Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Once again, the crazy idea that downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called infra-red or IR, or “greenhouse radiation”) can’t heat the ocean has raised its ugly head on one of my threads.
Figure 1. The question in question.
There are lots of good arguments against the AGW consensus, but this one is just silly. Here are four entirely separate and distinct lines of reasoning showing that DLR does in fact heat the oceans.
Argument 1. People claim that because the DLR is absorbed in the first mm of water, it can’t heat the mass of the ocean. But the same is true of the land. DLR is absorbed in the first mm of rock or soil. Yet the same people who claim that DLR can’t heat the ocean (because it’s absorbed in the first mm) still believe that DLR can heat the land (despite the fact that it’s absorbed in the first mm).
And this is in spite of the fact that the ocean can circulate the heat downwards through turbulence, while there is no such circulation in the land … but still people claim the ocean can’t heat from DLR but the land can. Logical contradiction, no cookies.
Argument 2. If the DLR isn’t heating the water, where is it going? It can’t be heating the air, because the atmosphere has far too little thermal mass. If DLR were heating the air we’d all be on fire.
Nor can it be going to evaporation as many claim, because the numbers are way too large. Evaporation is known to be on the order of 70 w/m2, while average downwelling longwave radiation is more than four times that amount … and some of the evaporation is surely coming from the heating from the visible light.
So if the DLR is not heating the ocean, and we know that a maximum of less than a quarter of the energy of the DLR might be going into evaporation, and the DLR is not heating the air … then where is it going?
Rumor has it that energy can’t be created or destroyed, so where is the energy from the DLR going after it is absorbed by the ocean, and what is it heating?
Argument 3. The claim is often made that warming the top millimetre can’t affect the heat of the bulk ocean. But in addition to the wind-driven turbulence of the topmost layer mixing the DLR energy downwards into lower layers, heating the surface affects the entire upper bulk temperature of the ocean every night when the ocean is overturning. At night the top layer of the ocean naturally overturns, driven by the temperature differences between surface and deeper waters (see the diagrams here). DLR heating of the top mm of the ocean reduces those differences and thus delays the onset of that oceanic overturning by slowing the night-time cooling of the topmost layer, and it also slows the speed of the overturning once it is established. This reduces the heat flow from the body of the upper ocean, and leaves the entire mass warmer than it would have been had the DLR not slowed the overturning.
Argument 4. Without the heating from the DLR, there’s not enough heating to explain the current liquid state of the ocean. The DLR is about two-thirds of the total downwelling radiation (solar plus DLR). Given the known heat losses of the ocean, it would be an ice-cube if it weren’t being warmed by the DLR. We know the radiative losses of the ocean, which depend only on its temperature, and are about 390 w/m2. In addition there are losses of sensible heat (~ 30 w/m2) and evaporative losses (~ 70 w/m2). That’s a total loss of 390 + 30 + 70 = 490 w/m2.
But the average solar input to the surface is only about 170 watts/square metre.
So if the DLR isn’t heating the ocean, with heat gains of only the solar 170 w/m2 and losses of 390 w/m2 … then why isn’t the ocean an ice-cube?
Note that each of these arguments against the idea that DLR can’t warm the ocean stands on its own. None of them depends on any of the others to be valid. So if you still think DLR can’t warm the ocean, you have to refute not one, but all four of those arguments.
Look, folks, there’s lot’s of good, valid scientific objections against the AGW claims, but the idea that DLR can’t heat the ocean is nonsense. Go buy an infrared lamp, put it over a pan of water, and see what happens. It only hurts the general skeptical arguments when people believe and espouse impossible things …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Myrrh says:
August 31, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Please read the link I posted.
All the energy that is ‘reflected out’ in the fiction budget is being absorbed.
Nothing at that link says anything about what quantity is absorbed and what quantity is reflected.
I can tell you that according to a paper I read, about 30W/m^2 more is absorbed in clouds than theory can account for. This is likely due to an imperfect understanding of scattering and an underestimate on water’s absorption potential (see the paper I linked above for the latter, and this post on my blog for the former). So I agree Trenberth’s cartoon is far from perfect, but not so far as you think.
Myrrh says:
August 31, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Just in case.. The point I was making is that you cannot see the stars in sunlight, even from the top of your mountain, therefore…
Just in case what Myrrh? Just in case I don’t understand your self delusions? A small amount of the visible light incoming from the sun is scattered to produce the blue sky and…. What? You think this proves that lots of light is absorbed in the atmosphere?
