGW promoters has now become widespread in teaching children in schools in the US and Britain. ”
The only real problems seems to be from ‘deliberate simplification’ (or perhaps sloppy simplification) that throws off those looking for “sound-bite science” to provide answers to complex problems.
“I challenge you to prove that Solar energy of the AGW Budget, as you’ve been promoting here, actually heats the Earth, i.e., UV,Visible,Nr IR.”
“Prove that shortwave UV,Visible and Near IR are capable of doing this, of actually producing the amount of Thermal IR it’s claimed in the AGW Energy Budget”
I must say this is quite a switch from the usual attacks. Most skeptics (of those who actually question the energy balance) are busy convincing the world that ONLY the sun’s energy (UV,Visible,Nr IR AND Thermal IR) heats the earth, and that the “thermal IR” (coming from the atmosphere, ie GH effect) is too cool to heat the earth/violates conservation of energy/violates 2nd law of thermodynamics. You seem to be turning this on it’s head — saying that only the atmosphere is significantly heating the earth, (since the thermal IR from the atmosphere is much stronger than the thermal IR from the sun).
Let me ask specifically…
* Do you believe that the incoming energy from the sun at the top of the atmosphere amounts to ~1370 W/m^2, which when averaged over the earth is ~342 W/m^2 ?
* Do you believe that energy from the sun is roughly ~10% UV, ~40% Visible, ~48% “non-thermal IR” (~ 700 nm – 3 um), and ~ 2-3% “thermal IR” (above ~3 um).
* Do you believe photons of UV, Visible & NIR that hit the surface are mostly absorbed?
* Do you believe that the energy of these absorbed photons adds energy to the surface (land and water)?
* Do you believe that added energy shows up as thermal energy in the surface?
* Do you believe that “adding thermal energy” = “heating”?
* Do you believe that the amount of energy absorbed by the surface from sunlight is ~ 168 W/m^2?
If you disagree, give specific clarification of what you believe instead.
And one other clarification. Do you think that …
* UV/V/NIR are INCAPABLE of adding any energy at all to the surface?
* UV/V/NIR are INCAPABLE of raising the temperature of the surface at all?
* UV/V/NIR are so weak that they provide an insignificant amount of energy?
* UV/V/NIR are so weak that they provide an insignificant amount of temperature gain?
* the measured ~ 390 W/m^2 of thermal IR from the surface is wrong because the sun is not providing this much energy?
Tim!
You seem to have some sort of fixation about thermal IR heating the Earth through which you appear to be filtering my posts.
I am discussing the AGWScience Energy Budget as billed and as promoted here by Ira.
Look at the pictures posted and the words used to describe it. Solar Energy from the Sun direct to the Earth (which is UV, Visible and Nr IR), converting to Heat, radiating out Thermal IR.
I really have no idea anymore what you are talking about. You’ve gone from claiming Solar, (UV, Visible and Nr IR), account for 99% of the heating of the Earth and Thermal IR being insignificant to some combination of ‘atmospheric’ IR contribution, to “Even a rudimentary knowledge of science should have let you interpret the original statement to mean @‘much of the heat that reaches us from the Sun is infrared radiation’!” Which actually, is getting close to the point I’m making here, but I’m not sure you’ll pick up on the that. (I’m saying, that ALL the Heat reaching us from the Sun is Thermal IR. Because that is what HEAT IS, and it is this which is heating the Earth, and the Solar energies, not being thermal, are insignificant at best in this energy budget.)
I can only suggest that you go back to the beginning of what is the basic premise from AGWScience to first get a grip on what I am challenging, the basic Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis. To which you gave lip service in your ‘the Earth is heated by 99% of Solar energies and Thermal IR is insignificant’.
Now, as per that, as per Ira’s description, as per the basic premise of AGWScience and Greenhouse Hypothesis, see pictures, I want to see actual proof that these Solar energies, as described by the previous and not including your variations, actually heat the Earth/turn to the amount of Thermal IR radiating out from Earth as presented by this basic premise from AGWScience and here promoted by Ira.
