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:
There is no difference. The language of physics is mathematics. We agree on the mathematics. As I noted, the words that you use to associate with the physics and mathematics tend to be somewhat ambiguous: Heating relative to what? If something results in a higher temperature then can we not colloquially say it heated the object? If someone said, “I was starting to shiver so I put on a jacket and it heated me up” then would we tell him that he what he is claiming is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and therefore complete nonsense and there is no way the jacket could be warming him?
The ambiguity of language is another way that pseudo-scientists like G&T and the authors of Slayer prey on people like you. In fact, one of the interesting things about G&T is that their complaints about various statements of the greenhouse effect seem to turn on trivial wording issues…”He said heat flow but it is really energy flow…” and so forth. In that sense, their complaints are somewhat similar to Alistair Fraser here: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html However, unlike Fraser, who uses this to complain about how people are imprecise in their language regarding the greenhouse effect, G&T use this to conclude that the greenhouse effect is a fiction.
It is much like the approach of a lawyer who knows…or strongly suspects…his client is guilty but is duty-bound to defend him and so he does the best to argue on technical points with the witnesses, etc. Real science is not done this way.
I think our discussion here is illuminating in illustrating the methods that the tricksters use to deceive you guys. I just hope it is able to illuminate you enough so that you don’t remain locked in their clutches. That remains to be seen.
We do not live in a metal box.
There are three ways a photon of light can react with the Real world, real matter, as I gave description above, production of heat is one of the three. Blue light’s highly energetic state means only that it is quick moving, this does not equate to power to work change being greater than slower moving waves, nor does it mean it has greater power to create heat than slower moving waves. There is a disjunct in logic in the AGWScience promotion, which has leaked into and deliberately been introduced, into general science, about this. Blue light is piddlingly tiny, it carries no oomph in our atmosphere. It bounces off the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air, scattering every which way, reflecting off these is what gives us a blue sky. It is more easily scattered than red light. What makes it down to earth is again subject to reflection depending on surfaces as short wave energies are naturally more reflective than longer waves, it does not have any great penetrating power on a macro level, it hardly penetrates the skin or we would leave no shadow, UV even less than Visible, or we’d all be burned up inside…. It, Blue light (and red), is absorbed by plants for use in photosynthesis, which do not absorb green light and this is reflected back at us so we see plants as green. Blue light transmits through water deeper than red light which is absorbed earlier, until it too is absorbed to black. It’s really hot at these depths..?
So, this puny wave has a one in three chance of being able to create heat in reaction with matter, (because it itself is not thermal, is not heat on the move thermal IR and so is incapable of transferring heat because it has none, it can only be done as this one in three chance), how long will it take to heat a pint of water to boiling point if blue light is shone on it? Let me know when you’ve done so successfully, I’ll come over for a cup of coffee.
The heat we feel from the Sun is Thermal IR; not near IR, not Visible light, not UV.
How long will it take Blue light to heat soil, sand, granite?
This, the AGWScience Energy Budget, is brainwashed as being Real Science, yet none of these type of questions are ever answered, barely understood… Why not? And remember, you’re the one touting this as real science, you have to provide convincing proof and explanation for your hypothesis. So far all you’ve managed to provide is that you don’t know the difference between Heat and Light energies and have no knowledge of the different characteristics, properties of these and the effects they have on organic matter, and don’t know how much actual heat they convert to on reaching Earth in the KT97, let alone able to prove that sufficient for the Earth to radiate out that amount of Thermal IR.
And yet some here think this passes for real science and think any saying you have yet to provide the maths from tested real world proofs of concept don’t understand the maths ..
“it carries no oomph”
Ah! Now it is all clear! And to think I wasted all those years learning calculus and statistical mechanics and E&M. I should have just gone straight to the “oomph” theory of energy.
Tim Folkerts
I think your getting me mixed up with RJ.
But even more important you are very confused about energy transfer.
It seems incredible but are you trying to convince us that all electromagnetic wave energy must turn almost instantly to heat?
For instance inside one of Ira’s boxes light could not charge a battery via a solar cell because light can only change to thermal energy as you mistakenly believe.
