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.
“Tim could you expand a little on what kind of test would falsify your version of the “greenhouse theory”.
For instance if the average surface temperature of the planet stayed constant or decreased over the next ten years would it be falsified?”
Hmmmm … an interesting and subtle question. This question could be addressed on several levels.
1) I would be hard-pressed to imagine a situation where this most basic version of “the GH theory” would be falsified. I listed several very well-established sets of data and theory that all tie together. If any of those were shown to be false, then I would have to rethink this most basic version of the GH effect.
2) It’s kind of like asking “what kind of test would falsify that the force of gravity pulling me to the earth is F = (G m1 m2)/r^2?” I really don’t think it is wrong. Well, then I step on a very accurate scale and see that it reads a little less than this value. I could either try coming up with a new equation for gravity, or I could try to figure out why it doesn’t agree with the measurement in this case. Then I remember that the earth is spinning. When I correct for this, the agreement is better, but still not right. Then I remember I am immersed in air, which provides a slight buoyant force. When I also correct for this, then I get agreement between the prediction and the measurement.
Similarly, if temperatures stop rising while the GHGs keep increasing, then
A) perhaps I was wrong about my GHG hypothesis. Maybe those experiments I outlined don’t show what I thought they did. Maybe the GH effect is “saturated” and only the first 100 ppm or the first 200 ppm or the first 300 ppm matter, but then the rest plays no role. (But I don’t think those are correct).
B) perhaps some OTHER factors are ALSO important.
3) Of course, we know that many other factors are important. The earth’s orbit is important. The sun is important. Cloud cover is important. Soot and aerosols are important. Changing the earth’s surface by paving roads and planting crops is probably important. (Or maybe the temperatures are not going up so much, but problems with instruments or their sitings, and there is less change that needs to be accounted for.)
Then would could consider falsifying the more specific hypothesis “increasing CO2 levels are the primary cause of the recent increases in temperature.”
If some other factor (or a combination of several factors) could be shown to correlate better with global temperatures (or better yet, correlate with some global total energy) AND there was a clear reason why they should be correlated (http://xkcd.com/882/), then that would falsify this more specific hypothesis. But it would still not falsify that GH gases do already provide significant warming for the earth.
I will say that I was more sure that GHGs were “the primary cause” 10 years ago when temperatures seemed to be on a steadier rise. The longer we go with no additional warming, the more I accept that other factors must play larger roles IN ADDITION TO the role of rising levels of CO2.
Joel Shore
My edition is the ninth in which they say;
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cooler body never the reverse. page 559
Joel says
Well, my edition is the 13th and they have about a page on the greenhouse effect and climate change right in the part of the chapter that discusses radiation. Here is some of what they says……….
So Joel what great new discoveries have been made since the Ninth Edition (1995 )and your newer edition.
I’m certainly not aware of any!
However since then there have arisen major hedge funds and banks promoting an outrageous scam.
It appears that the massive funds and redirection of our economies has forced a corruption of honest science.
There are corrupt people who for a few £s or $s will prostitute themselves.
Unemployment and poverty is being forced on the working people of Europe and America
I am proud to have studied physics and consider it my unpaid duty to confront the apologists (like yourself and Tim) for the elite who want to wreak the economies of the world even if it implies a corruption of science.
We may be swamped by a sea of lies but eventually the truth will prevail
mkelly:
Good heavens, mkelly. I told you already. The second term in the (corrected) equation you wrote down is the one referred to as “back radiation”. If you don’t want to call it that, you don’t have to. As I have written previously, you could call that term “Mind control from the planet Zircon” and it won’t change the fact that the equation tells you that the rate of radiative heat transfer away from an object depends on the temperature of the other objects around it…and it is particularly important when an object surrounds it.
What part of this are you not understanding? It is right in the equations that you wrote down! Here’s a simple example for you applying those equations:
Consider a blackbody object at a temperature T_1, having 1 m^2 surface area, and generating thermal energy at a rate of 390 W. For radiative balance of this object, we require that it radiate heat away at a rate of 390 W/m^2 (rate of heat generated = rate of heat emitted).
