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.
Joel, in normal science Net is understood within the 2nd Law.
It is the net of the reactions as the hotter heat the colder and themselves lose heat and so on until equilibrium reached.
Net in the 2nd Law does not mean breaking the 2nd Law by imagining it means the colder is warming the hotter…
Heat cannot be passed from a colder to a warmer object. It just does not happen. It takes work to effect such an unnatural happening.
Either, admit Halpern is talking physical rubbish, and therefore so are you, or show what work is being and by what to enable the colder Atmosphere to warm the warmer Earth.
Because such a thing is not naturally spontaneous as is Heat flowing in one direction only, from the hotter to the colder.
As naturally spontaneous as water flowing downhill, and not up.
That’s real science. Yours is the pseudo-science and all you’ve said about pseudo-science and its promoters reflects right back at you.
Myrrh says:
April 25, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Phil – what is so difficult to understand about Light energies not producing heat?
It’s just not true!
Are you still confusing artificial intensity as in lasers with the natural world?
No.
From the above: “When a photon is absorbed by a molecule, the electrons of that molecule are raised to a higher energy state.
Only true of UV/vis not of IR.
Light energies are not in themselves thermal. Thermal IR is Heat is Thermal IR on the move from one location to another.
Utter crap!
Joel says;
…..”In the meantime, the same person peddling pseudoscience continues to refuse to explain what was meant in a scientific paper (G&T) in which it was the physics, not the language, that was the problem. He hopes that maybe people won’t notice that there is NO plausible interpretation of this paper that makes any sense. As long as he doesn’t have to provide one, then continuing to attack those who have pointed out the fatal errors in this paper may leave people believing this paper (G&T) is not nonsense.”……………………….
People who have followed the exchange of posts with myself and Joel and who follow football know the score is 2 : 0 in favour of G&T at the expense of Halpern et al.
I have invited Joel to several times to find something wrong with the 100 page G&T paper and tell us specifically what it is.
Joel prefers the broad smear to actual point by point examination.
In the absence of Joels input how about the G&T statement that the 33K claimed greenhouse increase is “a meaningless number wrongly calculated”.
So tell me exactly how and how much Blue light converts to heat in the AGWScience Energy Budget as depicted in KT97 and promoted by Ira here, heating the land and sea to raise the Earth’s temperature globally by AGWScience claimed amount and in turn making the Earth radiate said amount of Thermal IR.
For a start, until you can produce an actual real science rational account of method and amount and proof of same that Visible Light from the Sun converts to heat in the Earth’s organic matter of land and sea to raise the Earth’s temperature the claim is pigs can fly. If you could produce it you would. You can’t produce it because it is impossible, as are the claims made for Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Heavier than Air molecules sink, displacing Air, etc. in real world science.
AGWScience is gobbledegook. Out of context laws and impossible properties and effects of matter/energy mixed to produce this gobbledegook in the real physical world is not real science, you are therefore not real scientists when promoting these, deliberately or duped.
Tim says;
P.S. Bryan, I’m still waiting for you to either support your accusation or apologize: “This raises the possibility that you [Tim] 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?
Tim just prior to my post you seemed to be implying that all solar radiation went almost instantly to thermal energy on absorption.
Myrrh has made a number of valid points which you tended to be rather dismissive of.
The photosynthesis example has been discussed.
Solar cell manufactures claim a 25% conversion rate to electrical energy in certain circumstances.
Myrrh also brought up LED lighting.
The by now quite commonly available wind up LED lamp producing output daylight colour equivalent to 5700K requires a bit of a rethink of our traditional views.
Myrrh does not have a science background but has the very sound instinct of asking for experimental evidence to back up statements.
Simply saying E = hf = heat explains not a lot.
For instance it would be an interesting comparison of temperature sensors (IR and optical) to point them at a LED source and then at a Tungsten Lamp and guess the temperature of the source.
The entropy consideration of the thermal interactions leading to longer and longer wavelengths takes some time to work out.
The implication of the degradation of energy over time is certain but not instantaneous.
Your basic greenhouse effect explanation you admitted was not capable of being falsified.
However since making these statements there does seem to be some difference between yourself and Joel.
The Halpern clique are quite open about adopting a propaganda posture instead of a scientific posture if it suits their ends.
I was over hasty in some of my remarks regarding yourself.
Bryan, Thanks for admitting you were being hasty when accusing me of spouting bad science. 🙂
As to some of your other recent remarks….
“Your basic greenhouse effect explanation you admitted was not capable of being falsified.”