I might not be able to see stars during the day (I can’t see candlelight from a mile away during the day either), but I can see the sunlight reflected by the moon, and I can see the sunlight reflected by Venus and Mercury, and I do see stars starting to appear while there is still blue in the sky in the evening. And when I’m in a jetliner, I see the spectrum of colours in the sky at sunset, with the darkness and stars above, and still I can see streetlights on the ground and the sunset reflected off lakes from 8 miles up. Doesn’t look like much energy is going into making the atmosphere opaque to me.
Tallbloke says:
Very little visible light is absorbed in the atmosphere. Which is why I can see 50 miles from mountain tops. Unlike in the ocean, where it gets pretty dark pretty fast as you go down.
Are you ready to concede this?
Myrrh replies:
The ocean is around 800 times denser than our atmosphere, iirc, maybe someone has the maths to work it out, the relationship between the attenuation of light in the oceans and in the atmosphere, to reach the dark – I think that would have to be calculated by reflection of light back into atmosphere from the Earth to be comparable? Thinking of the thin blue line boundary as seen from space.
So we’re back to light being ‘attenuated’ instead of absorbed in the ocean eh?
Here’s the message: Some light is ‘attenuated’ or scattered, some light is reflected (off aerosols in the atmosphere, off suspended particles in the ocean). In the final analysis, nearly all sunlight that misses clouds makes it through the atmosphere into the ocean, where nearly all of it not reflected off wave flanks is absorbed and converted to heat.
If you are interested in the proportions, either trust the scientists (not just climatologists) who have done the measurements, or do your own. My approach is to hunt around for important papers who’s results have not been included in the models relying on trenberth and work back from there.
I’ll leave you to it.
hey TB-
seawater absorbs just about everything if it’s deep enuff:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=sodium+absorption+spectrum&hl=en&client=opera&hs=ymM&sa=X&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1410&bih=707&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=Va6kuNAsFLw0hM:&imgrefurl=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/spectra-more.html&docid=P2BTd_NG5VF7AM&w=342&h=130&ei=xStfTvmjFM6ftgekqbSlCw&zoom=1
http://www.alexpetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Figure-17.-The-light-signature-of-Chlorine.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Water_absorption_spectrum.png
philincalifornia says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:12 pm
tallbloke says:
August 31, 2011 at 3:50 am
New Studies of the Visible and Near-Infrared Absorption by Water Vapour and Some Problems with the HITRAN Database. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No 22, pp. 3703-3706, November 15, 2000
http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/djedjiga/GL11096W01.pdf
Abstract. New laboratory measurements and theoretical
calculations of integrated line intensities for water vapour
bands in the near-infrared and visible (8500-15800 cm−1) are
summarised. Band intensities derived from the new measured
data show a systematic 6 to 26% increase compared
to calculations using the HITRAN-96 database. The recent
corrections to the HITRAN database [Giver et al., J. Quant.
Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 66, 101-105, 2000] do not remove
these discrepancies and the differences change to 6 to
38 %. The new data is expected to substantially increase the
calculated absorption of solar energy due to water vapour in
climate models based on the HITRAN database.
========================================================
This might be a dumb question, but it won’t be the first time I’ve asked one of those. I think it’s related to some posts further up this humongous thread, or it may be on another. Could water vapor absorption band broadening be increased even further in the horizontal and horizontal-ish directions by motion due to wind ?? I’m not sure it would make much of a difference to boatloads of water vapor plus 280 ppm CO2 vs. boatloads of water vapor plus 390 ppm CO2, but just wondering.
Dunno – sorry.
gnomish says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:00 am
hey TB-
seawater absorbs just about everything if it’s deep enuff:
Don’t tell me, tell Myrrh! 😉
And if it’s not deep enuff, the bottom absorbs it and conducts the heat to the water.
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly August 31, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Tim, you have been very naughty indeed*! Earlier you said that you did not want to continue the discussion, and I concurred. (over two hours before your 6:42 pm) OK, so you want to get the last word in, but no, it will not be the last, for I will respond, if but in brief:
If an integrated hemispherical S-B emission normal to the surface can be established, it is absolutely no surprise to me that in any model it would remain normal in a transparent atmosphere, (or vacuum), unchanged in intensity to great height, apart from a trivial effect arising from the curvature of the oblate spheroid that we live on.