Now, solve that equation for 3 different values of temperature of a colder surroundings T_2: T_2 = 0, 200 K, 255 K. The solutions are T_1 = 288 K, 303 K, and 324 K, respectively. As you can see, the steady-state temperature of the object is higher when the temperature of the surroundings is higher, even if the temperature of the surroundings is lower than that of the object.
R-values are used to discuss conduction. I suppose one might in some context be able to define an analogous concept for radiation but I haven’t seen it formally done.
And, it is not really suppressing an object from radiating…It is just radiating back to the object so that the heat flow (which is the net amount of energy flowing away from the object) is less. Why are these concepts so difficult for you guys to comprehend?
Bryan says:
I see…When Young and Freedman seemed useful because you wanted to quibble with me about wording that is irrelevant to the physics that we are discussing, they were a respected authority. However, now that it has been revealed that they accept the scientific consensus on climate change…and in fact explain the greenhouse effect as one of their primary examples in discussing radiative heat transfer, they have been relegated to “corrupt people who for a few £s or $s will prostitute themselves.” How fascinating!
Don’t fool yourself. What you are doing is promoting pseudo-scientific nonsense because your rigid ideological worldview makes you unable to accept scientific conclusions that go against it.
Absolutely, although you and G&T and the authors of Slayers are doing your best to delay that day, at least among those gullible enough to believe such nonsense.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 18, 2011 at 5:46 am
Re my: “it carries no oomph”
Ah! Now it is all clear!
Sigh, I don’t think so, having read to the end of the discussion so far.
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.
You should ask for your money back, all that work and you’ve still no idea of bog standard, traditional, science re heat. You’ve not been taught context.
And someone shouting sound-bite science like “HEAT IS THERMAL IR” is not compelling evidence!)
It’s not ‘evidence’, it’s a statement of fact. Heat is heat, the stuff that hot things give off, that is Thermal IR. Other things given off by very hot things are not HEAT. They ARE NOT HOT. You can’t grasp this simple fact because you’ve been brainwashed into thinking only in terms of radiation separate from what is being radiated, istm. Heat is being radiated is Thermal IR, Light of many pretty colours is being radiated is Visible Light. Visible Light is not hot because it is not heat it is not Thermal Radiation.
Hot things do not ‘radiate energy/photons/statistics which only becomes heat when it reaches matter/has net transfer’, which begins to cook a plant when it’s taking a break from photosynthesising… The Sun is radiating actual real life very hot HEAT.
The Sun is VERY HOT. The heat it gives off travels through space to reach us. Really. It only takes 8 minutes.
This heat is called Thermal IR. Not non-thermal IR, i.e. Near IR, which is not hot, and not Visible Light which is not hot. Those are different energies, just as radio and gamma are different, they are not Visible Light, for example. They have different characteristics and have different properties from each other; are different sizes and react with other matter in different ways, do different things.
Visible Light is tiny and highly energetic, think pinball machine and Visible light the small ball bashing itself against the heavyweight oxygen and nitrogen molecules – that’s why it is so easily scattered across the sky. Our atmosphere is one heavy mass of Air pinball machine for this puny thing travelling in such high on speed short waves trying to get through, pinging around in every direction in our atmosphere of 99% oxygen and nitrogen, which are very similar weight, plus 1% argon, rounded up, the Gas Air. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1073295
It, the highly strung nervy Visible light, still reaches us at the same time as the more laid-back Heat. These are Things, travelling by radiation. Next time you look up at the blue sky, think on’t.
Joel Shore says to Smokey
April 18, 2011 at 1:52
..the scientific community decides
Nope, real world as it really works decides, that is real Science. Regardless of how many believe something by consenus, consensus does not prove anything. That’s religion or politics.
The real world Science has already named these and described them. Argue by all means that they are not as described, but until you can prove that Visible Light, UV and Nr Ir which are not hot, can heat the Earth by your AGWScience ‘concept of radiation’, to produce that much Thermal IR, then you’re not being a real scientist.
Now, I realise that it must seem extraordinarily far-fetched from where you’re coming from to believe that what you have been taught is not Real Science fact, but for those still being taught traditional science you appear completely off the wall, and those having investigated why this disjunct have seen that there has been a manipulated deliberately structured change in key areas to the well known, workable, traditional science fact. It’s very subtle, very very clever.
