Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
My Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons] has garnered almost 2000 comments, mostly positive. I’ve learned a lot from WUWT readers who know more than I do. However, some commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This posting is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)
As I’ve mentioned before, during my long career as a system engineer I’ve worked with many talented mathematical analysts who always provided precise results, mostly correct, but some precisely wrong, usually due to mistaken assumptions. I got into the habit of doing a “back of the envelope” calculation of my own as a “sanity check” on their results. If their results matched within reasonable limits, I accepted them. If not, I investigated further. In those days my analysis was really done using a slide rule and scrap paper, but I now use spreadsheets.
The graphic above is based on an excellent spreadsheet from http://serc.carleton.edu/files/introgeo/models/mathematical/examples/XLPlanck.xls. It uses Planck’s Law to calculate the black body radiation spectrum from the Sun, as observed at the top of the Earth’s Atmosphere. It also may be used to calculate the radiation spectrum from the Earth System (Atmosphere and Surface, see below for explanation) at any assumed temperature. (I will refer to this spreadsheet as “Carleton” in this posting.)
I modified the Carleton spreadsheet to compute the mean Solar radiation per square meter absorbed by the Earth System, which turns out to be 240 Watts/m^2. I then used the spreadsheet to determine the effective mean temperature of the Earth System that would emit an equal amount of energy to Space, and that turned out to be 255 Kelvins (-18ºC which is 1ºF).
Since the mean temperature at the surface of the Earth is 288 Kelvins (+15ºC which is 59ºF), that leaves 33 Kelvins (33ºC which is 58ºF) to be accounted for. Guess how we acount for it?
The yellow curve (above left) shows that Solar radiation is in a tall, narrow “shortwave” range, from about 0.1μm (microns, or millionths of a meter) to about 4μm, which we call ultra-violet, visual, and near-infrared. The vertical axis is Intensity of the radiation, measured in Watts/m^2/μm, and the horizontal axis is Wavelength, measured in μm. If you divide the area under the yellow curve into vertical strips, and add up the total area, you get 240 Watts/m^2.
Since we humans sense the visual portion of this radiation as “light”, that is the name we give it, and that has led to the false assumption that it contains no “heat” (or “thermal”) energy.
The violet curve (above right) shows that, assuming a mean temperature of 255 K, Earth System radiation to Space is in a squat, wide “longwave” range, from about 5μm to beyond 40μm, which we call mid- and far-infrared. If you divide the area under the violet curve into vertical strips, and add up the total area, you get the same 240 Watts/m^2 as is under the yellow curve.
DETAILED EXPLANATION
The graph on the left shows the actual observed Solar radiation spectrum (in red) as measured at the top of the Atmosphere. It is superimposed on a black body model (in blue) showing very good correlation. Thus, while the Sun is not exactly a black body, it is OK to assume it is for this type of “sanity check” exercise.
If you calculate the area under the curve you get about 1366 Watts/m^2. That means that a square meter of perfect black body material, held perpendicular to the Sun, would absorb 1366 Watts.
However, the Earth is not a perfect black body, neither is it a flat surface perpendicular to the Sun! So, to plot the yellow curve at the top of this posting, I had to adjust that value accordingly. There are two adjustments:
- The Earth may be approximated as a sphere, with the Sun shining on only half of it at any given time. The adjustment factor for this correction is 0.25.
- The albedo (reflectiveness) of the Earth system, primarily clouds and light-colored areas on the Surface such as ice, causes some of the Solar radiation to be reflected back out to Space without contributing any energy to the Earth System. The adjustment factor for this correction is 0.7.
After applying these adjustments, the net Solar energy absorbed by the Earth System is 240 Watts/m^2.
The graph on the right shows the black body model for an Earth System at a mean temperature of 255 K, a temperature that results in the same 240 Watts/m^2 being emitted out to Space.
Of course, the Earth System is not a perfect black body, as shown by the graph in the upper panel of the illustration below, which plots actual observations from 20 km looking down. (Adapted from Grant Petty, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Figure 8.2, http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html.)