HOWEVER, that is not the issue that I have raised. To re-elaborate in brief; YOU have admitted above: I would say every photon emitted [delete ‘has’, sic?] heads off in some direction that contains both a horizontal and vertical component.
My issue is: what happens to the horizontal stuff, or perhaps ‘nominally tangential’ might be a slightly more precise definition. (Let alone the intermediate lateral, and perhaps below any curvature)
I see that there are a couple of other commenters that I should respond to in order to expand on this, but meanwhile and briefly, your consideration of a transparent atmosphere, seems to make your position look more precarious. What is to prevent the non-normal stuff from freely escaping directly to space? (up to a nominal 90 degrees opposed to any normal viewing mechanism, and which would be very different in our real-life partially opaque atmosphere.)
* Tim; as penance: Please write out 100 lines; of my selection of:
Travesty Trenberth, although having declared overbearing expertise, knows a lot less about hurricanes than does Chris Landsea and others!
No cheating please, no copy and repetitive paste, and Email your truly completed penance to Anthony Watts, swearing upon your IPCC Bible.
Well, I don’t know what else to say, you’re all clearly convinced that light from the Sun is heat and heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface.
I can understand your confusion, I’ve read countless pages now which confuse the two, claiming that visible heats the Earth and thermal heat doesn’t, even pages that give information which show the difference in process will go on to claim visible converts to heat. It looks like the memes deliberately introduced by AGWScience Inc to confuse this issue have become so ingrained in the population that never had earlier teaching, and in older populations who never took any notice of it before AGWscaremongering, that the simple difference between Light and Heat energies is so confused in their minds that they live in an alternate universe and can’t make it back. Even posting that the new paradigm has been deliberately introduced, such as in the NASA example I gave above and the encyclopedia admission that traditional teaching is still that heat on the move from Sun is thermal infrared and it reaches us and does all the heating, isn’t enough to get anyone here to stop and think.
Visible and UV are not thermal energies, nor near IR, we can’t feel them as heat, they’re not heat on the move, they don’t have thermal infrared’s power to move molecules into vibration, because shortwave’s work on the smaller electron level, etc. etc. Yet, all it takes is for this fiction producing propaganda to keep repeating lies such as thermal infrared doesn’t pass through glass and that’s enough to those accepting it as the truth to reject even real world examples to the contrary, such as a real industrial understanding of the differences which produces window coatings to stop thermal infrared, Heat, while allowing visible, Light, through.
(Here, for anyone who might be bothered: http://www.archsky.com/technical-binder/guide/coatings.php Low-E Coatings
Low-E coatings are metallic-oxide coatings that are applied to the interior surface of the glass, which is invisible to the naked eye. Low-E coatings reflect the “long” infrared (IR) portion of sunlight, which is the radiant heat portion. Depending upon which surface of the glass it is applied, Low-E coatings can keep radiant heat from entering, or escaping a building. )
There’s a whole industry now involved in producing thermal infrared energy in heating buildings, for example, actually able to heat walls and the objects in the room including the people with this real Heat energy, and, such applications as saunas, deeply penetrating thermal infrared heats the insides without the scalding effects on the skin, and, in countless variety of heat penetration in healing. Where are all the visible light heating industries if it is such a powerful force which physically converts to heat all the oceans and lands of Earth?? Where the f*** are they?
Instead, we see countless real world applications of Visible from those who still understand the differences of the properties of electromagnetic waves and the differences in the matter through which they travel, such as: http://www.optech.ca/aboutlaser.htm and, there are pages and pages of information about the use of Light in enhancing photosynthesis by eliminating Heat, thermal infrared, from lamps used for this in real world plant growing industries.
I’m sorry, you really don’t know how insane this sounds to someone with traditional tried and tested background knowledge, that I can see clearly how AGWScience has manipulated this by promoting the lie that Light is Heat by the simple expedient of reversing properties is of scant use if I can’t even get any of you to even think about it. Even showing the difference in size of effects, that thermal infrared works on molecule vibrational level and visible on the finer smaller electron isn’t getting through, and all kinds of excuses come out to defend the now ubiquitous in education lie.