So, humour us, prove that UV, Visible Light and Nr IR, can convert to Heat on reaching the Earth which then radiates out the amount of Thermal IR as billed. Just prove it by the tried and tested scientific method. Take some UV and some blue light and etc., and heat some stuff for us. Is that too much to ask? I’m really surprised that AGWScience hasn’t already got all this information on tap as it were…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110416150032AALmgHB
lithiumd’s post shows this AGW inability to imagine heat itself travels.
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-is-there-sound-in-space.html
“Sound travels in waves like light or heat does, but unlike them, sound travels by making molecules vibrate.”
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/2-does-heat-move-differently-in-space.html
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/1-what-is-heat.html
Still teaching traditional Science, except when it puts an AGW slant in, as here: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/thermal/2-what-is-heat-balance.html
Difficult enough to spot when one knows the differences, it’s not at all surprising that there is so much confusion about this. It is horrifying. How many have now been subject to this re-education having grown up with it?
Joel – re your edition – have you checked to see if this statement is true?:
“This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet’s surface temperature about 33C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric CO2. If CO2 were absent, the earth’s average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.”
I was wondering how that could be tested. Liquid Air can’t be used because it has both CO2 and Water removed, but perhaps something with Dry Air?
Maybe relevant. Because the AGW meme is Global Warming from CO2, all the ‘explanations’ are slanted to that end and Water is chopped up and only bits used in the models, but I don’t know all the arguments about this, negative feedback and so on. I do know that standard traditional science says that without the Water Cycle the Earth would be much hotter, 67°C. This is because water, the main greenhouse gas of our real atmosphere, gets heated and morphs into water vapour which is lighter than air, taking heat up and away from the Earth where it then condenses out into rain when it reaches colder conditions and so the cycle continues. Without water, the Earth would be in more desert conditions, hot and dry during the day, rapidly losing that heat at night. If they are including water warming in ‘feedback’ from CO2, in their ‘without CO2 is would be below freezing’, that could be measured somehow, couldn’t it? Can’t quite get my head around it, it’s late is my excuse, but with and without and then with water in its own right as cooling.
Bryan says:
I guess you haven’t been reading the IPCC reports or the scientific literature in general. To name just a few that come to mind: (1) Considerably more experimental verification of the water vapor feedback, (2) A longer and corrected satellite temperature record that confirms that the warming seen at the surface is also occurring throughout the lower troposphere, (3) Improved detection and attribution studies, (4) Better measures of the likely range of climate sensitivity values based on empirical data.
What has also happened since 1995 is that science that was already known within the climate science community has been more wildly disseminated and appreciated by scientists outside of that community. I was quite ignorant myself about the science of AGW back in 1995. (And, yes, I know that last sentence is setting myself up for an obvious rejoinder.)
It is interesting to note how pseudo-scientific arguments, be they made by Bryan, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, or Gerhard Kramm, all seem to share certain universal features.
One particular feature that they all have in common is that they attack their opponents by purposely trying to find an interpretation of what their opponents say that doesn’t make sense. Hence Bryan attacks me because he can find some colloquial uses of the term “heats” that can easily be remedied by simple word changes if one is that offended by it. Likewise, Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G&T) attack various statements of the greenhouse effect because of this word or that and Kramm attacks Arthur Smith because he doesn’t like the way Arthur defines certain quantities that he uses in his paper.
Contrast this to how we engaged G&T in our comment: We showed how there seems to be no reasonable interpretation of G&T that is both correct and shows what they claim to show. The fact that this is true seems to be implicitly acknowledged b the fact that neither they nor Bryan has ever really even tried to state in rebuttal a clear statement of what it is they actually did say.
Likewise, in my comment here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-644308 on something that Bryan said, I did not purposely choose the least charitable interpretation of what he said. Rather, I showed that his statement could either be interpreted in multiple ways, one of which was correct but not relevant to the greenhouse effect and another to was incorrect.
Another feature of pseudoscience is how one will selectively quote from a source when it suits one’s purposes, while at the same time disavowing that source when they say things that one doesn’t like. Hence, Bryan approvingly cites the physics textbook by Freedman and Young when he wants to nitpick about our use of words in our comment on G&T (without, of course, engaging in the substance of what we said). However, when it is pointed out to him what the latest edition of the book says about the greenhouse effect and AGW, he makes a vicious ad hominem attack on his very own source, basically accusing them of the most anti-scientific / anti-intellectual behavior possible: purposely misleading the students for the sake of money (with no evidence to support this vicious charge whatsoever).