No, I stated that the science behind the GH effect (IR absorption by gases; blackbody radiation, etc) was so well established, that falsifying it would be nearly impossible. Just like it would be very difficult to actually falsify that cigarettes cause lung cancer or that your weight is related to how much you exercise.
There is a huge difference!
“Tim just prior to my post you seemed to be implying that all solar radiation went almost instantly to thermal energy on absorption.”
Other than the parts that reflect, nearly all solar EM energy does change immediately to heat. A little turns to chemical energy via photosynthesis. A little induces other photochemical changes.
But that bit to photosynthesis doesn’t really matter, because as I explained, it eventually gets turned to heat when the plant decomposes. In equilibrium, energy is balanced and the delay doesn’t matter.
It is like it doesn’t matter if you get paid immediately for doing some work, or if the money accumulates and then you get paid weekly or monthly. If you average over the course of a year, you get paid the same total amount either either way. This week you are spending the $1,000 that you earned last week, but you still have $1000 to spend this week. The exception would be if the money got buried in the boss’s backyard for safe-keeping for that month and then she lost it — then you could be out that money.
A photon can “pay” its energy immediately when it hits the ground. It can “pay” its energy to a plant, only to have that energy released a month later when the plant dies. Unless there is a net increase or decrease in plant matter, the energy balance remains the same. About the only exception would be energy that gets “buried in the back yard” in the form of fossil fuels.
“Solar cell manufactures claim a 25% conversion rate to electrical energy in certain circumstances.”
But where does that electrical energy end up? Thermal energy absorbed by the earth! The one exception I can think of is electrical energy turned into light (or radio waves) that then shines out into space. Can you think of any other way to “get rid of” significant amounts of electrical energy that does not ultimately turn to heat on the earth?
So there you have it. We could cool the earth by generating electricity and shining spotlights into space. It would be interesting to estimate how much total EM energy we do beam to space. I suspect it is insignificant, but it would be a fun exercise for someone with extra time on their hands.
Myrrh says:
“Heat cannot be passed from a colder to a warmer object. ”
I AGREE!
However, ENERGY can be passed from the colder object to the warmer object!
If you have two objects at the same temperature, they radiate energy back and forth. The first object is sending EM energy (photons) that gets absorbed by the second object. The second object is sending EM energy (photons) that gets absorbed by the first object. But the net energy is zero because the temperature difference is zero. This net energy of zero is what we call “heat”.
STOP HERE. Do you disagree with anything I just said?
Bryan says:
April 26, 2011 at 12:56 am
Myrrh also brought up LED lighting.
The by now quite commonly available wind up LED lamp producing output daylight colour equivalent to 5700K requires a bit of a rethink of our traditional views.
It’s not equivalent to 5700K and doesn’t require any rethinking unless you don’t know anything about the quantization of light.
Myrrh does not have a science background but has the very sound instinct of asking for experimental evidence to back up statements.
He knows nothing and spouts out rubbish that he finds on the web somewhere, he won’t listen to any evidence.
It’s impossible to rationally discuss anything with him because he doesn’t possess even the minimum knowledge on the subject. The photoelectric effect is all the proof that a rational person would need to disprove his cockamamie ideas.
http://www.einsteinyear.org/facts/photoelectric_effect/
Bryan says:
Our paper goes through point-by-point examination of the G&T paper. Just because you can quibble with a few words, which can easily be modified to make the wording more technically precise, it does not nullify all of the results.
In particular, in their abstract, G&T said:
We showed by a variety of examples that in fact it does not violate the 2nd Law. You quibble with a few words in our paper that can easily be modified or whether we guessed correctly exactly what the logic was that led G&T to their incorrect conclusion. However, you have never provided a coherent explanation of G&T’s argument that would still make sense…and you won’t be able to because their argument is nonsense.
This statement of theirs is incorrect. The 33K number refers to the fact that in the absence of the greenhouse effect (i.e., if the atmosphere were transparent to the IR radiation from the surface of the earth) but with everything else including the albedo otherwise being the same, then the average surface temperature would have to be at least 33 K cooler. (The “at least” is because the constraint provided by radiative balance is on the fourth root of the average of T^4, not on the average temperature itself and it turns out that for any temperature distribution, the average temperature is less than or equal to the fourth root of the average of T^4.)