Perhaps you’re confused by the second aspect of Ira’s presentation which I’m also criticising; the believe that these Solar energies are “thermal”, that it is from these we feel the heat from the Sun? If so, ignore it, let Ira deal with it or not, stick with my primary challenge. And, if you’re not defending the primary basic AGWScience premise on the Energy Budget of the Greenhouse hypothesis, I’m thinking here of all your variations, then perhaps it would be less frustrating for you, and certainly less annoying for me, if you simply butted out.
Myrrh;
you really, really, really…
don’t belong here.
THANKS, Myrrh!
Just for the record – Ira’s second step even further into AGWScience nonsense, which begins with its promotion to believe the impossible that Solar shortwaves alone heat the Earth, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/#comment-610576
So perhaps, still somewhere deep inside a tiny glimpse of reality that Thermal IR energy heats the Earth, but unable to give up the brainwashing of AGWScience that non-thermal reflective light alone does this, the last spark of sanity gets turned to further impossible things to believe before breakfast, that Light Energies are Thermal..
Shrug, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Now, I find it really, really, difficult to believe that someone with apparent intelligence and demonstated ability to rational thought can simply ignore the objections I have made to this illogical promotion of what passes for ‘scientific thinking’ in Ira’s posts. Sure, it could be simply the logical outcome of believing in the insane science created by conscious AGWScience manipulators, but there’s also the distinct possibility that Ira is actually one of the manipulators, and not one of the mass oiks manipulated.
So, what do we have here? The deliberate avoidance of the challenge when being confronted with real traditional proven science on the simplest of well-known concepts, that Thermal energy is Thermal IR, coupled with apparent arrogant disdain in the best traditions of Beria together with a website dedicated to promoting the idealogy of those doing the manipulating, in the tried and tested methods of setting out how control of the mass oiks is to be accomplished for the benefit of the few elite by stating the details to be believed in the newworldorder as brazenly as did the Club of Rome, leads me to think that Ira could be a plant by those thinking themselves the ‘elite’. Ira may of course think himself one of them if this is the case here, but as with all such ‘hierarchies’ in sociopathic organisations where superiority over others is based on the illusion of exaggerated self-worth, being a member of the hierarchy is no defence to being expendable..
So then for example in this envisioned utopia of the clinically insane and brainwashed, “many new renewable energy sources will be successfully employed: solar, waste biomass fuels, etc.” will of course be the controlling meme, (referring to “successfully”), regardless that these are proven now to be of the same junk ideas as the rest of the concepts from AGWScience promoted by the self-assessed ‘elite’, and, whatever the organisational requirements to continue brainwashing the mass oiks to believe this manipultion is actual reality will be in place according to the time-scale envisioned by the sociopathic ‘elites’, more or less, at least a time-table to work to.
If so Ira and I’m willing to stand corrected, because I really do find it extraordinarily difficult to think you’re as dense as your replies to me suggest, of mice and men.
In the best tradition of my upbringing – Anarchy Rules: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search-Matthew+20:24-26&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10:41&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:24-26&version=KJV
Hierarchies are for dummies.
Lies.
Damn Lies.
Statistics.
Benchmarks.
Myrrhisms.
More Myrrhism:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Thermal_radiation
Knowing the difference between Thermal energy and Light energy at work in the real world.
Wayne – on being covered by sheet of glass with running cold water on it and thinking of the desciption in the link above that the problem with light gathering portholes is how to stop thermal IR escaping wouldn’t that also be a problem with the experiment? You’d have to calculate in the thermal loss to the glass and cold water cover before seeing if Solar alone had any heating effect. I wonder, if the box was cold to begin with, then glass with running water to exclude thermal placed on top, would that show an immediate heating effect if Solar could do such a thing?
