UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has a comment on the paper here: Comments On The Dessler 2011 GRL Paper “Cloud Variations And The Earth’s Energy Budget also, physicist Lubos Motl has an analysis here. The press release from TAMU/Dessler has been pushed to media outlets on Eurekalert, see update below.
UPDATE2: Dessler has made a video on the paper see it here And Steve McIntyre has his take on it with The stone in Trenberth’s shoe
I’ve been given an advance copy, for which I’ve posted excerpts below. This paper appears to have been made ready in record time, with a turnaround from submission to acceptance and publication of about six weeks based on the July 26th publication date of the original Spencer and Braswell paper. We should all be so lucky to have expedited peer review service. PeerEx maybe, something like FedEx? Compare that to the two years it took to get Lindzen and Choi out the door. Or how about the WUWT story: “Science has been sitting on his [Spencer’s] critique of Dessler’s paper for months”.
If anyone needs a clear, concise, and irrefutable example of how peer review in climate science is biased for the consensus and against skeptics, this is it.
I’m sure some thorough examination will determine if the maxim “haste makes waste” applies here for Dessler’s turbo treatise.
Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget
A.E. Dessler
Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Abstract: The question of whether clouds are the cause of surface temperature changes, rather than acting as a feedback in response to those temperature changes, is explored using data obtained between 2000 and 2010. An energy budget calculation shows that the energy trapped by clouds accounts for little of the observed climate variations. And observations of the lagged response of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) energy fluxes to surface temperature variations are not evidence that clouds are causing climate change.
Introduction
The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change [e.g., Stephens, 2005]. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereafter SB11] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.
…
Conclusions
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade (over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming). Rather, the evolution of the surface and atmosphere during ENSO variations are dominated by oceanic heat transport. This means in turn that regressions of TOA fluxes vs. ΔTs can be used to accurately estimate climate sensitivity or the magnitude of climate feedbacks. In addition, observations presented by LC11 and SB11 are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by NSF grant AGS-1012665 to Texas A&M University. I thank A. Evan, J. Fasullo, D. Murphy, K. Trenberth, M. Zelinka, and A.J. Dessler for useful comments.
h/t to Marc Hendrickx
=============================================================
UPDATE: Here is the press release from Texas A&M via Eurekalert:
Texas A&M prof says study shows that clouds don’t cause climate change
COLLEGE STATION, Sept. 6, 2011 — Clouds only amplify climate change, says a Texas A&M University professor in a study that rebuts recent claims that clouds are actually the root cause of climate change.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor considered one of the nation’s experts on climate variations, says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that clouds are primarily acting as a so-called “feedback” that amplifies warming from human activity. His work is published today in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Dessler studied El Niño and La Niña cycles over the past 10 years and calculated the Earth’s “energy budget” over this time. El Nino and La Nina are cyclical events, roughly every five years, when waters in the central Pacific Ocean tend to get warmer or colder. These changes have a huge impact on much of the world’s weather systems for months or even years.
Dessler found that clouds played a very small role in initiating these climate variations — in agreement, he says, with mainstream climate science and in direct opposition to some previous claims.
“The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing,” Dessler says.
Texas is currently in one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, and most scientists believe it is a direct result of La Niña conditions that have lingered in the Pacific Ocean for many months.
Dessler adds, “Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change.”
“I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change,” he adds.
For more information about Dessler’s research, go to http://goo.gl/zFJmt
About Research at Texas A&M University:
As one of the world’s leading research institutions, Texas A&M is in the vanguard in making significant contributions to the storehouse of knowledge, including that of science and technology. Research conducted at Texas A&M represents an annual investment of more than $630 million, which ranks third nationally for universities without a medical school, and underwrites approximately 3,500 sponsored projects. That research creates new knowledge that provides basic, fundamental and applied contributions resulting in many cases in economic benefits to the state, nation and world.
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Lazy Teenager
There’s 2 parts to this response to Myrrh, Part 1 addresses heat/light and Part 2 addresses diffuse solar radiation and heating effect on geologic material and atmospheric gasses in the context of Dessler 2011 and Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s Earth’s Energy Budget Figure 1.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Part 1
Myrrh, you say:-
I agree that IR-A and IR-B in the band 0.74 μm – 3 μm (IR is conventionally 0.74 μm – 300 μm) warms our bodies internally but how do you account for my anecdote previously that UVB seriously burns (heats) the upper layers of my skin and UVA will burn a little deeper but IR is relatively benign? Are you saying I’m not getting burnt? That the Skin Cancer Foundation is wrong?
You say:-
That a part of the EM spectrum is visible is simply due to human optics: birds can see UV, bees can see IR. I draw your attention to the Wikipedia Infrared article Heat section:-
And the Thermography section that should amend your incorrect understanding e.g. “infrared cameras understand this… they take a picture of the reflected infrared bouncing off the subject”:-
Any matter that has temperature above absolute zero (K) emits radiation, this is nothing to do with reflection, see Specular reflection
Radiation is not heat, heat only manifests after the electronic and vibrational mechanisms of radiation (that you reference) take effect on matter – no matter, no heat.