Now, you might want to argue that it doesn’t make sense to imagine the albedo being the same but there being no greenhouse effect because clouds provide both some of the albedo and some of the greenhouse effect. However, it is a perfectly legitimate thought experiment to imagine the greenhouse effect not existing but the earth still having the same albedo (and this could in fact be realized in the real world if the earth’s surface had more ice coverage…which it certainly would have if the atmosphere were transparent to the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface).
Brian says:
If you really have valid arguments against Halpern et al., why don’t you present them (or even present a clear flow of logic showing the correctness of G&T’s claims regarding the greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law)? All we have seen from you is pseudo-science as I have discussed above.
Tim – you’re as usual spouting the same BS to avoid my direct question. Again you put in the nonsense distraction to me about net and energy creating heat, unproven and a really stupid variation of your previous net which itself was pretty dim, and also to Bryan that this Energy Budget somehow includes heat as a secondary effect which you picked up from a discussion I had with Wayne, and you keep twisting these in regardless they have nothing at all to do with the AGWScience Energy Budget – which is SPECIFICALLY, for those who haven’t picked up on what this pathetic dissembling from Tim is all about, saying that the Solar energy is directly heating all the land and oceans, heating the Earth DIRECT to raise its temperature.
And Tim knows exactly what he’s doing here, whatever he can to distract from the plain and simple fact, that AGWScience Solar Directly Heating Land and Oceans is UTTER CODSWOLLOP. As are those knowingly promoting it.
Because it is utter codswollop, Tim will never come back with the real figures for how much UV, Visible Light, Nr IR each actually heat the Earth, directly the land and sea of the AGWScience Energy Budget, because it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because it’s bullshit, and Tim knows that very well indeed.
If Tim wants to keep maintaining his diversionary tactics here instead of answering, he obviously can, it seems to amuse him. I don’t much care. If he was a real scientist, and not someone who knows real science and delights in finding ways to twist it to the AGWMeme, he would have scientific integrity in producing the actual figures I asked for, I’m not holding my breath waiting for them.
That actual real science figures for Solar heating the land and oceans of the Earth directly and raising its temperature as claimed which then directly emits the Thermal IR claimed, would show that this is impossible.
But, most here have become very well aware in exploring the AGWScience, that the lack of real science in the apologists’ claims is matched by the lack of scientific, and in many cases, personal, integrity. We know we’re not dealing with real scientists, but con artists and their dupes promoting and defending a lucrative hoax. Junk science.
Still waiting for my coffee with the water heated by Blue Light, and glad I have other real science means of heating my bath water…
I said
The by now quite commonly available wind up LED lamp producing output daylight colour equivalent to 5700K requires a bit of a rethink of our traditional views.
Phil said
It’s not equivalent to 5700K and doesn’t require any rethinking unless you don’t know anything about the quantization of light.
My reply
As I indicated I have not given any great thought to this and I’m looking around for sources of information.
So what difference at the output stage would there be between LED lamp illumination crafted to give similar ‘colour’ and illumination to a Tungsten lamp?
Phil you say of Myrrh….
….”It’s impossible to rationally discuss anything with him because he doesn’t possess even the minimum knowledge on the subject. The photoelectric effect is all the proof that a rational person would need to disprove his cockamamie ideas.”……
I kind of thought that the photoelectric effect tends to support Myrrhs position
A small quantity of higher frequency radiation can produce effects that a massive amount of lower frequency radiation can not.
Bryan says:
April 26, 2011 at 9:58 am
I said
The by now quite commonly available wind up LED lamp producing output daylight colour equivalent to 5700K requires a bit of a rethink of our traditional views.
Phil said
“It’s not equivalent to 5700K and doesn’t require any rethinking unless you don’t know anything about the quantization of light.”
My reply
As I indicated I have not given any great thought to this and I’m looking around for sources of information.
So what difference at the output stage would there be between LED lamp illumination crafted to give similar ‘colour’ and illumination to a Tungsten lamp?
Color temperature is a term applied to describe the light emitted by a black body, it has no meaning for light emitted is discrete spectral lines or bands, the mechanism by which the light is generated is totally different. The fact that sodium lamps are yellow doesn’t have any connection to a temperature. If you want to know the temperature of a piece of steel that is glowing yellow then by all means use the color temp but it has no meaning for a Na lamp.
Phil you say of Myrrh….
….”It’s impossible to rationally discuss anything with him because he doesn’t possess even the minimum knowledge on the subject. The photoelectric effect is all the proof that a rational person would need to disprove his cockamamie ideas.”……
I kind of thought that the photoelectric effect tends to support Myrrhs position
A small quantity of higher frequency radiation can produce effects that a massive amount of lower frequency radiation can not.