Such are the ways of pseudo-science.
Myrrh,
I have never heard most of your “bog standard science” ( perhaps because I never learned science in a bog), but this one seems especially striaght-forward and easily verified:
“I do know that standard traditional science says that without the Water Cycle the Earth would be much hotter, 67°C. ”
Could you give ANY reference that says anything even remotely like this ?
PS there is ONE thing where I mostly agree with you over Joel!
“[Joel says] ..the scientific community decides
[Myrrh replies] Nope, real world as it really works decides, that is real Science. ”
Of course, those who study science are the ones in the best position to understand what the world is telling us.
I said
…”So Joel what great new discoveries have been made since the Ninth Edition (1995 )and your newer edition.
I’m certainly not aware of any!”……
Joel comes up with a list ……….of……. well read and decide for yourself how great they are.
However he missed out the real stand out achievements of climate science in that period.
1. Al Gore was given the Nobel Prize for his outstanding discoveries in science.
2. Michael Mann posted his acclaimed “cut and paste” hockey stick graph which predicted the Earths temperature would soar.
The quality of thermometers however has not kept pace with Michael and sadly the Earths temperature refused to follow the graph.
3. Nature magazine and certain other publications now have special rules for climate science.
a) The “team” can publish anything the like.
b) The data underpinning their conclusions can be withheld from questioning scientists.
As one of the “team” neatly summed up the situation; these other scientists would only use the data to “prove the team wrong”.
c) Crude censorship methods would be used to suppress any opposition to the views of the team.
d) Joel’s own massive contribution which I have outlined above; in which he confronts G&T for things they did not say.
He also has heat transfer going the wrong way ….but that’s cool now in 2011.
Climategate confirmed the corruption of normal science.
Anyone with a molecule of integrity reading the e-mails would be appalled.
However the “great and the good” did a typical British establishment whitewash to tell us that’s all well.
A new phenomena is the likes of Joel and Tim carefully removing any critical faculty they have when looking at Climate Science.
They turn up here at WUWT as apologists or pawns of pseudo climate science and use whatever talents they have to persuade us to abandon critical scepticism
“And, yes, I agree that their equating the 33 C rise all to CO2 specifically is not correct in the simple sense of its own radiative contribution to the total greenhouse effect,
So this paragraph is rubbish then isn’t it? I wonder why this has been done?
“However, when it is pointed out to him what the latest edition of the book says about the greenhouse effect and AGW, he makes a vicious ad hominem attack on his very own source, basically accusing them of the most anti-scientific / anti-intellectual behavior possible: purposely misleading the students for the sake of money (with no evidence to support this vicious charge whatsoever).”
But why then leave out water vapour and attribute the full 33 degree C rise to CO2. And then follow up with this
“The resulting temperature increase will have dramatic effects on climate around the world. In the polar regions massive quantities of ice will melt and run from solid land to the sea,”
Isn’t this just a typical alarmist scary prediction? That we will all drown (or might do) due to a tiny increase in CO2.
But can you at least now clearly state whether you accept that the GHG backradiation will warm the planet. Or are you still unsure whether it causes addition warming or just slows the cooling rate.
Tim says:
Of course, those who study science are the ones in the best position to understand what the world is telling us.
One assumes so at one’s peril nowadays. This is the Piltdown man writ large.
You also make the elementary mistake of thinking that because those who can do the maths and have studied some forms of science are somehow able to think better about these things than those that haven’t. Science is foremost about concepts, the maths is a language in which these are written, a form of shorthand. If you (generic) don’t have a grasp first of the concepts behind the maths, such as context, you are simply parrotting the maths. Einstein is quoted to have said that if you can’t explain something simply than you don’t really understand it yourself.
When AGW tries to explain something simply, it is seen to be absurd by any who have rudimentary, or rather had rudimentary, grounding in science.