[Duplicated at Climate Conversations Group (CCG) here]
Jesse Fell:
Your deplorable post at September 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm consists of ad homs. and factually incorrect smears.
Science consists of evidence and consideration of the evidence.
Evidence is not affected by the person and or the nature of the person who provides it.
Read your own post then hang your head in shame.
Richard
Richard C (NZ) says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:38 pm
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Part 1
Myrrh, you say:-
“This is how […] our bodies are warmed up internally. This is different from UV, which does not warm us up because it doesn’t have the mechanism to do this, it is a light energy working on the electron level, not on the resonance vibrational”
I agree that IR-A and IR-B in the band 0.74 μm – 3 μm (IR is conventionally 0.74 μm – 300 μm) warms our bodies internally but how do you account for my anecdote previously that UVB seriously burns (heats) the upper layers of my skin and UVA will burn a little deeper but IR is relatively benign? Are you saying I’m not getting burnt? That the Skin Cancer Foundation is wrong?
The mechanism for ‘burning’ by UV isn’t the same as ‘heating’ by thermal infrared. First of all, UV is a reflective energy akin to visible as is near Infrared – they’re ‘highly energetic’ because of the speed they form the waves, there is less distance between the peaks and troughs than with the longer waves, they are smaller, [the difference in size of infrared ranges from microscopic in near infrared to the size of a pin head in thermal]. All this, the differences in properties, has to be taken into account to understand the differences in processes and effects of the range of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun; a radio wave is not able to do what a gamma ray can do, and that, in large amounts can ‘heat’ you to nothing in a blink of an eye… [instantly vapourise you to ‘nothing’ see Hiroshima and Nagasaki.] Less intense, and it has an ionising effect on the body, changing the DNA etc., the scale and effects different from other waves. There are different categories and some waves will be in one category but not share the other properties of waves in that particular category. A set diagram could be useful here.. For example, gamma and UV both work on DNA level, but UV is not ionising.
So, in some ways UV, Visible and Nr IR are similar, in the same category, they are classed as reflective which explanation covered on the wiki extract. UV in this category is less able to penetrate the human body than the longer visible and both these less able to penetrate than near infrared, before they’re reflected back out. UV can’t penetrate further than the first layer of skin, the epidermis, before it is reflected out. That’s how an near infrared camera works, on the same principle as a visible camera, both are capturing what is being reflected back to the camera, just as our eyes capture the visible world around us by the colours reflected back from objects.
From your link:
http://www.skincancer.org/images/stories/UVA_UVB/visiblelightuvdiagram.jpg
In this aspect of the differences the differences could be thought of, with poetic licence, as the difference in drill speeds, smaller drills have less area to cover and can go faster, think dentists.., longer here then equals weaker. The more highly energetic the smaller the wave the more rapidly it gets bounced out on coming into contact with a bigger mass than itself, radio waves can pentrate walls and visible can’t, blue light more highly energetic than red will get bounced around more quickly, think blue sky, and so on. Visible then is weaker than UV in terms of size and speed and effects because it has different properties. It is entirely benign, it does not burn us because it isn’t in the same category as UV for this aspect. The body’s melanin neutralises UV and other mechanisms in place to use UV’s energy for a chemical conversion for Vitamin D production, all this within the first couple of mm of the body; we get burned when the melanin factory gets overloaded.. Near infrared even longer and so able to penetrate deeper than visible but also benign, it cannot burn us. We cannot feel any of these at all, they are not hot, you cannot feel UV burning you – what you are feeling as heat is any thermal infrared around – so for example if you’re high on snowy mountains skiing and exposed to higher doses of UV you can get burned while still feeling cool, ditto swimming, the water cooling you off isn’t stopping the UV from burning you if you’re not used to it.
UV as this faster drill has other benefits which the slower visible doesn’t, it can zap nasties in water and is for this aspect is much used in water purifying scenarios. And yes, it can penetrate glass.., a simple but effective way for water to be purified in hot countries, after filtering to speed up the process, is to fill a glass bottle and leave that out in the hot Sun.
Thermal infrared is heat energy on the move, it is still moving from hot to cold even if no matter is there to receive it. This is getting to be really a picky to far. There are gross basic physical differences in properties and effects between HEAT energy from the Sun and LIGHT energy from the Sun. The first has the POWER to move molecules into vibration converting to heat and actually warming up the matter. Visible Light from the Sun, Cannot, and Does Not, do this, it is not a thermal energy, it works on smaller electronic transition levels, so weak it’s bounced around the sky by molecules of nitrogen and oxygen..