The actual measured radiation is the dark squiggly curve. Note that it jigs and jags up and down between the topmost dashed curve, which is the black body spectrum for a temperature of 270 K and a lower dashed curve which is the black body spectrum for 230 K. This data was taken over the Arctic, most likely during the daytime. The Petty book also has a graph looking down from over the Tropical Pacific which ranges from 300 K down to 210 K. Observations will vary by tens of degrees from day to night, summer to winter, and Tropical to Polar.
However, it is clear that my result, based on matching 240 Watts/m^2, is within a reasonable range of the true mean temperature of the Earth System as viewed from Space.
NOTE ABOUT THE ABOVE ILLUSTRATION
WUWT readers will notice some apparent inconsistencies in the graphs above. The top and bottom panels, from Petty, peak at 15μm to 20μm, while the purple, blue, and black curves in the middle panel, and the Earth System curves from the Carleton spreadsheet I used (see above) peak in the 9μm to 11μm range. Also, the Petty black body curves peak at a “Radiance” around 100 mW/m^2/sr cm^-1 while the black body curves from Carleton peak at an “Intensity” of around 14 W/m^2/μm. Furthermore, if you look closely at the Petty curves, the labels on the black body curves are mirror image! What is going on?
Well, I know some of the reasons, but not all. (I hope commenters who are more fluent in this than I am will confirm my explanations and provide more information about the differences between “Radiance” and “Intensity”.) I have Googled and Wikied the Internet and am still somewhat confused. Here is what I know:
- The horizontal axis in Petty’s plots are what he calls “Wavenumber”, increasing from left to right, which is the number of waves that fit into a cm (centimeter, one hundredth of a meter).
- This is proportional to the frequency of the radiation, and the frequency is the inverse of the wavelength. Thus, his plots are the mirror image of plots based on wavelength increasing from left to right.
- The spreadsheet I used, and my previous experience with visual, and near-, mid-, and far-IR as used in military systems, always uses wavelength increasing from left to right.
- So, when I constructed the above illustration, I reversed Petty’s curves, which explains why the labels on the black body curves are mirror image.
- Fortunately, Petty also included a wavelength legend, which I faithfully reproduced, in non-mirror image, at the top of each plot.
But, that still does not explain why the Petty black body curves peak at a longer wavelength than the Carleton spreadsheet and other graphics on the Internet. I tried to reproduce Petty’s blackbody curves by multiplying the Carleton values by the wavelength (μm) and that did not move the peak to the right enough. So, I multiplied by the wavelength again (μm^2) and, voila, the peaks agreed! (I hope some WUWT reader will explain why the Petty graphs have this perverse effect. advTHANKSance!)
ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS TO BASIC ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” SCIENCE
First of all, let me be clear where I am coming from. I’m a Lukewarmer-Skeptic who accepts that H2O, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in the Atmosphere do cause the mean temperature of the Earth Surface and Atmosphere to be higher than they would be if everything was the same (Solar radiation, Earth System Albedo, …) but the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen. The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.
So, my motivation for this Visualizing series is not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.
Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.
Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.
Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.
Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.
Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.
Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution. Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.
Smokey says:
I thought falsifiability was supposed to be a good thing. I guess it is only a good thing for the AGW hypothesis? For the null hypothesis, apparently you are completely comfortable with having it be essentially impossible to falsify.
And, the mechanisms by which past climate change has occurred in the past are in fact in large part understood. Are they understood perfectly? No…but neither are all the steps in the evolution of humans understood perfectly.
You are essentially admitting what any intelligent person has known for a long time, which is that it is impossible to convince you in regards to AGW. Your belief in AGW not being important is simply a belief that follows from your political ideology since it would be very inconvenient for that ideology if it were important. You pretend that it is about science but really your scientific views are slave to your ideological views, which is of course why your views of the science differ so violently from the views of most scientists and all of the scientific societies. The existence of such societies and the willingness of governments to respect their advice on scientific matters has taken us from the Dark Ages to the age where science guides policy at least to some degree rather than ideology being the only policy guide.
savethesharks says:
And yet, Smokey has admitted that, yes, my “absurb” statement is correct in his mind.