Exactly photons of blue light carry more energy than red or IR so when incident on an absorbing surface (such as a bolometer) heat it up more! That isn’t Myrrh’s position.
Bryan says:
April 25, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Joel and Phil often confuse the first law with the second law.
I’d like to see an example of my doing that.
Joel says
….. regarding the greenhouse effect ……
Joel could you give me the version of the the greenhouse theory you wish to defend.
Tim produced a rather brief version of his own.
What can you come up with?
Bryan says:
The greenhouse effect is the effect whereby the surface temperature of the earth is higher than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent to the wavelengths of terrestrial radiation (but everything else, such as the radiation from the sun and the albedo of the earth system are unchanged). It can be considered at various degrees of sophistication. The simplest models consider only radiation (and the simplest of these use some sort of blackbody shell for the atmosphere, whereas the more complex ones do the radiative transfer calculations in more detail).
More complex models consider the fact that convection plays a large role and, in fact, that the lapse rate in the troposphere is essentially set by convection. In the latter model, the effect of an increase in the greenhouse effect (e.g., due to increasing CO2) is to raise the level in the atmosphere from which radiation escapes to space and, since the troposphere is colder as you go up, this means that this radiation comes from colder parts of the atmosphere and hence radiate less (by the T^4 law). This then leads to a radiative imbalance (the earth system is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is emitting back out into space) that is remedied by the temperature increasing until radiative balance is once again restored.
My contention is that NONE of these models, be they the simpler radiative-only ones or the ones that include convection, violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
And, of course, I should add that I am talking at the level of actual mathematical representations of the greenhouse effect, not arguments that someone used the wrong word in describing the model. A couple of simple such representations are presented in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of our paper. (The first one is not really a direct representation of the greenhouse effect per se, except in a pretty abstract sense, but just a representation of a system that G&T from their discussion would appear to believe violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd is more of an actual simple model of the greenhouse effect.)
Phil says he works in a lab using Bolometers measuring this Blue light and others, where are the details? What exactly is being measured and by what means? What’s the name of the instrument? Where are the results on a page which actually details all this information?
If Phil has such ready access in his lab, as he says, why doesn’t he even attempt to answer my question?
This is about Solar energy shortwaves heating earth and water. How long does it take Blue Visible Light to heat a cup of water? Prove that the Blue Visible Light actually heats the water.
From real life I’ve given several links to explanations of what Visible Light is, it is highly reflective, and when it is absorbed by plant life land and sea, it does not create heat but its energy used otherwise, so where does it create heat and how much?
Blue light especially bounces off the teeny weeny molecules of oxygen and nitrogen for all practical purposes 100% of the atmosphere together with some 5% water, and scatters all over the sky. The atmosphere is not empty space, it is a Gas, it is a fluid, it has weight, volume, is subject to gravity, exerts a ton or so of pressure on the earth, etc., this is one big pinball machine. What makes it, the Blue Light, down to the oceans continues to scatter, refract, bouncing off the water molecules and other stuff in the oceans as it does in the Gas Air we live and breathe and have our being in, in clear water it will be transmitted deeper. Is this Blue light creating heat at every encounter with these molecules? The sky and deep ocean must be very hot indeed. I’ve swum, or rather didn’t, outside Cape Town in the great heat of the high noon temps of its summer, the water was too cold for me. Prefer round the corner..
Effin cold, doesn’t begin to describe how cold that beautiful Blue ocean is.
If Phil really has access to all these instruments, why can’t he produce proof that Blue light heats water and how much? And all the other electromagnetic waves he says he measures in his lab.
..I meant a bolometer. They do not just measure ‘thermal IR’ they measure all wavelengths by absorbing them with high efficiency and measuring the heat, usually, with a thermopile. They are not difficult to use, I used one in my lab from the UV through visible to IR with no problems at all.
In the same post Phil said: Take a bolometer (as I’ve suggested before but you failed to comprehend) and measure the heat carried by different wavelengths and you’ll find that photon to photon blue is much hotter than thermal IR.
Amazingly he fails to see that he is due for a Nobel Prize for Science, he has proved Herschel wrong.
To Ira, Tim, Joel and of course Phil here especially because he has ready access to prove this. It’s such a simple request, to all pushing this Solar heating of the Earth, prove it. Show the details, the mechanism and results. Prove that Visible Light heats the Earth, begin with Blue Light. Because if you can’t prove it, you have to take it out of the AGWScience Energy Budget. Right? So get on with it.
aghh, the Gas Air… ton or so of pressure per square foot, or something. Would have to check exactly.