As for how much we actually receive of thermal infrared on the surface, since it is the Primary source of heating organic matter, it’s the one we have to include in the ‘energy budget’, my point is that AGWScience Fiction Inc have effectively expunged this from the ‘modern fantasy fictional physics’ which they have put into place. These arguments are nonsense, they are arguing about an imaginary world, totally created fictional.
Have to leave this for a while, will come back to it later to see if there’s anything I can add.
Myrrh says:
September 9, 2011 at 2:56 am
But if you do admit in AGWSF that the water in clouds is that which absorbs thermal infrared from the upwelling, how do you account for it not doing this to the thermal infrared downwelling direct from the Sun, and ditto heating the oceans?
Around half of ocean heat content derives from solar ‘near’ IR, and around half from visible. No matter what you believe, and I don’t care that you won’t accept it. You don’t understand that the figures in the link you provided (window film) actually prove you wrong, so I’m giving up on that lost cause.
Surface emitted long wave (‘far’ IR) is absorbed in the first few um of water, so it can heat finely divided groups of water molecules in clouds, but not the bulk of the ocean, because the mechanism needed to propogate the energy downwards isn’t adequate.
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Lazy Teenager
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Part 2
Myrrh, good idea linking to Transparency and translucency, more on that in relation to Dessler 2011 below.
I draw your attention to this article Artificial Lighting and the Blue Light Hazard:-
Note though that blue dominates 0.4 – 0.47 μm, peaks at approx 0.445 μm (445nm or 445 microns) but the range is approx 0.38 – 0.63 μm (use the database Plot function with Energy (linear)).
In terms of solar heating, where does blue light fit in? See ASTM G197 – 08 Standard Table for Reference Solar Spectral Distributions: Direct and Diffuse on 20° Tilted and Vertical Surfaces:-
Note that GHG DLR (4000 nm/4 μm – 16000 nm/16 μm) is NOT included but Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s (TF&K) Earth’s Energy Budget Figure 1 ascribes 333 W.m2 to it and a status equivalent (except for the colour coding) to solar SW (161 W.m2) and diffuse solar SW is not accounted for although it is probably included in the 161 W.m2 “Absorbed by Surface”, more on this below.
ASTM G197 is behind a paywall but plots from it can be viewed at Solar Consulting Services REFERENCE SPECTRA, see Figure 3 Comparison of direct, diffuse and global irradiance on various tilted sun-facing surfaces per ASTM G173 and G197 standards.
Solar power peaks at approx 500nm (blue at approx 445nm) but the total solar power available is the area under the curve 300nm – 2500nm. Green and red peak further along the spectrum at approx 545nm and 575nm respectively. Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
But what is happening with energy-per-photon? See Electromagnetic spectrum:-
Ultraviolet: 124 eV – 3 eV
Visible:- 3 eV – approx 1 eV
Infrared:- approx 1 eV – < approx 124 meV
Energy decreases as wavelength increases.
Blue thermal emission is not often seen, see:-
You say:-
Role of clouds yes, analysis no. Again, radiation is NOT heat, both are forms of ENERGY. Energy from the sun comes to earth via radiation, heat will only manifest when the radiation encounters matter that will absorb (not reflect or diffuse) that radiation due to the properties of the matter. Clouds and atmosphere reflect 79 W.m2 and absorb 78 W.m2 of the incoming solar according to TF&K Fig 1 but clouds are also translucent so that on a very cloudy day 100% of incoming solar energy at the surface (residual of reflection and absorption) is diffuse and the energy arriving at the surface is LESS than if it were 100% direct (none reflected). TF&K omit a downward emitted component of “Absorbed by Atmosphere” (which is not diffuse note, see Transparency and translucency link above), they just show an upward emission.
Obviously then, local cloud variation results in a spectral distribution and direct/diffuse ratio different to the ASTM G173 and G197 plots, see “Spectral distribution of global and diffuse solar radiation in Ny-hesund, Spitsbergen” Hisdal, V. 1986.
I have not read Dessler 2011 in detail myself but going by others analysis that I’ve seen, he seems to assume that clouds can only effect temperature via absorption so that reflection and diffusion are not factors. This is bizarre if I’ve got the story right.
Finally, where does GHG DLR come in (given that it is infrared)? See Doctoral Thesis. “Atmospheric downwelling longwave radiation at the surface and during cloudless and overcast conditions. Measurements and modelling”, Viudez-Mora 2011. Figure 1.1. shows the distinction between solar and terrestrial (GHG DLR) irradiance and why the threshold between both wavelengths is conventionally set at 4000nm (4μm, 4 microns) the other limit being 16μm. GHG DLR does NOT include IR-A and IR-B, see Infrared. It is only IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm). The photon energy in the 4 – 16µm range is only around 124 meV.