Tim Folkerts,
Funny! Based on your robust reasoning, the next step is the Law of Oomph.☺
# # #
Joel Shore says:
“…pseudo-scientists like G&T…”
Well, Joel, I pass no judgement on G&T’s papers because I’ve haven’t followed them. You may be entirely correct about their validity.
But since G&T have presumably graduated from accredited institutions, and they are peer reviewed, then they are, in fact, real scientists, not pseudo-scientists. Scientists that you may not agree with, but to label them “pseudo-scientists” leaves you open to the very same label by anyone who disagrees with you, eg: “pseudo-scientists like Joel Shore.”
Even I have not gone that far. But based on the pot/kettle principle…
Smokey says:
If it makes you feel better, replace the term “pseudoscientists” with “people who peddle pseudoscience”, which is undoubtedly what G&T are doing. Why they are doing this, i.e., whether they have deluded themselves or whether they are just trying to deceive others, is something that cannot be determined…although the fact that their arguments are so scientifically ridiculous and the manner in which they present them lead me to suspect the latter. Still, I try my best to abide by the saying, “Don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed instead to incompetence.”
Joel Shore,
Your error has nothing to do with making me feel better. And you peddle pseud0science yourself. If you disagree, then provide testable evidence showing global damage from CO2, or evidence of non-existent runaway global warming.
Everyone promoting the “carbon” scare is promoting pseudo-science. If they followed the scientific method, they would be demanding real world evidence backing the CAGW claims. But they don’t, and they don’t.
Smokey:
We’ve been down that road several times before. The subject of this thread is the greenhouse effect.
It is not trying to provide Smokey with evidence for what he claims to want to see. Because I have well-established that you are not an objective evaluator of evidence. Hence, it is impossible to provide evidence that you will find convincing…You don’t want to be convinced. That is your prerogative. Suffice it to say, that the scientific community as a whole is convinced (at least of the significant potential danger posed by AGW), which is why essentially all of the societies that governments call upon to provide them with scientific advice have spoken with a unified voice, and unless you can provide compelling evidence otherwise, their opinion is unlikely to change.
Now…back to the greenhouse effect…
Tim Folkerts says:
April 14, 2011 at 5:36 am
“For the earth, this “back radiation” plus the 168 W m-2 from the sun is just enough to let the earth radiate upward AND drive evaporation AND create thermals.”
You use the word “plus”, the 324 you spoke of “plus the 168” = 492 W/m^2. Please show a heat transfer equation that directly allows or shows W/m^2 adding together.
Bryan says: April 18, 2011 at 6:31 am
“I think your getting me mixed up with RJ.”
Sorry if I made some mistake. I thought I was attributing the quotes to the proper people.
“But even more important you are very confused about energy transfer.
It seems incredible but are you trying to convince us that all electromagnetic wave energy must turn almost instantly to heat?”
Certainly photons can do things besides turn to thermal energy. Photosynthesis and the photoelectric effect are two obvious examples. Typically these are rather limited processes. For instance, a solar cell inside the box would typically be only ~ 10% efficient, so much of the energy of the photons would still be converted to thermal even if the box was lined with solar cells. Same for photosynthesis. But you are certainly right — this would convert some of the photon energy into chemical energy and (at least for a while) keep the box cooler that the others.
OTOH, I could still fall back on Ira’s original statement “I come back an hour later after temperatures have stabilized.” The implication is that some steady-state has been reached. For example, once the solar cells have fully charged some battery inside the box, then they can no longer convert any photon energy into chemical energy in the batteries. Then the temperature will truly stabilize and the temperature of the solar-cell-lined box will be the same as the others.
Joel Shore says:
“Because I have well-established that you are not an objective evaluator of evidence.”
The only thing Joel Shore has well-established established is that when he makes a mistake like calling legitimate scientists “pseudo-scientists”, he refuses to admit it. Apparently there are no mirror’s in the Shore basement.