The people here who are trying to explain the actual science regarding the greenhouse effect. In addition to myself, they include Ira, Tim Folkerts, Jim D, Phil., Dave Springer, and David M Hoffer.
Jim D said ……. “Bryan, it is an insulating or shielding effect reducing cooling. The surface with more CO2 and H2O above it is warmer than otherwise. Convection distributes this extra warmth to the atmosphere. If you agree with this mechanism, you are agreeing with the basic ideas needed for AGW.”……
There is an active debate about whether CO2 always tends to restrict the flow of heat or whether in some instances it could actually speed up the process.
The temperature record does not show a relentless rise with rising CO2 and there seems to be many other factors affecting global temperatures.
Joel Shore mentions “ideology” four more times in his post above. As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, “There you go again.” Joel is fixated on his wacky world view that science is based on politics. In his grant-driven world, it probably is. Name-calling is all Joel Shore has left in his bag of tricks, because the planet isn’t cooperating with his failed predictions.
Ideology has nothing to do with the facts – which is why Joel Shore falls back on his endlessly repeated ‘ideology’ canard. The plain fact is that the current *mild* warming cycle over the past century and a half has only amounted to about 0.7°C. Even if all of that warming was attributable to AGW, it would not justify taking any action, particularly when the world’s biggest CO2 emitter won’t play the game. And of course, no credible authority claims that all of the rise is due to AGW. In fact, there is no evidence that any of that rise is due to AGW.
Natural variability is a perfectly sufficient explanation of what we observe. There is no evidence that the very mild rise in temperature is anything other than the planet emerging from the LIA. CO2 is harmless and beneficial; falsify that, if you can.
Joel Shore is always trying to re-frame the skeptical position, which in general is that there may be some harmless, beneficial and minor warming due to AGW, but that there is no evidence whatever supporting his belief in catastrophic AGW. And without wild-eyed claims of catastrophe, the public loses interest.
So without any evidence of CAGW, Joel Shore resorts to labeling skeptics’ questions – and skeptics’ demands that the scientific method must be followed – as “ideology.” That is pure psychological projection; it is Joel Shore who falls back on the failed alarmist CAGW ideology, which does not have a shred of evidence supporting it. Wake me when there is evidence of global damage due to CO2. Until then, it’s all impotent arm-waving.
mkelly, as I mentioned, CO2 contributes up to 50 W/m2 of the 324. O2 and N2 contribute approximately zero, O3 and other trace gases contribute some more, clouds contribute too, but mostly it is H2O vapor.
Jim D says:
May 14, 2011 at 5:15 am
“The TOA is the other part of the theory. CO2 reduces outgoing radiation at the top, but as explained above, the warming required to compensate it occurs via the surface warming and resulting convection through the troposphere. (Other things happen in the stratosphere). If anyone is saying adding CO2 directly warms the air, they would be wrong. I don’t think you would find any proper science sites or articles saying that.”
Technically true in the same sense that putting on an extra layer of clothes doesn’t directly warm the clothes. CO2 works as an insulator. It slows down the rate of cooling of the water beneath it but the practical effect is that the air is warmer than it would have been otherwise so it’s kind of splitting hairs to say it doesn’t directly warm the air.
Joel regarding your post at Joel Shore says:May 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm
I am not one for criticising spelling or sloppy languague since I recognisse that people posting often post late at night, type quickly and inevitably do not give the same care and attention to posting that they would to their day job. Likewise, I do not comment on emotive language since this merely distracts and adds nothing to the debate. In fact, save for having once commented to the effect that commentators should not be so discourteous to authors who go to the trouble of writing and posting articles on this site, this is the first time I have commented on language.
When a person starts inferring that another person has ideological beliefs that are clouding the judgment of that other, this is usually an indicator that the person making the inference is themselves clouded by their own ideology.