Consequently, GHG DLR lacks the power for effective heating of geologic materials so that on the side of a mountain that does not receive direct solar, heating by Diffuse solar and GHG DLR is significantly less than direct solar. This can be seen in Publication 2 of “Mountain Permafrost: Transient Spatial Modelling, Model Verification and the Use of Remote Sensing”. Dissertation by Stephan Gruber, Zürich, 2005
TF&K’s 333 W.m2 of GHG DLR therefore, can only have an effect on surface material that does NOT receive direct solar and even then what little heating there is will be dominated by diffuse solar that carries greater photon energy.
[Duplicated at Climate Conversations Group (CCG) here (awaiting moderation at comment time above)]
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Lazy Teenager
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Part 2
Myrrh, good idea linking to Transparency and translucency, more on that in relation to Dessler 2011 below.
I draw your attention to this article Artificial Lighting and the Blue Light Hazard:-
Note though that blue dominates 0.4 – 0.47 μm, peaks at approx 0.445 μm (445nm or 445 microns) but the range is approx 0.38 – 0.63 μm (use the database Plot function with Energy (linear)).
In terms of solar heating, where does blue light fit in? See ASTM G197 – 08 Standard Table for Reference Solar Spectral Distributions: Direct and Diffuse on 20° Tilted and Vertical Surfaces:-
Note that GHG DLR (4000 nm/4 μm – 16000 nm/16 μm) is NOT included but Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s (TF&K) Earth’s Energy Budget Figure 1 ascribes 333 W.m2 to it and a status equivalent (except for the colour coding) to solar SW (161 W.m2) and diffuse solar SW is not accounted for although it is probably included in the 161 W.m2 “Absorbed by Surface”, more on this below.
ASTM G197 is behind a paywall but plots from it can be viewed at Solar Consulting Services REFERENCE SPECTRA, see Figure 3 Comparison of direct, diffuse and global irradiance on various tilted sun-facing surfaces per ASTM G173 and G197 standards.
Solar power peaks at approx 500nm (blue at approx 445nm) but the total solar power available is the area under the curve 300nm – 2500nm. Green and red peak further along the spectrum at approx 545nm and 575nm respectively. Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
But what is happening with energy-per-photon? See Electromagnetic spectrum:-
Ultraviolet: 124 eV – 3 eV
Visible:- 3 eV – approx 1 eV
Infrared:- approx 1 eV – < approx 124 meV
Energy decreases as wavelength increases.
Blue thermal emission is not often seen, see:-
You say:-
Role of clouds yes, analysis no. Again, radiation is NOT heat, both are forms of ENERGY. Energy from the sun comes to earth via radiation, heat will only manifest when the radiation encounters matter that will absorb (not reflect or diffuse) that radiation due to the properties of the matter. Clouds and atmosphere reflect 79 W.m2 and absorb 78 W.m2 of the incoming solar according to TF&K Fig 1 but clouds are also translucent so that on a very cloudy day 100% of incoming solar energy at the surface (residual of reflection and absorption) is diffuse and the energy arriving at the surface is LESS than if it were 100% direct (none reflected). TF&K omit a downward emitted component of “Absorbed by Atmosphere” (which is not diffuse note, see Transparency and translucency link above), they just show an upward emission.
Obviously then, local cloud variation results in a spectral distribution and direct/diffuse ratio different to the ASTM G173 and G197 plots, see “Spectral distribution of global and diffuse solar radiation in Ny-hesund, Spitsbergen” Hisdal, V. 1986.
I have not read Dessler 2011 in detail myself but going by others analysis that I’ve seen, he seems to assume that clouds can only effect temperature via absorption so that reflection and diffusion are not factors. This is bizarre if I’ve got the story right.
Finally, where does GHG DLR come in (given that it is infrared)? See Doctoral Thesis. “Atmospheric downwelling longwave radiation at the surface and during cloudless and overcast conditions. Measurements and modelling”, Viudez-Mora 2011. Figure 1.1. shows the distinction between solar and terrestrial (GHG DLR) irradiance and why the threshold between both wavelengths is conventionally set at 4000nm (4μm, 4 microns) the other limit being 16μm. GHG DLR does NOT include IR-A and IR-B, see Infrared. It is only IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm). The photon energy in the 4 – 16µm range is only around 124 meV.
Consequently, GHG DLR lacks the power for effective heating of geologic materials so that on the side of a mountain that does not receive direct solar, heating by Diffuse solar and GHG DLR is significantly less than direct solar. This can be seen in Publication 2 of “Mountain Permafrost: Transient Spatial Modelling, Model Verification and the Use of Remote Sensing”. Dissertation by Stephan Gruber, Zürich, 2005
TF&K’s 333 W.m2 of GHG DLR therefore, can only have an effect on surface material that does NOT receive direct solar and even then what little heating there is will be dominated by diffuse solar that carries greater photon energy.
[Duplicated at Climate Conversations Group (CCG) here (awaiting moderation at comment time above)]
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Lazy Teenager
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Part 2a
Myrrh, good idea linking to Transparency and translucency, more on that in relation to Dessler 2011 below.