And regarding CAGW:
“…unless you can provide compelling evidence otherwise…”
As always, Joel Shore has the scientific method completely backward: Scientific skeptics have no obligation to provide “compelling evidence” of anything; the onus is entirely on those promoting the increasingly ridiculous, evidence-free CAGW conjecture. They have failed, but they will not admit it. And Joel Shore’s endless appeals to his corrupted authorities do not follow the scientific method, thus they mean nothing. They are simply evidence that the system has been gamed.
Joel Shore says;
……..”If something results in a higher temperature then can we not colloquially say it heated the object? If someone said, “I was starting to shiver so I put on a jacket and it heated me up” then would we tell him that he what he is claiming is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and therefore complete nonsense and there is no way the jacket could be warming him?”…….
Why is it that proponents of the IPCC position want to …”can we not colloquially say”..when they know fine well that real science will not support them.
Lets bend the rules, they say, since the laws get in the way.
Let “heat” mean something different to thermodynamic heat.
Since Clausius left Joel and other climate fraudsters with quite a blunt law;
Heat can only travel spontaneously from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object never the reverse.
Anyone who has been anywhere near a thermodynamics course knows that Joel would have failed his physics exam with his….” colloquially say it heated the object? “
Joel Shore says
……”If it makes you feel better, replace the term “pseudoscientists” with “people who peddle pseudoscience”, which is undoubtedly what G&T are doing. “……
Unfortunately Joel cannot be relied on to comment with any shred of authority on G&Ts work.
Joel unfortunately put his signature to a paper condemning the famous G&T paper which I’m sure he did not even read.
The main thrust of the Halpern Shore et al paper was to criticise G&T for saying that colder objects could not radiate to hotter objects.
The unfortunate thing for Joel was that G&T said no such thing.
Perhaps Joel can supply us with a link to this silly comment paper so we can all have a laugh.
“The main thrust of the Halpern Shore et al paper was to criticise G&T for saying that colder objects could not radiate to hotter objects”.
I take it though that this is different to
a colder objects could not radiate to hotter objects
and then also heat the hotter object?
I assume a colder object can radiate towards a hotter object but this does not then heat the hotter object.
Smokey,
I can’t quite agree with this: “Scientific skeptics have no obligation to provide “compelling evidence” of anything; the onus is entirely on those promoting the increasingly ridiculous, evidence-free CAGW conjecture. “
The person proposing a change from the status quo DOES have an obligation to provide evidence. The more strongly the status quo is believed, the stronger the evidence needs to be.
If someone proposes that the sun goes around the earth, or that F=ma is incorrect, or that continents do not move, then YES! they DO need to provide compelling evidence. Scientists can reasonably that these for granted and not have to prove them every time someone questions them.
Every once in a while, fundamental ideas ARE overturned. Einstein provided compelling evidence that F=ma is only APPROXIMATELY true. Newton’s laws have been adjusted accordingly. Now anyone questioning relativity needs to come up with compelling evidence.
Similarly, the greenhouse effect is well established (CO2 et al absorb & emit IR, causing the earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise). There is strong experimentation and theoretical backing. Arguing against that requires — in my opinion and I believe the opinion of most scientists who have looked into it — some sort of compelling evidence. (And someone shouting sound-bite science like “HEAT IS THERMAL IR” is not compelling evidence!)
Now, taking that the NEXT step to “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” — that is not nearly so definite! But this adds TWO layers to the basic GHG theory:
1) that people have caused some measureable change.
2) that current (or near-future) change will be “catastrophic”.
Personally I think that (1) is almost certainly true — if some GHGs produce some warming, then more GHGs would create more warming. (Just how much warming there has been and how much to attribute to people is a challenge. 10 years ago I would have been more sure of CO2 as the primary cause, but with a decade of merely hot-but-not-increasing temperatures, then other hypotheses are harder to rule out).
(2) is tougher, since the term “catastrophic” is ill-defined. “One man’s blessing is another man’s curse.” Proving an ill-defined term is pretty nearly impossible! 🙂
Bryan says: April 18, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Anyone who has been anywhere near a thermodynamics course knows that Joel would have failed his physics exam with his….” colloquially say it heated the object? “”
Ah, but this is NOT a physics exam — it is indeed a colloquial discussion. As much as I have challenged people to define precisely what they mean by “heat”, the simple fact is that “heat” is used in various ways EVEN among scientists and engineers. It is used in a wider number of ways by the general public.