I first began having doubts when I began exploring this because of two reasons, that the date chosen for temperature measurement for the scare scenario, a scientist scaring one with a fact is assumed to be telling the truth because that’s what specialists are for in a community.., and that Carbon Dioxide could stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years accumulating. The first is obviously worth looking at by anyone because the choice of starting date is simply human choice, so if information is readily available, as it is, of changes in temperature previous to that without human involvement then this warrants investigation, and the second is suspect if one has had a tradition elementary grounding in science as most in the West used to have, that CO2 is heavier than Air and therefore displaces it to sink to the ground, elementary weight and gravity and atmosphere pressure teaching as used to be taught.
That such elementary stuff is no longer readily available in the educational system is itself suspect. I’ve given two examples re the bog standard traditional elementary teaching about Thermal IR being the actual heat we feel from the Sun, the standard NASA page teaching still children, as I was taught, (the page is going to be changed at the end of May and that information no longer given on the new one), and a reference from the encyclopedia which mentions that some are still teaching the traditional science that it is IR which we feel as heat from the Sun.
In your, and I’m sorry, but I’ve now decided, arrogance, that you know more than I do because you can do maths shorthand, you have missed the point and continue to ignore the enormity of what I am still trying to convey here. That you are touting a completely different concept. That what you are saying is not traditional bog standard science and it is therefore encumbent on you, a claimed scientist, to prove that traditional bog standard science is wrong. That what you are saying is not traditional bog standard science and it is therefore encumbent on you to prove that traditional bog standard science is wrong. That what you are saying is not traditional bog standard science and it is therefore encumbent on you to prove that traditional bog standard science is wrong. The NASA page is still up, I’m assuming, I haven’t checked but they said they were changing it at the end of May, so it is still teaching to children the bog standard traditional science as whot was traditionally taught before AGWScience changed it without proof.
They, NASA, are still teaching what the newworld order encyclopedia says is still traditionally taught. NASA is still teaching that the heat we feel from the Sun is Thermal IR, and that Near IR is not hot.
In another month I’m going to have even greater difficulty conveying my point..
This is still bog standard traditional science, and even when AGWScience arranges for it to disappear, it will still be bog standard traditionally as taught science, BECAUSE there is no available science method refutation of this from AGWScience.
So, it will still be bog standard traditional science as fact of nature in the traditional unambiguous clearly defined naming of such things by the bog standard traditional science language. Until it is successfully shown to be wrong, then it still stands as bog standard science fact. You have not appreciated the enormity of what I am saying by making this point, as a scientist I would have expected that to have been your very first reaction…
…but it’s not what I’ve found from AGWScience scientists.
This is a momumental claim, a complete change of concept. That it’s not Thermal IR we feel as heat from the Sun and that it’s the Light energies plus shortwave either side of UV and Nr IR, which are not in themselves thermal, which are heating the Earth. If you could prove it true your name would go down in real science history as the one who overturned traditional science understanding. Why is no named person claiming it? Who first said it? Remember, traditional science is still, just hanging on by the skin of its teeth, still teaching it. I have proved that as best I can do in the circumstances. You can see the pages for yourself.
I would really really really like you to concentrate on this point, and give me an answer. Prove that UV, Visible and Near IR are actually heating the Earth which is then radiating out the said amount of Thermal IR as it actually claims in the KT97 Energy Budget. What is so difficult here? Surely you must readily available books and books on the subject and actual experimental evidence in such an important, critical, change from traditional science teaching…
..so, re the who says 67°C hotter without water, find it yourself. I’m still waiting for an answer to my challenge re the opening scientific premise of this discussion for which I have already given you references, and one of these states it clearly and unambiguously, and you are still ignoring this.
And here’s me thinking scientists were particularly able to concentrate their minds..
AND ONE OF THESE WHICH IS A RECOGNISED STATE OF THE ART SCIENTIFIC BODY STATES IT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY AND YOU ARE STILL IGNORING IT.
And apologies to anyone still reading my posts, I’ve only just noticed that I forgot a close italics in my last post to Tim, before my reply “It’s not ‘evidence’, it’s a statement of fact.”; end of sixth para.
Mods – I would appreciate it if you could capture the NASA page for the record somewhere here. I can’t do even do it on my own computer, it’s in its basic poorly mode and barely functions. I couldn’t capture the page from the American meteriological society site when they had up, in its teaching pages, that CO2 couldn’t heat the Earth. The traffic increase alerted them and it disappeared within days.