Myrrh, I’m not sure what you mean by portholes. Here is a quick drawing (take it as a very rough estimate of the experiment setup). to me you could even divide the measurements in seperate runs. One, just measure the SW+LW with no cover at all. Next, just measure the amount of heat captured in the flowing water, no box. Well, that gives you a close example of what was in my mind. In forty years of reading science of many branches I have never seen such an experiment performed, it raised my curiousity!
http://i52.tinypic.com/2u5qu5w.png
Myrrh, one more thing. If one of my grandkids ever need a really neat science project that one could kill two birds with one stone!
I am still trying to answer your question. I have programmed in Planck’s equations and have numerically integrated across these spectrums. To no surprise, I get exactly what I expected. At 288.15 K the sum across all frequencies gives 390.88 where Stefan-Boltzmann equation as closed form gives 390.89 W/m^2 at emissivity of one. Same results for 5778 K, very close.
So, I wrote a display of these curves and if I use a log plot, I get basically what Joel showed above at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-634439 from Colorado.edu, where as if I plot without the log compression, you get much closer to what this ( http://i56.tinypic.com/5wk13l.gif ) shows, much LW. So, it has a big difference if you plot a log compression. Alas, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what this means. One way, no log, the solar spectrum shows a large amount of LW radiation. If you look at the log compressed spectrum (Planck curve) it appears there is almost no LW in the sun’s spectrum, but… but, Planck had already compensated for the fact that longer wavelengths carry less energy within his equation itself. See my point. It all has to do with the way the graphs are plotted, one seems to distort to give an unreal interpretation.
That is also why Ira’s spectrums in the last post, from Petty I believe, also tends to distort your view. It uses wavenumbers or wavelength, not frequencies which unrealistically distorts the energy relationship per division. Long wavelengths naturally carry less energy but if you plot with wavenumber or wavelength instead of frequencies you overly emphasize the longest frequencies. Walla, I’m getting there but not quite finished with my analysis, you might just be close to the right answer, but, I do want you to admit that whatever small amount of SW that does in fact get absorbed does, in the end, may be a year later, is converted to heat. See my point there? Photosynthesis will convert SW to matter (wood, plant matter), not heat, but years later that same chemical energy is, in the end, converted to heat (forest fires, decay). There is a lag in many cases and sometimes it is released a long, long time later. When looking at an energy budget it does seem this still needs to play in somewhere when looking over a long time and averaged.
Like you, I also hate KT97 and TFK09 budgets for they also distort your view greatly. They never cue you that a big portion of the ~168 Wm-2 is also included in the ~324 Wm-2 they show as “back radiation”. Naughty, naughty! They also do not cue you that what is left of the ~324 Wm-2 only occurs at less than ~100 meters above your head. This is the same re-circulation of radiant heat that is occurring right here in my room between every wall, the floor and ceiling. Outside there is no ceiling but the same re-circulation or reverberation between the molecules is the same and that is the ~324 Wm-2 after you subtract the ~66 Wm-2 left over of the ~168 Wm-2 (minus the thermal and trans-evaporation). They should have divided their “budget” into day and night and much of this confusion would have vanished. Or better yet divided by 24 hours with an approximate 12.5ºC diurnal range in surface temperatures. I have done that in a simple spreadsheet and the difference in the numbers is amazing! Much closer to reality. Any thoughts along that line?
wayne says:
“It all has to do with the way the graphs are plotted, one seems to distort to give an unreal interpretation.”
Since you have set up Planck’s law numerically, you might find it informative to also numerically integrate the power over specific wavelengths. For instance, use the sun’s temperature and integrate just from 400 – 700 nm (visible light) or from 700 nm to 4000 nm = 4 um. That way you will get a numerical result for the energies in different bands, rather than eyeballing the results (which as you discovered can distort the appearance, especially with log plots).