So Bryan, how about you explain what difference there is, if any, among the statements:
* HEAT can only travel spontaneously from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object never the reverse.
* ENERGY can only travel spontaneously from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object never the reverse.
* NET ENERGY can only travel spontaneously from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object never the reverse.
What precisely is “thermodynamic heat” that you want to keep pure? Then we can have something specific to discuss.
Bryan says:
Sure, Bryan…Here is the link: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf Now readers will be able to see that what we actually said in our abstract is “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.” This is surely true. Now, it is not clear why they ignored it. Maybe they ignored it because they didn’t think cold objects could radiate to hot objects, maybe they ignored it because they knew that they could but hoped that gullible readers didn’t notice that they were ignoring this.
What is clearly true is that they presented hokey arguments that arrived at the completely fallacious result stated in their abstract that “the atmospheric greenhouse e ffect … essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.” ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf )
You have strangely adopted G&T’s pathetic response of saying that they didn’t say what we said they said…but neither you nor they have ever offered a coherent statement as to what they **DID** actually say on the subject. I have presented you with the challenge of doing this numerous times in numerous threads, but all you will ever do is repeat your charge without ever supporting it by telling us what G&T did say regarding the greenhouse effect, the Second Law, and radiative transfer. One might wonder why this is. Perhaps it would involve admitting that there is no interpretation of G&T’s paper that is both consistent with their wording and with the laws of physics?
Bryan says:
You and G&T have clearly adopted the tactic that when you are wrong on the physics, the best strategy is to nitpick on the wording. Even if people distinguish between the best wording and the colloquial wording, continue to nitpick. Then maybe gullible people won’t notice how intellectually bankrupt your position is.
Smokey says:
You just keep thinking that and see how more and more completely irrelevant to the scientific debate you and your friends become.
Smokey, what you don’t understand is that at the end of the day, you are not the one who gets to determine anything. The scientific community decides…and your lame cries of how you think the scientific process ought to work and how the scientific process has been corrupted, and so on and so forth will join the dustbin of similar claims made since the beginning of modern science by those who are losing the scientific debate, be they be people who claim the earth is flat, people who claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and so on.
I am sorry but if skeptics like you think they can win the scientific debate by total abdication of personal responsibility that you favor, you are in for a lot of disappointment! You may be able to win over some of the public with your nonsense, but you sure as heck won’t win over scientists.
Tim Folkerts
It occurred to me that perhaps you don’t have access to Physics Textbooks.
From University Physics by Harris Benson page 382
Modern definition of Heat
Heat is energy transferred between two bodies as a consequence of a difference in temperature between them.
University Physics Young and Freedman
Energy transfer that takes place sole because of a temperature difference is called heat flow or heat flow transfer and energy transferred in this way is called heat page 470
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cooler body never the reverse. pg 559
When Feynman finished his thermodynamics sections in the famous 3 volume lectures he recommended interested readers who wanted to take the matter further only one book.
The book he recommended was the ultra orthodox Heat and Thermodynamics by Zamansky.
Zemansky comments on radiation on page 105
….the difference between the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated is called heat.
Tim all these definitions show that heat only moves spontaneously from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.
A further test for thermodynamic meaning of heat is that it should be capable of doing work that is changing into another energy form in the given situation.
Find a physics textbook, work through the Carnot cycle and if you understand that you will have no problem with the concept of heat.
RJ says:
…..”I assume a colder object can radiate towards a hotter object but this does not then heat the hotter object.”…..
Yes that’s correct.
The colder object radiates less intensively and also with increasingly longer wavelengths.
The colder object cannot increase the temperature of the higher temperature object.
The radiation it emits should really be thought of as the radiative component of insulation no different to convective or conductive insulation.
However by looking at your posts above you appear to have grasped this already.
Will someone please give Joel a hanky? He’s upset because folks are asking for evidence of CAGW, and he still doesn’t have any.