A typical page, giving actual facts re the difference, but with the added lie from AGW which then makes nonsense of it all: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems3.html
Ask yourselves, please, why would NASA have taught the traditional view for so long only to change it now? Why has the traditional teaching that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared and therefore is reaching us at the surface, must be reaching us at the surface, been systematically obliterated from education, and the lie that it doesn’t reach us promoted? What proof can you offer that the new fictional paradigm is correct and traditional teaching wrong? None, you only defend the new paradigm by more fictional arguments, but you can’t see that this is what you’re doing. What I find really surprising, and disheartening, is that you think yourselves scientists and instead of being interested that this disjunct has been brought to your attention, you simply dismiss it and all explanations because you’re not willing to explore the contradiction.
Anyway, this will definitely be my last post here so I’ll just leave you with a couple of reminders from what I’ve been saying:
The Traditional, well-examined and understood differences between Visible Light and Thermal Infrared Heat:
At least, read this until you’re familiar with what it is saying, and bring this to mind every time you read something that contradicts it..
Hopeful that will spark again the scientific curiosity which brought you into whatever field you’re in. No need for more examples of the lies contradicting these traditional facts…
Anyway, one little piece of information from our history of discovery of the properties of the world around us which I hope you find interesting:
The beginnings of our real understanding about all this. And, an example of a real scientist, who records his failures, because he had to think again after Angstrom’s work.
And, when and if any of what I have been saying inspires you to actually investigate further, do please find or devise experiments to show the difference by proving or disproving visible light from the Sun capable of heating land and oceans of our wonderful Earth. Convince yourselves first that the memes you’re promoting are physically possible.
And then put thermal infrared, the heat energy on the move from the Sun to reaching us in 8 minutes, back where it belongs in the energy budget..
heh – i can’t talk to myrrh – i don’t know his frequency.
besides, he only listens to the black dog.
OK, one p.s. to get you started: http://www.iquefilms.com/SpectrallySelective.asp and http://www.iquefilms.com/FAQ.asp
Says of it 73FG product: “Originally developed for the US space and military program, 73FG is now being adapted for commercial use. Rejecting as high as 94% of infra-red and ultra-violet of 99% while allowing 70% of visible light to pass through, 73FG is the ideal choice for homes and buildings that would want the high amount of clarity but least amount of heat into the interiors.”
The 43FG will stop even more infra-red from entering – 98%
Why don’t you try telling them that they should be making windows rejecting visible light because that is the mechanism which heats oceans and lands, even at the bottom of the oceans..
From its FAQ page: “Just like V-KOOL, IQuie Selective is a spectrally selective film that is so clear and yet able to cut of 96% of infra-red heat.”
Oh gosh, infra-red is heat coming through windows?? My, who’d have thought it.
I repeat, in the real world the difference between HEAT and LIGHT energies is very well known, and where it is still taught in traditional physics people will still be able to find new ways of utilising the differences, while those who are taught that Light is Heat are at a disadvantage, intellectually and practically. They don’t understand the difference and so, question 4.
Do yourselves and everyone else a favour, quit talking about absorption and ‘energy budgets’ until you understand the basic differences of properties and processes, you are only adding to the disinformation campaign on this.
And, when you do step back into the real world from the other side of your reversed imaginary science fiction universe, I bet you’ll be as appalled and impressed as I at the sheer audacity of the con that has promoted the teaching that solar gets through the greenhouse glass and heats the ground while the real heat, thermal infrared, doesn’t..
..if.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/cess.pdf
gnomish says:
September 1, 2011 at 4:22 am
heh – i can’t talk to myrrh – i don’t know his frequency.
besides, he only listens to the black dog.
Yeah. I just saw the latest begin with this:
Myrrh says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:47 am
Well, I don’t know what else to say, you’re all clearly convinced that light from the Sun is heat and heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface.
So I won’t be bothering to wade through the rest, or the PS…
Ok, I couldn’t resist, I did read through Myrrh’s final offerings. There’s no point in making a reply, as I already covered the points raised, from a few different angles, but I just don’t seem to be getting through.
Oh well. Maybe Myrrh will buy some of these fancy IR blocking window film and then take some diurnal temperature readings in the dark and the full sun. In the end, the only way this person is going to be convinced of anything is by his/herself. Which is fine.
For everyone else, when advertising blurb says:
“ideal choice for homes and buildings that would want the high amount of clarity but least amount of heat into the interiors.”
You can be sure that ‘least amount of heat’ means less than before (by blocking 30% of visible light and 95% of IR) but a lot more than none.