You should find the same results results as posted at wikipedia for cumulative power: (I suspect the table will be badly mangled when I post it, but you can look on the webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law)
Percentile .01% .1% 1% 10% 20% 25.0% 30% 40% 41.8%
Sun λ (nm) 157 192 251 380 463 502 540 620 635
50% 60% 64.6% 70% 80% 90% 99% 99.9% 99.99%
711 821 882 967 1188 1623 3961 8933 19620
Summary: ~ 10% UV; ~40% visible; % 50 % IR
wayne says
“They never cue you that a big portion of the ~168 Wm-2 is also included in the ~324 Wm-2 they show as “back radiation”. Naughty, naughty! ”
What do you mean? The 168 W m-2 is directly from the sun, with almost no IR with energy in wavelengths LONGER than 4um. The 325 W m-2 is from the GHGs and clouds, with almost no energy in wavelengths SHORTER than 4 um. How could one be “included” in the other?
“This is the same re-circulation of radiant heat that is occurring right here in my room between every wall, ”
Exactly. But without the GHGs & clouds, the “ceiling” would be at 3 K (outer space), which would stop the “re-circulation” and make the room MUCH cooler. The atmosphere makes the “ceiling” seem like 3 K for only some wavelengths, so the remaining wavelengths DO recirculate energy and keep the “room” warmer.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 13, 2011 at 7:35 pm
wayne says:
“It all has to do with the way the graphs are plotted, one seems to distort to give an unreal interpretation.”
Since you have set up Planck’s law numerically, you might find it informative to also numerically integrate the power over specific wavelengths. For instance, use the sun’s temperature and integrate just from 400 – 700 nm (visible light) or from 700 nm to 4000 nm = 4 um. That way you will get a numerical result for the energies in different bands, rather than eyeballing the results (which as you discovered can distort the appearance, especially with log plots).
You should find the same results as posted at Wikipedia for cumulative power: (I suspect the table will be badly mangled when I post it, but you can look on the webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) […]
Great idea Tim. I’ll do that as I get time. That is why I said I was not finished, I also want to apply albedo, which should mainly decrease the visible band radiance, the decrease in the UV bands from the ozone absorption and so on. My problem is I’m having a hard time finding those factors from other papers which have already analyzed satellite data in the past, or possibly from ground based research. Then there is the question of how much of those and near-IR is absorbed by the atmosphere in each of those general bands. I find little on a per band basis so far but it’s bound to be out there somewhere that’s not behind a pay wall.
If you (or others reading here) ever want to do a simple loop accumulation using Planck’s equation instead of SB, the equation in Wikipedia is missing π in the numerator. Start at a frequency, calculate the radiance at that frequency and accumulate, add a billion to the frequency, repeat until you reach the high frequency or it returns zero, then multiply the accumulator by one billion (the dv step). That matches the first six digits with an error of one on the seventh. If you want to get even closer, make the step one million frequencies instead of a billion, but, get ready for it to take a few hours to run! Stefan-Boltzmann is faster. (but as you said, you can’t specify the beginning and ending frequencies)
Used this equation:
I(T, v) = 2π h v / ( c^2 (e^( h v / k T ) – 1) )
v=frequency, k=Boltzmann constant, h=Planck’s constant, c=speed of light, T=temperature (K)
You can pre-compute some of those factors like ( 2π h / c^2 ) for efficiency.
Here’s what you wanted using that simple Planck loop and Wikipedia’s ranges at 5778 K:
Far-infrared, from 300 GHz (1 mm) to 30 THz (10 μm): 45,656 W/m2
Mid-infrared, from 30 to 120 THz (10 to 2.5 μm): 2,123,690 W/m2
Near-infrared, from 120 to 400 THz (2,500 to 750 nm): 27,051,300 W/m2
Visible, from 400 to 790 THz (750 to 380 nm): 27,689,600 W/m2
Near-ultraviolet, from 790 THz to 30 PHz (380 to 10 nm): 6,290,660 W/m2
Sum total of the above: 45656 + 2123690 + 27051300 + 27689600 + 6290660 = 63,200,906 W/m2.
By SB = 5.6704e-08 * 5778^4 = 63,200,984 W/m2.
Pretty close right? So I would say right now that after albedo the majority warming is by near-IR but I’m not finished yet, this is an interim report, this depends a lot on what “albedo” contains in which bands and where UV is distributed. ☺