Bryan:
There’s nothing of any real substance in your post…Replace a few words and the it would read exactly like the kind of charges one sees made by the makers of this documentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
RJ says:
I explained the sense in which it was correct and incorrect. I presume it was done because physicists in general are not experts in climate science. They understand the more physics-related parts reasonably well but, unless they have spent a fair bit of time researching the subject, they can be a bit hazy on the climate science details. (It may also have had to do with trying to condense things to keep the discussion of global warming short…I don’t know.)
No. This claim is based on work by people who well-understand the relative roles of water vapor, CO2 and how they interact.
If you are unwilling to read and comprehend, there is nothing more that I can do:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-643762
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-643955
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-644308
I can probably link to 10 other places in this thread alone where I or others have essentially repeated the same thing in slightly different words.
To summarize: Your question is ill-defined until you explain what you mean by the words. The role of greenhouse gases is to reduce the outflow of heat. It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law) but it does result in less heat flow away from the planet’s surface, which results in an imbalance between energy in (from the sun) and energy out. The planet responds by increasing its surface temperature until such point as the balance is re-established.
So, I would summarize this by saying that the decrease in cooling rate caused by the GHGs, coupled with the constant amount of energy received from the sun, results in additional warming because it seems perfectly reasonable to me to call this increase in temperature “warming”. But, I am not going to quibble over the exact wording as long as it is reflects an understanding of the physics and is not misleading.
Here is another place where I give a specific numerical example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-644882 If you don’t have the ability and the gumption to check this yourself, then you have no business spouting the nonsense that you are talking here, as you are just talking from a complete lack of knowledge (with apparently no ability to absorb information from people who are patiently trying to instill you with some knowledge).
Re the 67°C – curiosity… I found this page – http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Water-cycle which says: “Without the cooling effect of evaporation the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 degrees C, and a warmer planet [link]. The link takes to a NASA page which if it ever had the information on that page, no longer has it.
Myrrh says: April 20, 2011 at 5:44 am
“Re the 67°C …”
Cool — I learned something.
The scenario is rather unphysical –> evaporation and precipitation stop, but water vapor already in the air remains at similar level. This removes the “78 W/m^2 evapo-transpiration” while maintaining the GH effect of the water vapor radiating back toward the earth.
With that scenario, then I can believe the 67 C figure, since the surface would have to warm up to radiate 78 W/m^2 more power. (And that would warm the atmosphere, causing a little more radiation back from the atmosphere, so the feedback would require more than 78 W/m^2 extra radiation).
I was thinking that “removing the water cycle” also implied removing the vapor, hence removing the GH contribution for radiation from the sky. This scenario would considerably reduce the IR toward the surface from the atmosphere, counteracting at least partially the reduced energy leaving the surface. It is hard to estimate which of theses would be bigger off-hand, but it might lead to either bit of a rise or a bit of a drop.
Joel says
….”The role of greenhouse gases is to reduce the outflow of heat. It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law) but it does result in less heat flow away from the planet’s surface.”….
Now this is a statement that Joel must have found hard to say but should be welcomed as a return to mainstream physics.
I don’t want to press Joel to hard at this point but I would ask him to read once again
“Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
He will find that G&T were defending exactly the same mainstream physics principles and statements like Joel’s above.
I personally feel that Joel had very little influence on the content of the “comment” paper.
If he did I’m sure the number of “howlers” would be greatly reduced.
Bryan says:
Considering how many times I have repeated it over and over in this thread and elsewhere, it is not only easy to say but my fingers can pretty much type the words automatically without even having to engage my brain.
If they were, they would not have concluded that the greenhouse effect is a fiction. Since they did conclude that, it is clear that they were trying to get their audience to believe in some version of the Magical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rather than the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
If they actually understood the 2nd Law and its relation to the greenhouse effect (or, if they did not actively want to deceive people on this relationship), there would have been absolutely no reason to write their paper…or at least the garbage having to do with the greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law.
Joel Shore
You’ve slipped back into polemics for polemics sake.
Read the Halpern paper again (after all you signed up for it).
They said that because a colder surface(atmosphere) radiates to a warmer Earth surface it must HEAT the surface.
They went further and said that G&T had said that a cold object couldn’t radiate to a warmer surface.