Here are the specs:
Visible Light Transmission
70.0%
Visible Light Reflectance
8.0%
Ultra-Violet Rejection
99.0%
Infra-Red Rejection
94.0%
Total Solar Energy Rejection
55.0%
Luminous Efficacy
1.40
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
0.44
Shading Coefficient
0.50
Emissivity
0.60
U-Value (btu/h.ft2.F)
0.94
If it’s going to ‘reject’ 94% of the Solar IR, but the heat gain coefficient is still going to be 0.44, then Myrrh is going to have to accept that visible light heats stuff after all…
Like I told Myrrh several comments ago, for the ocean, about half the heat is coming from visible and half from solar Near IR.
Sorry, Bob! I wasn’t intending to keep active in the discussion, but someone else made a couple points about what I had said and I wanted to make a quick clarifications/suggestions to those who were continuing the discussion.
I don’t know much about Trenberth’s expertise regarding hurricanes (and even less about Chris Landsea’s expertise), but I am more than willing to admit that many experts overstep their fields of expertise and end up say silly things. And many experts get too focused on a narrow area of expertise and forget/downplay/ignore important factors that should be included (eg focusing too much on just CO2, or analyzing temperature data without really considering how poor the siting of the stations might be). A good scientist will keep an open mind (but as the saying goes “not so open that his/er brain falls out), but scientists are human too, and certainly are not perfect.
I have enjoyed my interactions in this thread with you, and Tallbloke and Willis and Stephen Wilde — and a few others as well. It has clarified issues and given me an opportunity to teach a little and to learn a little.
Now back to work!
Part of the problem here is we are using old optical terms and mixing them with quantum terms.
There really isn’t any reflection, refraction, or transmission taking place from one medium to the next. All photons are annihilated.
Some molecules/atoms absorb the photon and quickly re-emit (the photon) at the exactly the same angle received. We call this reflection in optics, however the process is not 100% efficient and there will always be some increase in vibrational energy until a ir photon emission or conductance balances the kinetics of the particle. If the emitted photon leaves at a different angle, this of course is refraction.
Another molecule/atom re-emits a photon in the direction of the photons projected path. We regard this optically as transparent, even though it is not. Nor is this process 100% efficient, and some losses occur (as kinetic heat), as stated above. So there really is no such thing as transparent, only photons which are efficient at re-emitting photons at close to their original energy levels.
All of the above contribute to scattering, as the molecule/atom is not perfectly still and have velocity. Blue light is excellent at the straight line re-emission of light (in H2O), therefore appears to penetrate farther. Its energy content is degraded over a greater distance, is all.
I hope this clears some of the misconceptions involved. GK
Correction:
Bolded photon should read molecule/atom as in:
So there really is no such thing as transparent, only molecules/atoms which are efficient at re-emitting photons at close to their original energy levels.
sorry GK
“Why don’t you try telling them that they should be making windows rejecting visible light ”
what a concept. windows that nobody can see thru…. hmm…
but i don’t want to be an early adopter cuz i’m heavily invested in solar powered shade generators.
‘sayyeda wegoddago now. etco!’ – anonymous barfly at Louie’s.
Folkerts:
I admit I went over the top with my anger at your obfuscation, but you appear to be the typical slippery AGW liberal, offering only vague undocumented “facts” and “consensus” crap to support your position. To wit, you say:
“Present with your OWN analysis and then I will be more impressed.
“How are you gonna get to even the 324 W/m2 for the “global average downwelling radiation,” using that kind of analysis?”
I don’t expect much, but here are two hints to get you started: 1) logarithms, 2) clouds. This will easily get you to the right rough answer using “that kind of analysis”.
Notice, everyone, how the challenge is directed back to the challenger, ala true believers. Mr. Folkerts, you are violating your own admonition: I challenged you to show just how the hell your logic can lead to a backradiaition of 324 w/m-2? You must realize that you said NOTHING in that comment to answer that challenge or to even address it! You didn’t show your work: please show how you get from 60 Wm-2 to 324 Wm-2 using “clouds” or “logarithms.” Please don’t try to appear that you have the math worked out, when you don’t have a clue.
Oh, and MODTRAN shows just how stupid your numbers are!
Myrrh,
thanks for the link to the 1928 paper on the Strat.