I draw your attention to this article Artificial Lighting and the Blue Light Hazard:-
Note though that blue dominates 0.4 – 0.47 μm, peaks at approx 0.445 μm (445nm or 445 microns) but the range is approx 0.38 – 0.63 μm (use the database Plot function with Energy (linear)).
In terms of solar heating, where does blue light fit in? See ASTM G197 – 08 Standard Table for Reference Solar Spectral Distributions: Direct and Diffuse on 20° Tilted and Vertical Surfaces:-
Note that GHG DLR (4000 nm/4 μm – 16000 nm/16 μm) is NOT included but Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s (TF&K) Earth’s Energy Budget Figure 1 ascribes 333 W.m2 to it and a status equivalent (except for the colour coding) to solar SW (161 W.m2) and diffuse solar SW is not accounted for although it is probably included in the 161 W.m2 “Absorbed by Surface”, more on this below.
ASTM G197 is behind a paywall but plots from it can be viewed at Solar Consulting Services REFERENCE SPECTRA, see Figure 3 Comparison of direct, diffuse and global irradiance on various tilted sun-facing surfaces per ASTM G173 and G197 standards.
Solar power peaks at approx 500nm (blue at approx 445nm) but the total solar power available is the area under the curve 300nm – 2500nm. Green and red peak further along the spectrum at approx 545nm and 575nm respectively. Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
But what is happening with energy-per-photon? See Electromagnetic spectrum:-
Ultraviolet: 124 eV – 3 eV
Visible:- 3 eV – approx 1 eV
Infrared:- approx 1 eV – < approx 124 meV
Energy decreases as wavelength increases.
Blue thermal emission is not often seen, see:-
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Lazy Teenager
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Part 2b
Myrrh, you say:-
Role of clouds yes, analysis no. Again, radiation is NOT heat, both are forms of ENERGY. Energy from the sun comes to earth via radiation, heat will only manifest when the radiation encounters matter that will absorb (not reflect or diffuse) that radiation due to the properties of the matter. Clouds and atmosphere reflect 79 W.m2 and absorb 78 W.m2 of the incoming solar according to TF&K Fig 1 but clouds are also translucent so that on a very cloudy day 100% of incoming solar energy at the surface (residual of reflection and absorption) is diffuse and the energy arriving at the surface is LESS than if it were 100% direct (none reflected). TF&K omit a downward emitted component of “Absorbed by Atmosphere” (which is not diffuse note, see Transparency and translucency link above), they just show an upward emission.
Obviously then, local cloud variation results in a spectral distribution and direct/diffuse ratio different to the ASTM G173 and G197 plots, see “Spectral distribution of global and diffuse solar radiation in Ny-hesund, Spitsbergen” Hisdal, V. 1986.
I have not read Dessler 2011 in detail myself but going by others analysis that I’ve seen, he seems to assume that clouds can only effect temperature via absorption so that reflection and diffusion are not factors. This is bizarre if I’ve got the story right.
Finally, where does GHG DLR come in (given that it is infrared)? See Doctoral Thesis. “Atmospheric downwelling longwave radiation at the surface and during cloudless and overcast conditions. Measurements and modelling”, Viudez-Mora 2011. Figure 1.1. shows the distinction between solar and terrestrial (GHG DLR) irradiance and why the threshold between both wavelengths is conventionally set at 4000nm (4μm, 4 microns) the other limit being 16μm. GHG DLR does NOT include IR-A and IR-B, see Infrared. It is only IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm). The photon energy in the 4 – 16µm range is only around 124 meV.
Consequently, GHG DLR lacks the power for effective heating of geologic materials so that on the side of a mountain that does not receive direct solar, heating by Diffuse solar and GHG DLR is significantly less than direct solar. This can be seen in Publication 2 of “Mountain Permafrost: Transient Spatial Modelling, Model Verification and the Use of Remote Sensing”. Dissertation by Stephan Gruber, Zürich, 2005
TF&K’s 333 W.m2 of GHG DLR therefore, can only have an effect on surface material that does NOT receive direct solar and even then what little heating there is will be dominated by diffuse solar that carries greater photon energy.
[Part 2a & b duplicated as one comment at Climate Conversations Group (CCG) here (awaiting moderation at comment time above)]
Oops, Part 2a should read:-
“Note though that blue dominates 0.4 – 0.47 μm, peaks at approx 0.445 μm (445nm or [0.445] microns)
I think Myrrh needs to get a grip.
The errors of logic and language are clear to everyone else.
Myrrh:
You seem to acknowledge that blue light is indeed adsorbed and re-emitted or transmitted again, from the now excited particle. However, you do not seem to recognize that entropy is at work as in all things. If a particle adsorbs light (blue), entropy dictates that 100% of the light energy is not retransmitted. What are you proposing is the end result of the missing energy if it does not show up as increased kinetic energy of the molecule/atom (vibration)? Molecules/atom kinetic energy (movement) is the very definition of sensible heat.