G&T being well grounded in mainstream physics knew Halpern et al were making a primitive mistake and while a layperson could easily get confused it was inexcusable for a professional physicist.
G&T in their reply to Halpern explained proper thermodynamic reasoning to them.
Joel you said above;
…….. “It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law)”…….
This is exactly the point that G&T were making.
It could be said that Halpern et al made such a feeble attempt that any real mistakes in the G&T paper have yet to be addressed.
Now’s your chance take a second shot and find one mistake in the G&T paper.
After all its over 100pages long surely you can find some weak spot.
Comments like
…..”or at least the garbage having to do with the greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law.”..
demean only yourself and show you are reluctant to engage in substance.
To follow up on what Joel just said…
Joel said ”The role of greenhouse gases is to reduce the outflow of heat. It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law) but it does result in less heat flow away from the planet’s surface.” Apparently Joel, Bryan, and I all agree with this statement.
Greenhouse gases do transfer energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface (via IR radiation primarily)
Of course, the warmer surface also transfers energy to the cooler atmosphere (primarily via IR radiation, but also via evaporation & convection).
The NET transfer of energy due to the temperature difference between the surface and the atmposhere (ie heat) is from the warmer location to the cooler location, exactly as required by the 2nd Law.
It is encouraging to know that Bryan recognizes that what we have been saying all along is “mainstream physics.”
P.S. Bryan, I’m still waiting for you to either support your accusation or apologize: “This raises the possibility that you know fine well that a lot of your input at this site is without a firm scientific basis.” What specific statements did I make that were without firm scientific basis?
“The role of greenhouse gases is to reduce the outflow of heat. It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law) but it does result in less heat flow away from the planet’s surface”
OK I’m happy with this section
But is this next section correct.
“which results in an imbalance between energy in (from the sun) and energy out. The planet responds by increasing its surface temperature until such point as the balance”
OK as a non scientists (so it could be rubbish) these are some points that I would make on this:
Radiation travels at the speed of light so any reduced cooling due to energy leaving the surface due to radiation would be very minor.
The reduced cooling would be mainly due to conduction and convection. CO2’s role in this would be very small. (water vapour much greater)
The highest temperature due to the Sun on any day would not change. It might get to this temperature more quickly (due to a higher starting temperature) but would not rise above this highest possible temperature (due to cloud cover etc). So if the max on one day was 20 degrees and the temperature fell to 19 overnight. On day 2 due to greater cloud cover the max from the sun was 18 then the temperature would fall to 18 (everything else being equal).
So the Sun determines the surface temperature. GHG’s especially water vapour affect the rate of cooling (along with the other components of air) mainly due to conduction and convection not radiation.
Bryan:
Cut the sophistry and word-games. Some of us are mature adults here, not little kids. I am frankly sick and tired of your games. I have explained in crystal clear language multiple times what the science is but you are more interested in saying, “You guys said ‘heat’:, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh.” If you can’t be bothered to understand concepts that take more than one word to explain, it is your loss.
I’ll just repost my post explaining how one can tell pseudoscience from actual science: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-645022 Bryan, G&T, Gerhard Kramm are practicing pseudo-science pure and simple. It is anathema to the practice of science and everybody who supports real science must condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Oh, Bryan, I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for your libelous insinuation against your own source, Young and Freedman.
For those who really want to learn something rather than to just grandstand like Bryan, look at the actual mathematical examples presented in our paper http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf that show how the greenhouse effect emerges at the level of simple models, read them, and comprehend them. They’re not complicated. Understanding the mathematics is the best inoculation against the sort of pseudo-science word-games that Bryan and his ilk peddle.
REPLY: “halpern_etal_2010.pdf” Oh how hilarious! You suggest we should accept a paper from Joshua Halpern aka “Eli Rabbet”, a fictitious animal that lives to harass people on the Internet through anonymous snarky and often denigrating postings, too cowardly to sign his own name to them. That’s the best you’ve got? The day Halpern fesses up himself to be Rabbet might be the day anything he has to say or write might be worthy of consideration. I suggest you reference a paper that is not dripping with a laughable lack of credibility, and I’m sure we would all be happy to look at it. You really do need to be more discerning who you publish with.
– Anthony
Anthony: Frankly, your ad hom attacks aren’t really worthy of a response.