The really sad thing is that you have so little knowledge of what modern science actually says that you don’t realize that the findings in that paper are what is now understood (within the errors of the instrumentation).
Good luck with the Windmills.
JAE,
The challenge is to find some sort of common ground, some common understanding.
You see “true believer” when you read my comments”. Well, I see “true disbeliever” when I read yours. I don’t see evidence in your writing that you under stand Plank’s Law of Radiation or surface integrals. I don’t see evidence that you understand the the quantum mechanics of why CO2 absorbs IR, or why Doppler broadening is important.
Yet without seeming to understand what scientists are saying, you are firmly convinced that they are wrong. This is NOT skepticism.
That is why I challenged you to present your side. For you to be convinced that MODTRAN’s numbers are “stupid”, you really need to understand the numbers, and be able to point out specific mistakes.
“please show how you get from 60 Wm-2 to 324 Wm-2 using “clouds” or “logarithms.”
OK.
1) Clouds are very close perfect blackbody radiators of IR. On a day with low clouds, the clouds will be very close to the temperature of the ground. In these conditions, the ground will radiate its 390 W/m^2 or energy upward, while the clouds will radiate a bit less than 390 W/m^2 downward. In these conditions, there can easily be MORE THAN 325 W/m^2 radiating down.
2) On clear days, the downward IR radiation will be from GHGs (and a bit from aerosols). There is a “rule of thumb” that the effect of more GHG’s is logarithmic — ie DOUBLING the concentration produces a LINEAR increase in IR (its not amazingly accurate, but it works OK). If IR radiation drops by 30 W/m^2 when the humidity drops from 75% to 25%, should drop by another 30W/m^2 @ur momisugly 8% humidify. looking the other way around, increasing the RH from 0.1% to 75% RH should be ~ 180 W/m^2. The rule of thumb will perforce breakdown at low humidities. But from these numbers, it is easy to see that humidity itself could easily account for a few hundred W/m^2 downward. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, it is clear GHG’s could provide a few hundred W/m^2 even on a cloudless day. (MODTRAN suggest that these numbers are not exactly accurate, but are in the right ballpark, providing some confirmation.)
Since we are averaging numbers above 325 W/m^s and below 325 W/m^2, we are perfectly on track to get a number like 325 W/m^2 for the average thermal IR heading down toward the surface.
Now, if you want to give specific critiques of these numbers, I’d be happy to listen. If you want to present some numbers of your own, I’d be happy to listen. If you simply want to call the numbers “stupid” or claim the people calculating them are “morons” or suggest the numbers don’t agree with your intuition or insist that only one side of the discussion needs to do any work, well then you are showing yourself to be a “true disbeliever” convinced of your position without any support.
Sorry, Tim, but you lost me again with this “rule of thumb” crap:
“The rule of thumb will perforce breakdown at low humidities. But from these numbers, it is easy to see that humidity itself could easily account for a few hundred W/m^2 downward. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, it is clear GHG’s could provide a few hundred W/m^2 even on a cloudless day.’
As far as I can tell, you have not added one iota of data or evidence to your argument. Just POINT TO THE FRIGGING EMPIRICAL DATA that shows that “humidity itself could easily account for a few hundred….” (After all, THAT is what this discussion is about: EMPIRICAL DATA). Your “calculations” certainly don’t support that “humidity could easily account for…” To the contrary, you claimed something like 60 watts! Tim, WTF? Hell we are back to where I first challenged you–no data–same point, which you refuse to address.
BTW, “Rules of thumbs” don’t count largely in science, last I knew (but I’m an old fart, so maybe the current climatology neoscience has different concepts???). Can you cite some source for the importance of “rules of thumb?”
I got a different “rule of thumbj, Tim.” It is that ALL THE OTHER PLANETOIDS SHOW THE SAME TEMPERATURE PHENOMENON AS THIS ONE, DESPITE THE COMPOSITION OF GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE PLANETIOD. You have still never addressed this “issue,” nor have any of your warmista friends, AFIK ( I quit reading SurrealClimate a long time ago, since it is a political blog, not really a scientific one (as evidenced by their disgusting deletion of “unwanted” comments).
Tim Folkerts you said to JAE
Tim, unless I’ve missed something on this long thread, I think that is unfair, and irrelevant to JAE’s issues. I don’t recall any reason why he should mention any of the four topics you raise. I recall him being a true sceptic over the years, especially over at Steve McIntyre’s site and he had a good few exchanges with a Dutch (?) physicist, “the one who knew everything“; Tom Vonk. He remains a true sceptic as far as I’m concerned, and I’m sure he knows a lot more than you credit him for.