Are you maintaining that energy re-transmission is perfect and entropy does not apply, for this special circumstance?
Btw, I do not think you are in error, simply because many disagree. I think everyone here knows how frustrating it is to argue a minority position. GK
Friends:
Please ignore Myrrh. On another thread I made the mistake of thinking he/she is serious and attempted to explain matters to him/her.
No evidence, links, references, explanations and logic had any effect. Myrrh continued to demand evidence that visible light can be converted to heat and to repeat his/her irrational nonsense.
I am convinced that Myrrh is a warmist troll attempting to disrupt threads by repetition of his/her nonsense.
Richard
I have asked Myrrh before to shorten replies and refer to previous argumentation by links. If this reasonable request continues to be ignored, posting rights may be reviewed by Anthony.
We try to avoid imputing motive here at WUWT but disruption is disruption, no matter what the motive is.
@richard C (NZ) says:
September 11, 2011 at 6:46 am
“Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
But what is happening with energy-per-photon?”
527 watts is 527 watts. It would be interesting to know how much the downward IR-A and IR-B vary.
@ur momisugly Myrrh says: September 11, 2011 at 4:21 am
[Myrrh’s reply to my September 11, 2011 at 6:40 am comment came in at WUWT before my comment was cleared because my comment was duplicated at CCG (Myrrh read it there) and it cleared moderation faster there. The comment and reply sequence is reversed at WUWT in this case]
Part A (Part B follows)
Myrrh, we agree on a great deal and I appreciate your 4:21 am response so please don’t take offense when I attack specific portions of it in Part B. We are getting to the bottom of what I believe is the fundamental flaw in AGW and also a concept that is understood in medical physics and radiology also heat engineering, Emag/microwave/RF sector etc but not well understood in climate science (AGW proponents and sceptics alike). That concept being the heating effect on matter by radiated energy which is explored here in Part A.
Two examples from climate science:-
1) This Columbia University lecture “Solar Radiation and the Earth’s Energy Balance”:-
Clicking on the “radiative heat transfer” link reveals this subtle contradiction:-
Suddenly they switch from heat to (the more correct in this case) energy. There’s heat at both ends of the transfer but it’s energy that’s transferred by radiation – not heat. Heat transfer DOES require the presence of matter and the properties of the matter are important parameters of the transfer.
2) This “Clouds and Radiation” article from NASA Earth Observatory:-
This part of the statement “thereby warming the surface of the Earth” is AGW climate science baloney due to the inferior radiative heating effect on the earth (ocean, lands, rocks etc) of that DLR energy compared to direct and diffuse solar. They (with advice from Trenberth) are implicitly referring to the “Back Radiation” of Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s (TF&K) Earth’s Energy budget Fig 1. showing 333 W.m2 of energy from cloud and GHG DLR which although measurable is an impotent heating agent (it’s not being harnessed is it?).
Now to some people that DO understand radiative heating effect. From Microwaves101.com “Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation”:-
What they mean by “it doesn’t penetrate the body” is that it doesn’t migrate evenly throughout the innards thereby facilitating useful cooking – it just cooks the outer layers (sunburn) and warms a little deeper. Further down see “The following table shows the effects of exposure to certain power levels”:-
So microwave cooking throughout a carcass occurs at a higher intensity and longer wavelength than solar that only cooks the outer layers but the solar cooking (surface sunburn) is due to the higher photon energy in the solar spectrum compared to microwave (exposure time is obviously a factor). The cooking efficiency of microwave explains why microwave cooking is easier than infrared, see “Problems with Infrared”:-
Note that it’s a grill, not ant an oven and they use high intensity but there’s still problems with penetration (as there would be with solar if it were to be used for cooking at higher intensities).
But with geologic materials (water, land, rock etc) radiative heating effect is different and opposite. For example, solar (high photon energy and in the right conditions) will penetrate water several hundred metres but GHG DLR (low photon energy and next to microwave in the EM spactrum) less than 100 microns at similar intensity levels for both. Consequently, “warming the surface of the Earth” is overwhelmingly solar – GHG DLR hasn’t got the grunt to even overtake the night-time temperatures that rock (say) cools to after being warmed by solar during the day.
Myrrh, my presentation of what I understand to be radiative heating effect has the basis of the EM spectrum and it explains a number of phenomena but I make no recourse to a separate but parallel “thermal” or “heat” spectrum that you seem to require. You will need to produce that spectrum if in fact it exists to support your case.
[Duplicated at CCG here]
@ur momisugly Ulric Lyons
You say:-
Not in electrical AC power it’s not. I posit that the electrical analogy of real vs apparent power is valid when comparing solar to GHG and cloud DLR. See AC power:-
If as you say “527 watts is 527 watts”, why isn’t the 333 W.m2 of GHG and cloud DLR in TF&K’s Fig 1 harnessed?