Bryan says: April 18, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“It occurred to me that perhaps you don’t have access to Physics Textbooks.”
I have plenty of them, actually. I was wanting YOUR definition — you seem to espouse standard definitions, but it appears that YOU are also not consistent.
Bryan says:
“Joel Shores simple world consists of an earth without oceans and a land surface that does not retain heat.”
By any standard thermodynamic definition (like the ones you gave), it is impossible to “retain” heat (Q), any more than you can “retain” work (W). Both are processes that happen; but internal energy (U) is what is contained within a system.
Anyone who has been anywhere near a thermodynamics course knows that
JoelBryan would have failed his physics exam with his….”colloquially say it heated the object?retained heat “P.S. You never answered my question — only gave quotes from others sources. I say that “net energy” and “heat” would be synonymous in the statements I gave. This is consistent with your quote: “the difference between the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated is called heat.”. This is at odds with many of the claims that have floated around this discussion about the impossibility of IR radiation going from cold surfaces to warm surfaces.
Bryan says:
This is an example of a statement that is, according to one’s interpretation of the words, either wrong OR correct but totally irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. It is basically the way that Bryan and his friends G&T engage in sophistry because they know they don’t have a scientifically-coherent point-of-view.
If one interprets it to mean that a colder object cannot increase the temperature of a higher temperature object all by itself, it is correct: Heat will always flow from the hotter to the colder object and the temperature of the hotter object will decrease. However, this is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect involves the radiative interaction of the earth, its atmosphere, and the sun.
If one interprets it to mean that, say, the earth cannot be warmer in the presence of the (colder) atmosphere than in its absence when all the radiation it emits just goes back out into space, it is wrong because the sun is supplying radiative energy to the earth…and its temperature is determined by the balance of energy flows. Even if heat flows from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere, this can result in a higher steady-state temperature than if the heat flow was instead from the warmer earth back out into space (because the heat flow depends on the temperature of the surroundings as well as the temperature of the earth).
Speaking of which, would you care to enlighten us about what that textbook has to say on the subject of the greenhouse effect and global warming? I have a copy of the latest edition back in my office, so I can tell you tomorrow if your edition is too old to mention it or if you would rather not tell us here.
Joel says again
……”Maybe they ignored it because they didn’t think cold objects could radiate to hot objects, maybe they ignored it because they knew that they could but hoped that gullible readers didn’t notice that they were ignoring this.”……
In their “comment” paper page 8 we find;
…..”the ability of either disc to radiate does not depend on the presence of the other disc”……
…….”B would have to stop radiating towards A”…….
Now as sceptics we uphold the right to constructively criticize any publication whether peer reviewed in the case of the G&T paper or not.
However it is pretty stupid to attack a paper for things it did not say.
I would draw Joel’s attention to the following pages from the G&T paper showing surfaces radiating to each other;
Page 17,18,20,25,48 and so on.
Nowhere in the paper will you find any statement to occasion Halpern et als stupid interpretation.
The Halpern “comment” paper is full of the usual CGW exaggerations which readers can find for themselves.
I would however draw your attention to page 15 where we find under backradiation;
….”the surface is now HEATED not only by the sun but also by the downward emission of terrestial radiation from the atmosphere”…..
But perhaps Joel was meaning the colloquial meaning of heat since the “comment” paper could not be confused with any scientific content.
Readers now have a comprehensive list of the relevent papers.
[1] “Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[2] “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith; arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
In this paper Arthur Smith defends the current IPCC position and has the merit of taking issue with G&T for something that they did say.
[3] “Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith” by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, and Michael Zelger; arXiv:0904.2767v3 [physics.ao-ph]
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Takes issue with Arthur Smith
[4] Comment on ‘Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Chistopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann.
This must be the most embarrassing paper in history as it attacks G&T for things they didn’t say.
Joel link above
[5] “Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Chistopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) pages 1333–1359.
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
G&Ts reply to the absurd [4]
Gerhard Kramm and others with a broader look at current climate science including the “greenhouse effect”
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V004/137TOASCJ.pdf