It would appear that you yourself are the one with ideological beliefs on this issue as is apparent from your describing my comment as pernicious. My comment may be incorrect. It may even be nonsence, but it can only be perceived as pernicious if it offends your own ideology. My comment is not ruinous, hurtful, evil, wicked, one that causes insidious harm etc and could only be viewed as such by someone whose own objectivity has been distorted by ideological beliefs such that they view comments not fitting in with their perception of events as hurtful and wicked.
I can assure you that I have no ideological views when it comes to the science behind the ‘theory’ of CAGW, My only concern (goal) is the search for the truth and to gain a better understanding of how the world in which we live in works.
I would suggest that you stick to the science.
Bryan, well aerosols and cloud albedo may be having an effect too, but the effects of CO2 aren’t really being debated because they are understood very well. At the top of the atmosphere it accelerates atmospheric heat loss to space, and at the bottom it inhibits cooling from the ground to space. This happens by enhancing IR radiation both up and down, just due to its presence, not any extra warmth.
Joel Shore says:
“…Smokey has admitted that, yes, my “absurb” statement is correct in his mind.”
Not sure what that refers to, but since Joel Shore has raised the issue, I note that he previoulsy admitted to some confusion regarding the definition of heat. For someone who presumes himself to be the authority explaining the ‘actual science’ to the ignorant hoi polloi here, it’s amusing that Joel Shore was confounded regarding such a basic definition. Feet of clay, eh?
Joel Shore should also learn the definition of evidence. Because there is no evidence of AGW, is there?
How can CO2 over come the lapse rate? It can’t except by heating the surface, leading to increased convection, leading to a warming of the atmosphere, leading to an expansion of the atmosphere, similar to the expansion of the oceans. You need a taller column of air to maintain the lapse rate if you warm the surface.
Is this what is observed?
Earth’s Shrinking Atmosphere Baffles Scientists
http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-atmosphere-shrinking.html
I want to modify my 7:13am statement. CO2 does enhance downward radiation at the surface, but its effect at the top is to reduce upward radiation, because it radiates to space from higher generally colder layers, being more efficient as an emitter. There is a part of the spectrum that emits from the stratosphere, where higher is warmer, and there CO2 enhances the outgoing radiation (eventually causing a cooling effect).
richard verney says:
Perhaps “pernicious” is not the best choice of words, but the point is that you view that GHGs merely cause a slight delay is just not the correct scientific way of looking at things. It encourages an incorrect view of the science and, for those of us who are scientists and like to see science correctly understood, that’s a bad thing.
Smokey says:
What you fail to understand again and again is that you are not the judge and jury in regards to scientific evidence and the scientific method. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but why should anybody respect your opinion over the opinion of…say…real scientists?
That your statements are basically identical to the sorts of statements made by those who argue against evolution is not a coincidence. The arguments made by those who attack science are almost always very similar.
You have illustrated on this site again and again that you are unable to evaluate the scientific evidence. Right here in this thread, we have an example of the extremely low standards that you set for yourself and your refusal to engage in substantive discussions: You have been shown that a statement of mine that you have attacked for months is actually weaker than a similar statement made by Richard Lindzen, one of the few respectable atmospheric scientists who agrees with you on AGW. However, just you refuse to address this. You have shown by your actions here and in other threads that you are not someone whose views should be taken at all seriously and who people should waste their time trying to discuss science with. A discussion necessarily involves good faith and high ethical standards on both sides.
ferd berple says:
For the 120th time (okay, maybe it’s only the 19th), the temperature at the earth’s surface is determined by the lapse rate and the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is constrained, which is the effective radiating level, i.e., the average level from which radiation can successfully escape to space. Adding CO2 increases that level; hence the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature must be 255 K is now higher, meaning that the temperature at the surface is now higher.
Bryan says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:20 am
“If the radiative effects of H2O and CO2 are supposed to “heat” the atmosphere to 33K higher than “it would otherwise be” then they need to show significant radiative heating in a volume of the atmosphere.”
That’s a straw man, Bryan. The sun heats the ocean. The ocean heats the air. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate at which daytime warming can escape from the ocean at night.
And by the way the 33C (or 33K if you prefer) number is completely bogus because the average temperature of the ocean is a mere 4C which is a true reflection of the average surface temperature averaged over a complete glacial cycle which is long enough for the deep water to equilibrate with the surface water. So for the past 3 million years the average temperature of the earth hasn’t been the warmish 15C of the past 10,000 years of interglacial period but rather the brutal cold 3C of the glacial periods which last ten times as long as the interglacials.
Positive feedback from snow & ice, which raises albedo and accelerates the cooling to produce even more snow & ice, is what drives the big climate shifts of the past several million years. The only “tipping point” the planet is on is tipping back into a full blown glacial period that will cover everything north of Washington, D.C. with a mile-thick sheet of ice. It would be great if anthropogenic CO2 could end the ice age but I sincerely doubt whether we can pump it up enough to warm that huge bucket of nearly freezing water called the global ocean. It’s too late now. Maybe if we’d been doing it beginning 5000 years ago when interglacial period was only half over but now it’s near the end and anything we can do is too little, too late. It doesn’t even appear to be enough to raise the temperature of the shallow surface layer by more than a fraction of a degree to say nothing of imparting any significant warmth to the other 90% of the volume of the global ocean below the thermocline (400+ meters deep).
So for the past few million years at least the greenhouse effect has only been good for an average of about 23C not 33C.
We need all the atmospheric CO2 we can get for a number of very good reasons and there’s no real reason at all why we’d want less of it. There are good reasons to slow down the rate of fossil fuel consumption but those all have to do with conservation of a finite resource and not a damn thing to do with global warming because global warming and more CO2 is a hugely positive thing for the primary producers in food chain – green plants.
Joel Shore says:
“A discussion necessarily involves good faith and high ethical standards…”
Let’s discuss that. I’d like to know how it fits in with “high ethical standards” that Joel Shore can post long comments here and on other blogs so often throughout the workday? My apologies in advance if Joel is self-employed, or retired – or if posting on assorted blogs is in his official job description. But if Joel Shore is receiving any part of his pay from the public, which I suspect he is, then his claims of “high ethical standards” are risible.
And of course we hear the sounds of crickets chirping whenever I ask for evidence of global damage from CO2. Instead, we get misdirection about “ideology”, and comparing someone with a different point of view to “those who argue against evolution”. That sounds pretty desperate, my friend. I’d be more interested in seeing evidence of global harm from CO2. But since there is no such evidence, is labeling people anti-evolution, and calling skeptics ideologues your fallback position?
To all
I was trying to catch up with previous posts when I came to a familiar refrain from Joel Shore
…….”Your belief in AGW not being important is simply a belief that follows from your political ideology since it would be very inconvenient for that ideology if it were important. You pretend that it is about science but really your scientific views are slave to your ideological views, which is of course why your views of the science differ so violently from the views of most scientists and all of the scientific societies. The existence of such societies and the willingness of governments to respect their advice on scientific matters has taken us from the Dark Ages to the age where science guides policy at least to some degree rather than ideology being the only policy guide.”….
When Joel loses the argument on science he attacks the political and religious opinions of other posters.
I for one am getting heartily sick of Joel’s guessing game as to the motives of other posters.
Also some posters are ordinary members of the public who have a concern about the way the IPCC operates. Often they make insightful comments missed by the scientists among us. I deplore any language used to demean or ridicule non specialist posters.
Dave Springer says…..”So for the past few million years at least the greenhouse effect has only been good for an average of about 23C not 33C.”
Never mind about the last million years do you agree with my post today about the experiment carried out by R W Wood and the polytunnel study.
Jim D seems to agree and I hate to go on about it, but it is rather important.
Is there a significant direct radiative heating of the atmosphere by CO2 and H2O?
It seems to me that the only significant role that the greenhouse gases perform is to perhaps insulate the Earth Surface and to radiate to space at their effective radiating level.
Tim and Joel
Energy is the ability to do work and in this regard not all energy is equal.
Tim thinks that you can simply deduct the 333 W/m^2 back radiation from the 396 W/m^2 surface radiation thereby yielding a net emission from the surface of 66 W/m^2. However, question marks arise as to whether this photonic energy is equal and can accordingly simply be deducted as suggested since the 396 W/m^2 has the ability to do work capable of heating an object to about 288K whereas the back radiated 333 W/m^2 is only capable of heating an object to about 240K. Since they do not have equal ability to do work, is it correct that one can simply deduct one from the other?
As mentioned by me in an earlier post, I am surprised that any one has particularly bullish views since there is a lack of empirical data and evidence showing how things work. So what empirical data and evidence exists showing (i) that the 333 W/m^2 of back radiation is actually absorbed by the surface; and (ii) and if so absorbed, what happens to the photonic energy so absorbed? I would like to see the empirical data and evidence. Please provide any such evidence that you may have.
In making this request, I am not suggesting that objects above absolute zero do not radiate inaccordance with their temperature, but it does not follow from that that the radiation so admitted is absorbed by something else.
It may be that radiation eminating from a cooler object can come up to the ‘door’ of a warmer object but cannot pass the threshold and is therefore not absorbed by the warmer object. It may be that the photons being radiated from the warmer object effectively block the path of those eminating from the cooler object, possibly even extinguishing the cooler photons as the warmer photons make there way towards the cooler object (I understand that you do not dispute that net flow is always from warmer to cooler). I am not saying that this is what happens but rather what may happen.
Thus in summary, lets see what evidence you have suggesting that cooler photons are actually absorbed by a warmer object. I will then consider that evidence and see whether I need to revise my views.
If there is no such evidence then it is about time that some physical experiments are conducted to get some real empirical data and evidence. There is enough money being poured into this area of science to be able to fund some practical and/or field experiments looking at some of the contenious issues raised, or is is it beyond the ingenuity of man to mimic and examine these contentious issues by way of practical experiment (not computer modelling)?
Smokey says:
My current job is that I work for a private university. My job basically entails just teaching and they are not worried about exactly what my hours are but whether or not I do a satisfactory job. In fact, I often do lots of work on evenings and weekend. In the fall quarter, when I had a particularly challenging schedule, I was working close to 70 hours per week (which is why I was posting a lot less back then) in addition to the considerable amount of prep time I had put in over the summer.
I think you would do best to focus on your own ethical standards. I have personally never had the pleasure of meeting anybody who had such high standards for others and such abysmally low standards for himself. You have actually made this into a warped philosophy whereby AGW skeptics are not expected to have any accountability for their falsehoods (whether they be incorrect statements or deceptions) whereas all of the responsibility and accountability falls onto those on the other side. Frankly, I would be way too embarrassed to ever suggest the sort of double standard that you suggest. I am surprised that your fellow skeptics here don’t express more embarrassment at such nonsense.
Been there…Done that. And, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Besides which, you are capable of reading: These issues are all well-summarized in the IPCC reports, reports from the National Research Council (e.g., http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/12/weve-heard-this-before/ ) and many other places.
This current thread is about the greenhouse effect.
wayne says:
May 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Most fascinating and intriguing! So Ferenc is still in the game, and my SUV may not be guilty of anything, after all? How come we don’t hear from Ferenc anymore?
This certainly fits my observations that the temperature at various places on the Planet don’t seem to have anything to do with the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere above those places, even when altitude and latitude are the same.
However, I have to eat crow on some of K&T’s data (but that’s OK, since I eat it regularly).
What say ye to this CAGWers? Don’t be shy.
richard verney:
The earth is almost a perfect blackbody emitter in the mid & far-IR and since Kirchkoff’s Law imply that the emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at each wavelength, the means that essentially all of the radiation that is incident on these objects is absorbed.
It may be that the moon is made out of green cheese. It may be that the sky is pink with purple polka dots when we are not looking at it and only turns blue when we look. It is not up to us to disprove every nonsense idea that you come up with. How radiative transfer works is well-understood and if you think it works differently, then the onus is on you to show that your new theories are in better agreement with empirical data than the accepted theories. If you want to believe nonsense badly enough, then there is little that we can do to stop you. But, don’t fool yourself into thinking you are somehow being scientific.
These are not contentious issues any more than it is contentious whether or not the earth is more than 6000 years old. The whole field of remote sensing is based upon the current understood radiative transfer equations, as are calculations done by scientists and engineers worldwide every day.
Why should scientists waste their time responding to people who are just completely ignorant of the science? You should appreciate the fact that some of us do invest the time and energy to try to help you overcome your own ignorance despite the fact that we have to fight against your apparent desire to remain ignorant every step of the way.
Joel Shore,
The second comment under the link you posted says it all. There is still no evidence showing global damage due to CO2. None. If that link is the best you can do, your CO2=CAGW conjecture fails. “Been there, done that” is nothing but bluster.
Ball’s back in your court now: produce empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing global harm due to CO2, or admit that CO2 is harmless.
“Ball’s back in your court now: produce empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing global harm due to CO2, or admit that CO2 is harmless.”
If any of the religious-zealot scaremongers could do that, the facts would be plainly clear and stand on their own, and the “experts” wouldn’t be developing “Information Task Forces” and other propaganda gimmicks to convince the majority of people (yes, the majority) that the theory is correct, that “climate change” is killing us all, that we can do something about it, but, alas the majority of us are just too dumb to understand it.
Anyone still citing the IPCC is desperate, IMHO. What really sickens me is that the politics has entered the administrations of the scientific societies, because of all the grant money that would disappear if the truth about the AGW scam (and there is now absolutely no doubt about it being a sick scam) becomes well-enough known (that point seems near; hence all the yelling). I quit the American Chemical Society because of this crap; but it keeps sending me applications; I keep telling them again why I quit; but I get no response, just another application. Sorta sounds like the government, doesn’t it?
Don’t worry, I think the “environmentalists” shot themselves in both feet this time.
Joel Shore says
…”Why should scientists waste their time responding to people who are just completely ignorant of the science? You should appreciate the fact that some of us do invest the time and energy to try to help you overcome your own ignorance despite the fact that we have to fight against your apparent desire to remain ignorant every step of the way.”…
Perhaps Joel because it gives you the chance to insult people!
richard verney says:
May 14, 2011 at 9:04 am
Backradiation is best understood as a component of an EXCHANGE of thermal energy; it’s NOT a PRODUCER of it. LWIR already IS thermal energy. The net energy FLUX resulting from that exchange is INVIOLABLY from warmer to cooler object, i.e., from surface to atmosphere on climatic time-scales. The rate of flux is solely a function of the temperature difference. Field experiments show that the net flux is very small in comparison to the transport of LATENT heat by moist convection. Even on a dry, cold planet with a CO2 atmosphere, such as Mars, convection remains the dominant factor in heat transport aloft. This is a consequence of the fact that radiative equilibrium in a gravity-bound atmosphere results in a top-heavy hydrostatic instability, as rigorously shown from first principles by the eminent Swiss astrophysicist/meteorologist Emden nearly a century ago. The parallel path of latent heat transport spares us from the violent hemispheric dust storms that sporadically envelop Mars, but not from tropical cyclones. It is only high aloft that radiative transport becomes dominant.
In it’s myopic preoccupation with CO2, climate “science” largely ignores the foregoing facts. It stands entirely apart from all other branches in attempting to do thermodynamics on the basis of a simplistic radiative algebra that does not even recognize the significance of the density of the atmosphere in setting the surface temperature. And it it forgets that the Stefan-Boltzman equation applies only to a black body in equilibrium WITHOUT an atmosphere in into which thermal energy can be convected.