An example plot of DLR, at Darwin, shows an annual mean 409 W.m2 with a small diurnal fluctuation. But this data over one day at Lake Ontario shows an almost constant 350 W.m2 that may even be present at night.
Whether fluctuating daily or constant, there’s a lot of power going to waste (that may also be available at night) if in the case of Darwin: 409 Watts is 409 Watts.
Don’t know if this is what you are getting at but this study shows infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn:-
“Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains”
Gero and Turner, 2011.
Access here: “Another blow to warmist theory: Decreasing radiation from greenhouse gases”
Ulric, FYI from Part 2 up-thread
GHG DLR does NOT include IR-A and IR-B, see Infrared. [linked] It is only IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm). The photon energy in the 4 – 16µm range is only around 124 meV.
@ur momisugly Myrrh says: September 11, 2011 at 4:21 am
Part B
Agree with paragraph 1
Agree with paragraph 2 except this:-
Yes there’s some reflection but there’s also absorption, diffusion, transmission, scattering etc in my understanding i.e. it’s complex and depends on the material characteristics and there is heating.
And this:-
No, UVB penetrates the epidermis and the outer dermis, UVA penetrates the epidermis and dermis down to the outer subcutaneous layer and not all is reflected out.
Disagree with paragraph 3
No, visible does not burn us because there’s not sufficient intensity from solar but turn up the intensity and it will burn as will infrared. I do agree though that visible is not in the same category in terms of solar heating effects because photon energy is increasing from visible to UV and UV is closer to the critical ionizing level of gamma.
No, we in New Zealand (and me especially) are acutely aware that burning ensues when the clock tells us that the angle of solar incidence is such that UVB becomes a very effective heating agent in the epidermis and the outer dermis.
Yes solar sourced near infrared will not burn because there is not sufficient intensity but it will at greater intensity levels.
This is just a load of rubbish and I think you are confusing convective and conductive heat with thermal infrared. I definitely feel UV burning me and I can see it happening.
Agree with paragraph 4
Disagree with paragraph 5:-
Nope, “thermal infrared” is radiative energy on the move (at the speed of light) that has the capacity to heat on encountering matter.
Correct in terms of radiative EM energy but heat only manifest on an encounter with matter.
Rubbish, there is only Electro Magnetic radiative energy from the sun (that we’re concerned with). Whether it’s visible depends on optics, birds can see UV, bees can see infrared. Heat energy derived from EM is described here:-
Thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation as a form of heat
The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. The ultimate fate of this energy depends on the situation. It could be immediately re-radiated and appear as scattered, reflected, or transmitted radiation. It may also get dissipated into other microscopic motions within the matter, coming to thermal equilibrium and manifesting itself as thermal energy in the material. With a few exceptions such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions and the photovoltaic effect, absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. This happens both for infrared and non-infrared radiation. Intense radio waves can thermally burn living tissue and can cook food. In addition to infrared lasers, sufficiently intense visible and ultraviolet lasers can also easily set paper afire. Ionizing electromagnetic radiation can create high-speed electrons in a material and break chemical bonds, but after these electrons collide many times with other atoms in the material eventually most of the energy gets downgraded to thermal energy, this whole process happening in a tiny fraction of a second. That infrared radiation is a form of heat and other electromagnetic radiation is not, is a widespread misconception in physics. Any electromagnetic radiation can heat a material when it is absorbed.
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy.
Visible light is electro magnetic energy and therefore thermal energy, it is only insufficient solar intensity that gives the illusion that it is not warming but it is certainly warming above absolute zero Kelvin.
Disagree with paragraph 6:-
“Thermal infrared” is included in “Incoming Solar Radiation” (341.3 W.m2) TF&K Earth’s Energy Budget Figure 1. Again from Part 2a up-thread: Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
@richard C (NZ) says:
September 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm
“GHG DLR does NOT include IR-A and IR-B”
No I am talking about IR from sunlight not back radiation.
Sorry for the delay in replying to those who are expecting a reply, have not had the time to more than read through the posts. Circumstances, will be back in a couple of days.
Good Gawd, all you dummies reacting to another of Myrrh’s Thermodynamics-illiterate thread highjacks? Give it up. He cannot get the fundamental concept of inevitable decay of all energy forms to thermal vibration. It just won’t register.
BTW, the term “burning” with regards to skin and UV is metaphorical, not literal. There is no accelerated oxidation happening. The pain and redness are biological responses to DNA damage and cell mortality. The melanin-bearing cells sop up the UV and make warmth from it directly, before it gets a chance to “dig in” to the dermis nuclei and cause damage.