For instance, I could repeat to YOU: I don’t see evidence in your writing that you understand Plank’s Law of Radiation. But so what? What has that got to do with the price of cheese? BTW, you mean Planck, not Plank eh?
G. Karst @ur momisugly September 1, 2011 at 10:36 am
I found your quantum theory to be interesting, and new to me. Can you explain how it works WRT radiation pressure and “space sails” etc. Here is the topic introduction in Wikipedia:
Folkerts:
You went over the top, again, Timbo. You really FINALLY blew your cover when you made this ridiculous comment:
“I don’t see evidence in your writing that you under stand (sic) Plank’s Law of Radiation or surface integrals. I don’t see evidence that you understand the the quantum mechanics of why CO2 absorbs IR, or why Doppler broadening is important.”
Well, I have a PhD in organic chemistry and actually DO understand radiation quite well. Especially IR, since I’ve used it directly hundreds of times to identify organic compounds. I probably know at least as much about “quantum mechanics” as you do (if you disagree, please state your qualifications on this topic for all the three bloggers still following this thread to see). However, maybe I’m dumb about “surface integrals,” and I hope you can help me understand THAT concept!
The “bottom line” is that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. And until there is, it is just a theory, not some “law,” “consensus,” “rule-of-thumb,” etc. Period!
Thanks for putting up with my obstinance, but I enjoy the argument.
Bob_FJ says:
September 2, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Wow, you don’t beat around the bush and go right to the meat of the matter (pun intended). I assume you are not looking for the mathematical formula quantifying the forces involved (wiki will do that).
These most excellent question are presently being investigated at the Cern LHC experiment. How exactly does energy packets acquire mass like properties? Or does the force exerted by photons derive from elongated photons whose force is a result of its own ass snapping into its leading frontal lead head. Almost anything I say, would be instantly attacked, as these phenomena are hot topics of contention and are being actively pursued and theorized.
Personally, I am skeptical of present mass explanations (Higgs field) and am more inclined to simply give the entire universe, a velocity (angular or linear or both), and avoid the whole issue. Of course, this creates the conundrum, of what medium is the universe moving in!
You may feel my answer is a “cop out” and you would be correct, it is. There are some excellent minds here, less timid than me, who may care to go further.
Actually, I had this conversation with John Conway, chief scientist at the fermilab (CDF) collider, recently. He poo-pooed, tsk tsked, me very politely:
He is a great scientist and I defer to him. For now! GK
G. Karst @ur momisugly September 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm and Myrrh please note particularly 3)
Concerning “radiation pressure”…. Thanks for that G…. very interesting
1) The theory that perfect reflection is the consequence of absorption and simultaneous emission in the reverse direction seems plausible in terms of “photon mass” deceleration and acceleration. (resulting in a doubling of force compared with simple absorption). However, I have difficulty in understanding how the individual or sibling molecules can have the “intelligence,” and “skill,” and have “awareness” that the surface of the body is highly polished. On the other hand, if the photons simply bounce off, it does make sense that a polished surface would promote a pure bounce.
2) If we visualize a perfectly transparent “Space sail”, the theory that transparent matter absorbs incoming radiation and simultaneously emits it with no change of direction, would sensibly result in a net force of zero. However, again, I have difficulty understanding how the molecule figures out what to do. On the other hand, photons might arguably simply pass through a “transparent” molecule, giving the same result.
3) Myrrh, please note that radiation pressure has been proven by experiment*, and that it is related to the flux power REGARDLESS of wavelength. Also be reminded that ocean water is not perfectly transparent. May I suggest that you do some careful unbiased reading, starting at Wikipedia, and follow the links and hints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Note also that this has nothing to do with AGW.
* whilst the precise cause at the molecular level cannot be observed, and is the subject of debate.
For those who may be interested, “The Cassiopeia Project – making Science simple” put together an excellent 4 part (10min each) video which does summarize quantum theory. Some of the visuals are a little lame but easily forgiven. The link provided is for part 3, which describes photon annihilation (adsorption) and electon cloud shaping. It is worth watching the other 3 parts. Enjoy! GK
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19EFUyhhch8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=window%5D