REPLY: Right sure yeah, uh huh. Then tell Halpern/Rabbett to stop making them about other people and fess up and we won’t have a problem with the bad bunny now will we?
Tough noogies if you don’t like what I said. You made your choice to be associated with him, but apparently can’t take any criticism of your choice. – Anthony
Joel said: The role of greenhouse gases is to reduce the outflow of heat.
Nope, the main greenhouse gas of our atmosphere is water and its role is primarily to reduce the heat of the earth heated by the Thermal IR of the Sun, see my post re 67°C hotter without the Water Cycle. The Water Cycle includes the gas, Water Vapour, which anyway lighter than Air, rises more quickly the hotter it is and takes heat away from the surface of the Earth, and then loses it to colder Air as it travels upwards. It does not send heat back to a warmer earth because it’s taking warmth with it as it rises. Any radiation it is ‘sending out in Earth’s direction’, then, is not the radiant energy Heat. It encourages the removal of heat from the earth, with a temporary stop to heat loss from the Earth when it is in the formation of enough cloud or fog creating a mass physical barrier locally. But within that, heat is still travelling from hot to cold and when it gets cold enough and the right conditions exist for it to form such, the Water Vapour condenses out into Water or Ice which heavier than Air will fall displacing Air which is now lighter. And the rain will mop up whatever Carbon Dioxide is around and bring that down with it as Carbonic Acid, the Wash and Disinfect Cycle.
It does not result in heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (which would violate the 2nd Law) but it does result in less heat flow away from the planet’s surface.
Only temporarily and locally in specific conditions of say cloud cover. Water has a greater capacity to store heat but even if being heated by Thermal IR from the Earth it will still be releasing that heat to the colder atmosphere above it. Which it needs to do to come down as rain or ice. And locally, because the Earth is not permanently covered with a blanket of Cloud which would mean the Earth stopped being heated, for all practically purposes. At least not in the world I live in.
Tim says: Greenhouse gases do transfer energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface (via IR radiation primarily)
It can’t be Heat energy which is Thermal IR and which always flows from hotter to colder. So if it is IR radiation, and you have yet to show what radiation is actually flowing from colder atmosphere to warmer earth.., then the colder atmosphere must be very very hot indeed to produce Near IR or the Colours..
Just how cold then is this “warmer surface”?
Of course, the warmer surface also transfers energy to the cooler atmosphere (primarily via IR radiation, but also via evaporation & convection).
The warmer surface, when it is warmer, will transfer Heat, thermal IR to the cooler atmosphere, but just how hot would this warmer surface have to be to itself produce the Near IR? Certainly Near IR and Visible are being reflected back from the surface, Light energies are easily reflected/refracted/scattered etc. When there is light. If it wasn’t for all this surface reflection we wouldn’t see anything. And what absorbs them can be very fussy, plants say yes to red and blue and say no thanks to the green in between.
For someone claiming to be a scientist with all that science education, I don’t know you so I’m taking it in good faith, you’re incredibly wishy washy about ‘energy’. You show no knowledge of the different characters of ‘energy’, did nothing you learned have that detail?
The NET transfer of energy due to the temperature difference between the surface and the atmposhere (ie heat) is from the warmer location to the cooler location, exactly as required by the 2nd Law.
So, in between all this ‘exchanges of energies to produce this idea of NET’, we get how many billions, trillions, whatever of destroyed entropies? How does it recover from this? What actually orders it back at each event of destroyed entropy to return to entropy to give this NET so it doesn’t violate the 2nd Law?
Anthony if you’re still here, or any Mod, – please would you capture this NASA page http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html to this discussion if possible, or somewhere on the site?
It’s about to disappear and I’ve been arguing from it that this is traditional science still taught, that the warmth we feel from the Sun is Thermal IR (and Light energies aren’t hot) and also I can’t save it on my computer, very poorly. The other reference to this tradition still being taught is from the newworldencyclopedia in the section “Infrared radiation and heat” – http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Infrared
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find these kinds of standard science references and the ones that do exist are being continually changed. I tried the Wayback machine for the NASA link re the earth would be 67°C hotter without water, but couldn’t find it.
REPLY: NASA page saved here –
http://www.webcitation.org/5y68yeeRD
You can do this yourself at http://www.webcitation.org/
Anthony