@ur momisugly Brian H
You say:- “The melanin-bearing cells sop up the UV and make warmth from it directly”
I get the point re biological response but since there is warmth generated in the epidermis, this must be the early stage of cooking – yes or no?
Also, do you have any links to papers and articles regarding solar heating of geologic material vs DLR heating of same (I have Gruber et al)?
Or, does DLR “heat the earth” (as the AGW folks put it) at all?
“cooking”? Technically, cooking is congealing of proteins from excess heat. Since cells are embedded in the body’s circulatory system, you’d have to overwhelm its heat-transport capacity to begin the “cooking” process. And any source of energy causes some warming.
Melanin’s “tuned” to absorb UV to protect DNA. Note the reflected color: brown, which is really darkened red. So it absorbs all the high frequencies and bounces away some of the low stuff. Probably including much of the IR, by the way.
I draw little or no distinction between solar and ‘DLR’. The latter is just slightly lagged solar still in the pipeline a bit longer than it would be without GHGs, which interfere with its escape into the cold dark of the Great Beyond.
P.S. The “darkness” of melanin means also that it is really good at re-emitting and dumping heat as IR. Black is the bestest radiator!
@ur momisugly Brian, thanks for your response.
You say:-
Right, so it’s just a case of increasing the intensity of the source of UV (if it were possible) as in IR and MW cooking except that UV is an inefficient cooking agent because it doesn’t penetrate beyond the outer layer and wouldn’t go much further at higher intensities when it would just overcook the track length it did penetrate anyway. There’s a similar problem with laser penetration of gasses in experiments where the gasses contain metallic vapour (I think). A similar problem also exists with IR cooking but to a much lessor degree but at high intensity (5000 mW/cm2, 50 kW.m2) MW is an efficient cooking agent.
Yes, this is very important I think to the question of TF&K’s 333 W.m2 of GHG and cloud backradiation “heating the earth” (as NASA put it – see Part A, 2) up-thread here). The earth’s geologic materials have differing characteristics so that a material and the irradiance it receives must be “tuned” for heating to be effective. AGW-based climate science ignores this little detail completely but goes to great lengths to measure what in reality is an inefficient heating agent (see below).
BTW, my skin contains very little melanin and I don’t go brown so cooking would commence in my epidermis before it would in melanin rich skin I think but I don’t want to argue this point, better to relate to the topics: cloud, radiation, heating effect on earth etc. I do however think it is very important to understand the concepts we are discussing because they are central to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, the earth’s energy budget and the consequences of the Dessler and Spencer-Braswell cloud oriented papers.
Yes and No. Yes to the general concept but no to the detail. There is a very significant distinction between photon energy in the respective spectral ranges. Those being: the solar spectrum (200nm – 4000nm) and the DLR spectrum (4000nm -16,000nm), the latter measured in this Doctoral Thesis, “Atmospheric downwelling longwave radiation at the surface and during cloudless and overcast conditions, Measurements and modelling”, Viudez-Mora 2011.
I’ve already shown up-thread in Part 2a,also Part A and at the CCG blog here how the photon energy in the electro magnetic spectrum decreases as wavelength increases and how to calculate the energy. Just look at the table (2nd down right-hand side EM link).
So not only is there insufficient intensity of GHG and cloud DLR for DLR to be an effective heating agent on geologic material but the energy-per-photon that IS delivered in the 4000nm to 16,000nm DLR spectral range is significantly less than in the 200nm to 4000nm solar spectral range.
Ergo, DLR does NOT “heat the earth” as NASA, the Team and every AGW/Warmist blog commentator and national institution that parrots the meme would have the world believe.
I challenge anyone reading this to present a scientific paper that shows DLR actually heating a geologic material above the temperature that the material cools to at night after being heated by solar during the day. So far I have come up with a dissertation by Stephan Gruber “Mountain Permafrost: Transient Spatial Modelling, Model Verification and the Use of Remote Sensing” that contains 6 papers by Gruber and others that (among other things) measures rock temperature on a mountain that receives direct solar on one side and the face on the other side that only receives DLR (and diffuse solar, although they seem to ignore that little detail). Only on 4 days of a month do non-direct-solar-side temperatures come close to direct-solar-side temperatures (Paper 2). Gruber et al says non-direct-solar-side temperatures are governed by air temperature but I say they are governed by diffuse solar.
I have begun an analysis of Gruber et al at CCG here that is incomplete due to work commitments and recent developments in climate science e.g. I’ve compiled “Scientific developments and background re: Dessler 2011, Spencer – Braswell 2011, Lindzen and Choi 2011 now at “IPCC Science”” at CCG.
My entire investigation of heating effect in respect to “Earth’s global energy budget”, Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl 2009 starts at this CCG thread header. It addresses all of what I’ve discussed in this thread and more and is cross-linked to this thread with some duplicated comments.
And we should all know by now that DLR has no bulk ocean heating effect.
[Duplicated at CCG here]