I said
I kind of thought that the photoelectric effect tends to support Myrrhs position
A small quantity of higher frequency radiation can produce effects that a massive amount of lower frequency radiation can not.
Phil says
Exactly photons of blue light carry more energy than red or IR so when incident on an absorbing surface (such as a bolometer) heat it up more! That isn’t Myrrh’s position.
My reply
Phil the photoelectric effect has absolutely nothing to do with heating the Zinc plate.
Hi Myrrh,
Is this along the lines you are asking? This seems to imply that most blue light globally weighted ends up in chemical bonds.
“Lo and behold, the minimum absorption of visible light in water occurs towards the far end in the blue. And this is exactly where our biggest absorption peak in of chlorophyll is! Comparing our two graphs we see that the ratio of incident blue light to incident green light at see level is at worst about a third. But we see that for each meter traveled in water, green light is absorbed almost ten times more than blue light. Thus, an organism that lives a few meters underwater and wants to harness solar energy would probably do best to focus on that blue light.”
http://thevirtuosi.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-is-grass-green.html
Myrrh,
Man you keep me thinking a bit deeper. Thank you. Have you ever seen the greening of the Earth?
“They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
You know, could plant life itself, through blue light capture in photosynthesis have caused the (1 – 288K / 288.4K) or ~0.14% rise in the mainly nighttime increase of global temperatures? Capturing that which would have normally been merely reflected back to space. The little chemical engines (think mitochondria and such) warming the nighttime air, for most of the increase has been in nighttime temperatures. Interesting question.
Dr. Roy Spencer has shown (search: population density) how most of the rise was due to UHI and placement of the thermometers, but it has left the question, what caused the remaining 0.4 K change. The fast that it is nearly all in the nighttime temperatures is already well documented.
Hi Bryan,
“I kind of thought that the photoelectric effect tends to support Myrrhs position
A small quantity of higher frequency radiation can produce effects that a massive amount of lower frequency radiation can not.”
It is sometimes (Hans, above, for instance) called high-quality energy. It is then passed down the energy chain until tossed as low-quality low-grade thermal IR.
The amount of solar energy used in photosynthesis is quite small. This person quotes his biology textbook as saying on the order of 1% (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080815121448AAcWmwB) Yeah…I know…it would be nice to have a more definitive source, but I see no reason to believe that is not in the correct ballpark.
Furthermore, as has been noted (by Tim or Phil. or both), averaged over a significant period of time like a year, one would expect there to be a rough balance between the energy used for photosynthesis and the energy released by decay of organic matter. Furthermore, some of the energy used in photosynthesis will still be converted into heat subsequently. Such is the way of the 2nd Law.
I must say that Myrrh’s “Anti-2nd Law of Thermodynamics”, whereby it is difficult to convert other forms of energy into thermal energy is quite a novel view of the way that the universe operates…although not at all out-of-line with any of his other “novel views”. It is hard to imagine that we would have any sort of “energy crisis” if a significant amount of the energy were stored in non-thermal forms on the earth! The fact that we are rapidly running through the stores of fossil fuels that have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years…and still doing so at a rate of energy conversion that is dwarfed by the rate at which energy is supplied to us by the sun…is testimony to what a small fraction of the sun’s energy that we receive ends up in non-thermal forms.
Tim Folkerts version of the Greenhouse Theory
……..”The IR properties of gases in the atmosphere (notably H2O and CO2) cause the earth’s surface to be warmer than it would be in the absence of those IR properties.”…
Joels version
The greenhouse effect is the effect whereby the surface temperature of the earth is higher than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent to the wavelengths of terrestrial radiation (but everything else, such as the radiation from the sun and the albedo of the earth system are unchanged).
These ideas must be difficult to hold on to after the temperature record of the Earth is examined.
In the recent past 1940 to 1970 although CO2 was rising the surface temperature was falling.
Again since 1998 although CO2 has continued to rise the average planet temperature has not followed.
On an even longer time scale the best estimates show that CO2 is a lagging factor (by about 700years) to the surface temperature record.
Joel is quite right in saying that not all of the current climate models violate the second law.
If the model states that a colder surface HEATS a warmer surface then despite any other interesting points in its favour it must be discarded.
The hockey stick graph is a good example of the hyper anxiety induced by false science.
Will the Greenhouse Theory join the this long list of discarded models?
The flat earth
The plum pudding model of the atom
The caloric theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories