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.
re: “dry adiabatic lapse rate can’t be exceeded”
Reality trumps theory. Write that down.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/rah/education/eduit.html
My emphasis.
So, environmental lapse rate is typically exceeded on warm sunny days over land.
Presumably CO2 increases surface warming over land (something I’ve never disputed) which presumably tends to increase the incidence of environmental lapse rate exceeding dry adiabatic lapse rate.
QED
Regardless of weird environmental lapse rates in unstable situations in the lower troposphere my point was that additional CO2 can add water vapor to the lower troposphere creating a stable situation of environmental lapse rate smaller than dry adiabatic rate by decrement larger than less CO2. This effectively raises the emission altitude. While it’s true that dry adiabatic lapse rate can’t be exceeded higher in the atmosphere which does indeed set a limit on the temperature differential that can exist from top of troposhere to space there is nothing that prevents more or less mixing of layers in the lower troposphere. And of course changes in albedo make the dry adiabatic lapse of stratsosphere a moot point because high altitude clouds reject insolation before it ever gets a chance to reach the troposphere.
Toy models called GCMs are so from sophisticated enough to model everything that’s happening it isn’t even funny it’s just sad where the sad part is there are so many ostensibly smart people who don’t know a toy when they see one.
For crying out loud the gravitional mass of Jupiter makes small changes in the eccentricy of the earth’s and depending on whether eccentricity max/min is in or out of phase with earth axial tilt min/max spells the difference between glaciers a mile thick covering everything north of Washington, DC and whether grass is able to sprout in Montreal.
Note that changes in axial tilt and eccentricity do not, in and of themselves, change by one iota the amount of insolation at the top of the atmosphere over the course of year it merely changes how the insolation is delivered across the surface and across the seasons in a year.
Can these toy models predict the end of the Holocene interglacial? Do they even take into account axial precession and orbital eccentricity? If they’re supposed to keep track of climate change for us it seems the climate change represented by the contrast between glacial and interglacial periods is a pretty dramatic change and would be of utmost importance in being predictable within a 100 years or so precision.
But no. The toy models that can’t tell us when the interglacial period is going to end, or even grossly hindcast the glaciation cycle, can tell us within a degree or two what the addition of a small amount of trace greenhouse is going to do. This claim of model accuracy is made even more ludicrous when coupled with the fact that over geological periods of time there is little correlation between CO2 and temperature other than a post hoc response where temperature change precedes CO2 change (probably due to chemical and biological response to hotter/colder). Indeed all the evidence from prehistory suggests CO2 level is driven by temperature change not CO2 change drives temperature change. The climate boffins have the relationship ass backwards and all from just a correlation in the last 30 years.
Correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Write that down.
Robert Clemenzi says on May 19, 2011 at 12:09 am:
“—————, which strongly argues against my theory.”
Maybe so Robert, but your theory seems, mostly, quite good to me. The only thing that can prove or disprove any theory is more data, – good hard data. I was mainly, in the case of “Ozone” going by the fact that the word “Ion” describes an atom, or groups of atoms that have lost or gained an electron and as my search to find out how ozone is formed, I mainly came across things like the following:
“In the upper atmosphere: Light from the Sun breaks apart oxygen molecules (UV wavelengths of 215nm or shorter). Some of this monatomic oxygen combines with nitrogen molecules, some with oxygen molecules to make ozone, but most with other monatomic oxygen. Some of the nitrogen+oxygen molecules can catch lower energy light (still UV, but more available) and make ozone also.”
However I do not find – anywhere – that temperature is involved in the making or breaking of ozone, but it may well be that the “Ozone Hole” (OzH) is located above the S. Pole because it is colder than the N. Pole, after all neither pole has any sunlight at all for half the year. – What I find interesting, however, is how the “OzH” manages to stay static (more or less) above the S. Pole during the whole winter period. (No northward air movements?)
As for the popular press, Al Gore, his scientific team and their claim that CFC gases are responsible for the creation of the OzH, I must say I personally have my many doubts of their validity. The main reasons, for my doubts, being that CFCs are heavier than air and are not likely to streak off to the Stratosphere and that they are mainly produced in the Northern Hemisphere by us humans and taking the Hadley, Ferrell and Polar Cells into account the North Pole is by far a more likely candidate for a hole in the Ozone.
O H Dahlsveen says:
May 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“However I do not find – anywhere – that temperature is involved in the making or breaking of ozone, but it may well be that the “Ozone Hole” (OzH) is located above the S. Pole because it is colder than the N. Pole, after all neither pole has any sunlight at all for half the year.”
A good chemistry book or a thermodynamics book should have the requirements for energy to break bonds. Or you can apply Wiens Law to the 215nm UV and get a temperature of 13900 K but I am not sure if the law applies that high in the spectrum.
Lapse Rates – the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) is -9.8 K/km.
When someone says that the DALR can not be exceeded, what they really mean is that a more negative value is unstable and short lived. Thus, a lapse rate of -12 K/km would be extremely unstable because the colder air would be denser than the warm air below it.
There are two important exceptions to this. Given two almost identical parcels of air at the same temperature and pressure, the one with more water vapor will be less dense. The other is related to wind speed. In the right conditions, cold air can be blown over warm air.
However, in the long term, what matters is that more dense air masses will tend to sink, and less dense ones will rise.
Another common exception to “the rule” occurs most days. It is fairly common for the surface to be about 57C (135F) while the air 1 meter above is only 21C (70F). This produces a boundary layer lapse rate of about -36,000 K/km. This is the reason that standard temperature measurements are made a fixed height above the ground and is also the reason that satellites can not be used to measure temperatures over land.
Steve says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:14 am
Re my: “The ‘statistics of large numbers’ is no proof whatsoever that heat flows from the colder to the hotter, ever. That’s just been added in without any logical antecedents.”
Heat doesn’t flow from the colder to the hotter, energy flows from the colder to the hotter. The heat flow from the hotter to the colder is the net energy flow.
Heat is energy on the move spontaneously from higher to lower in temperature difference. The colder does not have any heat to send to the hotter because it only exists in flowing from the hotter to the colder.
So what ‘energy’ is your colder sending to the hotter?
Re my: “If the colder could add its energy to the hotter, then statistically in the ‘large number of events’ the colder could always be giving up its energy to the hotter, and losing heat energy it has so itself getting colder..”
..and gaining what energy the hotter object transfers to it, for a net effect of getting warmer. The hotter object is transferring more energy to the cooler object than the cooler object is transferring back to it, for a net effect of getting cooler.
So when I put my hot cup of hot coffee in the middle of the Arctic, all the energy flowing from the cooler to the hotter will boil it away, or at least keep it hot until I can drink it? Because there must be so much more energy flowing from the cooler to the hotter to tip the balance in its favour to be the dominant heat source.
Dave Springer said on Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Light and Heat
May 19, 2011 at 9:09 am
“The reasonable interpretation of the reality of the situation is that there is a negative feedback loop involved with increased energy at the surface. The negative feedback is almost certainly one or both of the equilibrium responses enumerated above.”
Alleyne replies:
Dave,
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I subscribe to your hypothesis that there are one or more negative feedbacks which return the system to a state at or near equilibrium. From all that I have read of Roy Spencer’s, Roger Pielke Sr’s, Courtillot’s and others, it seems to me that the net feedback in the climate system is negative and tied to that magical substance, water.
Robert Clemenzi said on Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Light and Heat
May 19, 2011 at 8:52 am
Alleyne, you are basically correct, except that a difference of 1 W/m2 is less than what can actually be determined. As a result, it is not correct to assume that the atmosphere is actually cooling that much. Based on actual measurements, it is not currently possible to determine if the net balance is other than zero.
Alleyne replies:
Thanks Robert. I appreciate that the 1W/m^2 is less than the error in the measurements. I would be surprised if the radiative energy measurements were much better than +/- 5% and in any case the sun’s outptut fluctuates over time, the albedo is apparently +/- 5% and so on…
I wasn’t trying to imply that the atmosphere must be cooling based on that 1W/m^2, just using the numbers available to confirm that I understood what the diagram was saying.
Dr. Roy Spencer posted a very interesting article here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
that relates to this thread in that what it presents is quite convincing that CO2 is not the only, and perhaps not even the major forcing, in the climate system – and ties in nicely with a comment Dave Springer made earlier.
mkelly says:
May 19, 2011 at 10:19 am
Mr. Springer says: “To say this back radiation might be real but a warmer surface cannot absorb photons emitted by a colder surface is also wrong …”
Harkening back to my heat transfer classes it was explained that higher temperature object does not absorb lower temperture emissions. The object at the higher temperature is already at a state higher than what the lower temerature object is or so there is no “where to go” with the lower energy.
Unfortunately you had a bad teacher, he was wrong as far as solids and liquids go. With gases only the energies that exactly match the energy level separation can be absorbed, the temperature of the source is irrelevant.
Years ago we used to argue about the importance of CO₂ as a GHG. We never resolved this issue and now years later I see we are still arguing about it. The important CO₂ GHG frequency is the 15 micron band. This band is at the upper end of the atmospheric window (or lower end depending on whether you’re using wavelength or frequency). The Wien’s Displacement Law temperature for this wavelength is about -80 °C. The average planetary temperature is supposed to be far warmer so CO₂ doesn’t provide much blocking in general. In fact, part of the argument is that CO₂ by itself doesn’t do much at all, but in conjunction with water vapor we are supposed to have a serious problem. Again, more arguments ensued on this point. This is usually called the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Argue, argue, argue.
So along comes Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. Their figure 7 appears everywhere: the last two IPCC reports, my GCM text book (643 pages, whew!), all over the web, and in conversations like this one. What makes KT 97 important is that this is the quintessential model of the GH effect. Every GCM should average out to the same general values in KT 97. Not exactly, because some of those values are off by 10%, 50%, maybe 100%, or more. However, the basic flows are about right (for the GHG model), and GCMs are basically duplicating KT 97’s flows and feedbacks (although at a much finer detail).
I created a simple model based on KT 97, and it does stabilize at the values in KT 97. (I designed it that way. But the model is flexible enough to stabilize at many values, even the new ones in Trenberth’s update of KT 97.) This is a steady-state model. Such models are common in EE where we apply a step input and wait for the transients to die out.
My model assumes a black-body for the surface and another for the atmosphere. (I’m not going to argue about whether a colder black-body can warm a hotter black-body. Of course it can. That’s how black-bodies are defined–they absorb all radiation that falls on them. The reason why this doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that warmer black-bodies radiate more energy than colder black-bodies.) Because KT 97 is a steady-state model, my version of it maintains its values until it is perturbed.
There are several ways to perturb my model. One way is to narrow the atmospheric window. This simulates adding more GHGs. The advantage with this method is that we don’t need to distinguish between GHGs. If we are modeling the Enhanced GHG Effect, then adding more CO₂ and more H₂O will essentially do the same thing–narrow the atmospheric window. There’s no need to argue.
What happens is that the model values start to fluctuate, and they need several cycles to pass before they stabilize at their new values.
To determine temperature, we need to use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires heat flux, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and the emissivity of the surface (or effective emissivity of a gas). If we hold the latent and sensible heat fluxes constant, keep the atmosphere upward-downward ratio the same, and assume both surface and atmosphere emissivities at 1.0, then when we narrow the window ever so slightly, the surface temperature increases. But the atmosphere temperature increases faster–about 1.15 times as fast. If we let the sensible heat flux change according to the bulk aerodynamic equation (as KT 97 does), and let the latent heat flux increase in proportion to the surface temperature, then the atmosphere heats faster–about 1.45 times.
It doesn’t get any better for this model if we start using more realistic values for emissivity (0.95 for the surface and say 0.6 for the atmosphere). For those values of emissivities, the atmosphere warms at an even faster rate–about 1.63 times.
The current rate of atmospheric warming is much less–from 0.7 to 0.9 times the surface. At those rates, any surface warming is not due to the GHG effect. Hansen’s tweaking of the surface temperature is only making matters worse. By increasing the surface temperature faster, he is further decoupling the surface heating from the atmosphere. Tsk, tsk.
Jim
Myrrh says: “So what ‘energy’ is your colder sending to the hotter?”
The same energy it is emitting if it is surrounded by objects half it’s temperature. Do you think a 500 degree object emits energy towards the walls in a 250 degree box, but stops emitting energy towards the walls in a 1,000 degree box?
“So when I put my hot cup of hot coffee in the middle of the Arctic, all the energy flowing from the cooler to the hotter will boil it away, or at least keep it hot until I can drink it?”
No, the cup will emit more energy than it absorbs, for a net effect of cooling to the temperature of the surroundings. It will cool to the temperature of the surrounding Arctic, and not to absolute zero, because the surrounding Arctic is emitting energy towards the cup that far exceeds the absolute zero of space.
“Because there must be so much more energy flowing from the cooler to the hotter to tip the balance in its favour to be the dominant heat source.”
How?
I wonder how floored every one of the mathematicians will be, when it’s revealed to them that if there were any GHG THEORY effect,
optical telescopy would have to be showing it; because ANGULAR MOMENTUM in GAS is EQUIVALENT to HEAT on that GAS, and if there has been MORE HEAT,
then OPTICAL TELESCOPY would have NOTICED the VIEWING getting WORSE, and WORSE, and WORSE all these years.
What about the INFRA-RED telescopy field? WHY AREN’T THEY reporting EVER RISING ATMOSPHERIC I.R. CONTAMINATING their INSTRUMENTS?
B.E.C.A.U.S.E. kids, there never WAS
there is NOT,
and no, no matter how many times someone claims to have calculated ENTROPY failing,
there won’t be TOMORROW, a G.reen H.ouse G.as Effect.
Optical Telescopes MAGNIFY ANOMALIES in the ATMOSPHERE MANY TIMES.
They have ASSEMBLIES which FLEX the MIRRORS to OFFSET this
ATMOSPHERIC SCINTILLATION also known as the stars twinkling.
In GAS, more HEAT is MORE MOTION. More MOTION is more DISTORTION.
P.e.r.i.o.d.
If there were MORE HEAT or MORE I.R. DISTORTION, then THE PEOPLE who CONSTRUCT and MAINTAIN the ASSEMBLIES which FLEX TELESCOPE MIRRORS to ADJUST for HEAT DISTORTION
would have LONG AGO trotted out T.H.E.I.R. DOCUMENTATION that SURE ENOUGH: the ATMOSPHERIC DISTORTION was GROWING.
But of course in ALL these years, N.O.T.H.I.N.G. because THERE’S N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
there.
So no, I didn’t chase down the math to see where you flipped your polarities so the
HIGHLY TURBULENT
HEAT CONDUCTIVE
COMPRESSED FLUID
F.R.I.G.I.D.
immersion bath
comes out defying entropy.
A WARMING BLANKET EFFECT is SIMPLY not the PHYSICS a
HIGHLY TURBULENT
FRIGID
immersion bath,
has.
IF you thought they have the same characteristics, no.
If you can’t be bothered with yet another “I calculated entropy out of existence” then look to your optical telescopy, your i.r. telescopy, the REAL atmospheric radiation business, two-way electromagnetic communications:
WHY UTTER SILENCE although these fields deal DAILY with the REAL artifacts of ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION?
Why is it when you google “Electronic Engineers endorse AGW” YOU get Z.E.R.O?
Because the PEOPLE who MAKE the INSTRUMENTS these MATHEMATICIANS and GEOLOGISTS MIS-READ,
know all that ‘reversal of entropy’/’reversal of gravity’ (yes it’s necessary)/’reversal of mathematics so now, entropy no longer works’
is so much bunk by people who don’t work daily in plying the atmosphere with radiation, and recapturing, then analyzing it.
A.G.A.I.N: although I understand blogs aren’t school, I’ll LEAVE it to YOU to DETERMINE how there is A.N.Y. G.H.G. EFFECT, if even the INSTRUMENTS which MAGNIFY ATMOSPHERIC HEATING THOUSANDS of TIMES as they TRY to LOOK THROUGH IT,
pick up N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
N.ot
O.nce
N.ot
E.ver
NONE of the MANDATORY SIGNATURES of HEAT’s PRESENCE.
NONE of the MANDATORY INTERFERENCE with I.R. Telescopy.
NONE of the expected CLAIMS from COMMUNICATIONS and MILITARY RADAR people about the DIFFERENT HEAT CHARACTERISTICS, giving DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSION and RECEPTION characteristics,
those guys, have documented M.A.N.Y. places on either side of zero.
There IS none of this EVIDENCE because there I.S. no G.H.G. FACT only G.H.G. Myth of MAGIC GAS that does MAGIC THINGS that NO INSTRUMENT
ever
detected.
It’s NOT EVEN MAKING the STARS TWINKLE more, but you’re expected to believe ENTROPY blinked, and a WELL MIXED, MILES DEEP FRIGID BATH
warmed
a rock.
Yea. Well, you go check those telescopic usage journals and WE’D BETTER SEE, FEWER VIEWING DAYS due to EXCESSIVE DISTORTION particularly AT NIGHT.
You go check those I.R. telescope journals, and see for yourself: the TOTAL LACK of A.N.Y. DOCUMENTATION of IMPEDED VIEWING at ALL.
When you have O.N.E. INSTRUMENT that DETECTS that FAIRY TALE you’ll have a FAIRY TALE with some legs.
Till then it’s just more of the “I calculated that entropy blinked, let’s dismantle civilization,” routine from people who simply
never
tested things
for money
for a living.
PARTICULARLY in the field of atmospheric radiation transmission, capture, analysis, etc.
NOBODY in the WORKING ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION FIELDS, OR in the INSTRUMENTATION FIELDS, believes in this V.O.O.D.O.O.
“My model assumes a black-body for the surface and another for the atmosphere. (I’m not going to argue about whether a colder black-body can warm a hotter black-body. Of course it can. That’s how black-bodies are defined–they absorb all radiation that falls on them. The reason why this doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that warmer black-bodies radiate more energy than colder black-bodies.) Because KT 97 is a steady-state model, my version of it maintains its values until it is perturbed.”
Kook alert!
>>
jae says:
May 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Kook alert!
<<
Really? You’ve cut me to the quick. Maybe you should look up the definition of a black-body.
Jim
Jim Masterson says:
May 19, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Years ago we used to argue about the importance of CO₂ as a GHG. We never resolved this issue and now years later I see we are still arguing about it. The important CO₂ GHG frequency is the 15 micron band. This band is at the upper end of the atmospheric window (or lower end depending on whether you’re using wavelength or frequency).
Middle if you’re using frequency.
The Wien’s Displacement Law temperature for this wavelength is about -80 °C.
You should use the frequency form of Wien’s Law not wavelength, we want to know where the bulk of the energy is emitted. The peak energy at ~20THz (i.e.~15micron wavelength) is ~340K.
The average planetary temperature is supposed to be far warmer so CO₂ doesn’t provide much blocking in general. In fact, part of the argument is that CO₂ by itself doesn’t do much at all, but in conjunction with water vapor we are supposed to have a serious problem. Again, more arguments ensued on this point. This is usually called the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Argue, argue, argue.
Predicated on a false premise, not correct.
Open discourse.
Measured stuff (real empirical data!):
342 wm-2 coming in from Sun, which means same going out at equilibrium. This amount of radiation corresponds to -18 C or 255 K, assuming blackbody radiation.
However, avg. surface temp. is actually about 15 C or 288 K. Avg. BB radiation at this temp. = about 390 wm-2 from surface of planet. Thus, surface emitting much more radiation than is coming from Sun. Explanation needed.
Generally Accepted Explanations for discrepancy: Greenhouse effect ADDS heat and radiation to surface by some magical mechanism explained vaguely as: backradiation; insulation ; slowing of loss of heat by backradiation; or other other claptrapcrap ™.
Problems:
Cannot explain the 390 wm-2 (15 C) from surface with any of above concepts, if the Sun is only adding 342 wm-2, despite testimony from so many “experts.” No way to explain added heat. The backradiation from the cold air cannot HEAT the surface above the -18 C equivalent provided by the Sun, according to Second Law physics. Slowdown concept OK, but doesn’t explain higher radiation from surface than from Sun .
Only possible answer and conclusion:
Greenhouse Theory is garbage, despite the fact that it is “consensus,” even among “skeptics.”
Summary:
Surface cannot be continually irradiating 390 wm-2, if Earth is receiving only 342 wm-2, EVEN IF THE HEAT LOSS IS SLOWED BY BACKRADIATION. “Slowing” just ain’t enough; heat must be added, and that violates the Second Law, since it would have to be added by a colder source.
Mathematical and Physical Checkmate!
End discourse.
LOL.
New discourse:
390 wm-2 explained by ideal gas law, as can be shown with all other planetoids with atmospheres. Heat is STORED by molecules and that heat is released when backradiation is less than forward radiation. How novel.
End new discourse.
IAmDigitap says:
May 19, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I wonder how floored every one of the mathematicians will be, when it’s revealed to them that if there were any GHG THEORY effect,
optical telescopy would have to be showing it; because ANGULAR MOMENTUM in GAS is EQUIVALENT to HEAT on that GAS, and if there has been MORE HEAT,
Now this is a real kook!
jae says: “The backradiation from the cold air cannot HEAT the surface above the -18 C equivalent provided by the Sun, according to Second Law physics.”
Wrong. The 2nd Law implies that the radiative energy emitted by the sun and atmosphere combined cannot heat the surface of the earth higher than the temperature of the surface of the sun.
“Surface cannot be continually irradiating 390 wm-2, if Earth is receiving only 342 wm-2, EVEN IF THE HEAT LOSS IS SLOWED BY BACKRADIATION.”
A point on the earth’s surface must eventually emit all radiative energy it absorbs. Radiative energy is emitted by the sun and absorbed by that point on the surface of the earth for approximately half of the day. Radiative energy is emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by that point on the surface of the earth for 24 hours of the day. For that point on the surface of the earth to stop heating up (equilibrium) the radiative energy emitted by that point in a 24 hour period must therefore exceed the radiative energy it absorbed from the sun in that 24 hour period. This would be true for any point on the earth’s surface, so it is therefore true for the entire surface.
“Mathematical and Physical Checkmate!”
En passant.
IAmDigitap says: “If there were MORE HEAT or MORE I.R. DISTORTION, then THE PEOPLE who CONSTRUCT and MAINTAIN the ASSEMBLIES which FLEX TELESCOPE MIRRORS to ADJUST for HEAT DISTORTION would have LONG AGO trotted out T.H.E.I.R. DOCUMENTATION that SURE ENOUGH: the ATMOSPHERIC DISTORTION was GROWING.”
A couple of degrees would disable their instruments so? They just read the air temperature and adjust, don’t they. Are you implying that they can’t observe the stars from day to day if the temperature changes? Their telescopes work in the winter, but not in the summer?
Response to O H Dahlsveen on May 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm
The CFC ozone hole only occurs in the polar spring, after the dark night is over. The destruction requires ice, extremely cold temperatures, and solar UV radiation. Only the Antarctic gets that cold, therefore, the hole is only in the Southern hemisphere.
According to one reference, in the normal atmosphere,
all of the O3 is destroyed by UV photolysis every few minutes, leading to the formation of free O atoms, and all of the O atoms are immediately consumed in reactions with O2 to reform O3 in a fraction of a second. section 2.2.1
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/index.htm
This reference has a whole section on the “hole” and the physics involved.
Steve says:
May 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm
How?
That’s what I want to know.
Because you’re saying that the colder is emitting the same kind of energy to the hotter.
Joel said it is the amount of hotter’s energy emitting to the colder being more than colder’s emitting to the hotter which gives a ‘net flow of hotter to colder’.
So, a cup of hot coffee in the Arctic is surrounded by tons and tons and tons of colder emitting the same energy towards it, the net effect must be for the coffee to get hotter.
Which is the AGW back-radiation of the colder atmosphere warming the warmer Earth further.
So you tell me how.
Phil says:
‘Unfortunately you had a bad teacher, he was wrong as far as solids and liquids go. With gases only the energies that exactly match the energy level separation can be absorbed, the temperature of the source is irrelevant.’
I think this would be very difficult to prove experimentally.
Robert Clemenzi says on May 20, 2011 at 12:27 am:
“—————-. According to one reference, in the normal atmosphere,
all of the O3 is destroyed by UV photolysis every few minutes, leading to the formation of free O atoms, and all of the O atoms are immediately consumed in reactions with O2 to reform O3 in a fraction of a second. section 2.2.1”
Well, yes Robert if “all of the O3 is destroyed by UV “photolysis”(whatever that may be) every few minutes, leading to the formation of free O atoms, — etcetera”, – then it seems reasonable, for me to assume that UV radiation is responsible for the making as well as for the breaking of the “ozone hole”
I am getting a feeling we have started some kind of a “circular discussion” here where we are both saying the same thing, but don’t quite realize it.
However, my main point was not so much about the “make up” of ozone but more about the possibility that as long as oxygen atoms and molecules absorb enough energy from UV radiation to alter their structure it may be that they also produce an increase in their heat content, which should be greater at any points nearest to the source – i.e. The Sun, plus there may be a few other reasons as well as to why the Statosphere warms from the top down but that is way outside of my capabilities to explain. .
Myrrh says: “Because you’re saying that the colder is emitting the same kind of energy to the hotter. So, a cup of hot coffee in the Arctic is surrounded by tons and tons and tons of colder emitting the same energy towards it, the net effect must be for the coffee to get hotter…So you tell me how.”
Same “kind” of energy (electromagnetic radiation), yes. Same quantity of energy per unit area, no.
You are the one proposing that all of the energy emitted by the surrounding Arctic could be concentrated toward the cup and exceed the energy emitted by the cup. How?
If you put the cup in a warmer area (somewhere in Canada), will the cup cool off as fast as it does in the Arctic? What would cause the difference in the rate of cooling?