Guest post by Bob Fernley-Jones by Bob Fernley-Jones AKA Bob_FJ
CAUTION: This is written in Anglo-Oz English.
Here is the diagram as extracted from their 2009 paper, it being an update of that in the IPCC report of 2007 (& also 2001):
The unusual aspect of this diagram is that instead of directly showing radiative Heat Transfer from the surface, it gives their depiction of the greenhouse effect in terms of radiation flux or Electro-Magnetic Radiation, (AKA; EMR and a number of other descriptions of conflict between applied scientists and physicists). EMR is a form of energy that is sometimes confused with HEAT. It will be explained later, that the 396 W/m^2 surface radiation depicted above has very different behaviour to HEAT. Furthermore, temperature change in matter can only take place when there is a HEAT transfer, regardless of how much EMR is whizzing around in the atmosphere.
A more popular schematic from various divisions around NASA and Wikipedia etc, is next, and it avoids the issue above:
- Figure 2 NASA
Returning to the Trenberth et al paper, (link is in line 1 above), they give that the 396 W/m2 of EMR emitted from the surface in Fig.1 is calculated primarily by using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, and global year average conditions. Putting aside a few lesser but rather significant issues therein, it is useful to know that:
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann law (S-B) describes the total emission from a flat surface that is equally radiated in all directions, (is isotropic/hemispherical). Stefan found this via experimental measurement, and later his student Boltzmann derived it mathematically.
2) The validity of equally distributed hemispherical EMR is demonstrated quite well by observing the Sun. (with eye protection). It appears to be a flat disc of uniform brightness, but of course it is a sphere, and at its outer edge, the radiation towards Earth is tangential from its apparent surface, not vertical. It is not a perfect demonstration because of a phenomenon called limb darkening, due to the Sun not having a definable surface, but actually plasma with opacity effects. However, it is generally not apparent to the eye and the normally observed (shielded) eyeball observation is arguably adequate for purpose here.
3) Whilst reportedly the original Stefan lab test was for a small flat body radiating into a hemisphere, its conclusions can be extended to larger areas by simple addition of many small flat bodies of collectively flat configuration, because of the ability of EMR waves to pass through each other. This can be demonstrated by car driving at night, when approaching headlights do not change in brightness as a consequence of your own headlights opposing them. (not to be confused with any dazzling effects and fringe illumination)
4) My sketch below demonstrates how radiation is at its greatest concentration in the lateral directions. It applies to both the initial S-B hemispherical surface radiation and to subsequent spherical radiation from the atmosphere itself.
5) Expanding on the text in Figure 3: Air temperature decreases with altitude, (with lapse rate), but if we take any thin layer of air over a small region, and time interval, and with little turbulence, the temperature in the layer can be treated as constant. Yet, the most concentrated radiation within the layer is horizontal in all directions, but with a net heat transfer of zero. Where the radiation is not perfectly horizontal, adjacent layers will provide interception of it.
A more concise way of looking at it is with vectors, which put simply is a mathematical method for analysing parameters that 
possess directional information. Figure 4, takes a random ray of EMR (C) at a modestly shallow angle, and analyses its vertical and horizontal vector components. The length of each vector is proportional to the power of the ray, in that direction, such that A + B = C. Of course this figure is only in 2D, and there are countless multi-directional rays in 3D, with the majority approaching the horizontal, through 360 planar degrees, where the vertical components also approach zero.
6) Trenberth’s figure 1 gives that 65% of the HEAT loss from the surface is via thermals and evapo-transpiration. What is not elaborated is that as a consequence of this upward HEAT transfer, additional infrared radiation takes place in the air column by virtue of it being warmed. This initially starts as spherical emission and absorption, but as the air progressively thins upwards, absorption slows, and that radiation ultimately escapes directly to space. Thus, the infrared radiation observable from space has complex sources from various altitudes, but has no labels to say where it came from, making some of the attributions “difficult”.
DISCUSSION; So what to make of this?
The initial isotropic S-B surface emission, (Trenberth’s global 396 W/m2), would largely be absorbed by the greenhouse gases instantaneously near the surface. (ignoring some escaping directly to space through the so-called “atmospheric window”). However, a large proportion of the initial S-B 396 surface emission would be continuously lateral, at the Trenberth imposed constant conditions, without any heat transfer, and its horizontal vectors CANNOT be part of the alleged 396 vertical flux, because they are outside of the vertical field of view.
After the initial atmospheric absorptions, the S-B law, which applied initially to the surface, no longer applies to the air above. (although some clouds are sometimes considered to be not far-off from a black body). Most of the air’s initial absorption/emission is close to the surface, but the vertical distribution range is large, because of considerable variation in the photon free path lengths. These vary with many factors, a big one being the regional and more powerful GHG water vapour level range which varies globally between around ~0 to ~4%. (compared with CO2 at a somewhat constant ~0.04%). The total complexities in attempting to model/calculate what may be happening are huge and beyond the scope of this here, but the point is that every layer of air at ascending altitudes continuously possesses a great deal of lateral radiation that is partly driven by the S-B hemispherical 396, but cannot therefore be part of the vertical 396 claimed in Figure 1.
CONCLUSIONS:
The vertical radiative flux portrayed by Trenberth et al of 396 W/m^2 ascending from the surface to a high cloud level is not supported by first principle considerations. The S-B 396 W/m^2 is by definition isotropic as also is its ascending progeny, with always prevailing horizontal vector components that are not in the field of view of the vertical. The remaining vertical components of EMR from that source are thus less than 396 W/m^2.
It is apparent that HEAT loss from the surface via convective/evaporative processes must add to the real vertical EMR loss from the surface, and as observed from space. It may be that there is a resultant of similar order to 396 W/m^2, but that is NOT the S-B radiative process described by Trenberth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM FOR AFICIONADOS
I Seek your advice
In figure 5 below, note that the NIMBUS 4 satellite data on the left must be for ALL sources of radiation as seen from space, in this case, at some point over the tropical Pacific. The total emissions, amount to the integrated area under the curve, which unfortunately is not given. However, for comparison purposes, a MODTRAN calculator, looking down from 100 Km gives some interesting information for the figure, which is further elaborated in the tables below. Unfortunately the calculator does not give global data or average cloud/sky conditions, so we have apples and pears to compare, not only with Nimbus, but also with Trenberth. However, they all seem to be of somewhat similar order, and see the additional tabulations.
| Compare MODTRAN & “Trenberth”, looking down from 2 altitudes, plus Surface Temperature | ||||
| Location | Kelvin | 10 metres | 100 Km. | (Centigrade) |
| Tropical Atmosphere | 300K | 419 W/m^2 | 288 W/m^2 | (27C) |
| Mid-latitude Summer | 294K | 391 W/m^2 | 280 W/m^2 | (21C) |
| Mid-latitude Winter | 272K | 291 W/m^2 | 228 W/m^2 | (-1C) |
| Sub-Arctic Winter | 257K | 235 W/m^2 | 196 W/m^2 | (-16C) |
| Trenberth Global | 288K ? | 396 W/m^2 | 239 W/m^2 | (15C ?) |
| Compare MODTRAN & “Trenberth”, looking UP from 4 altitudes: W/m^2 | ||||
| Location | From 10 m | From 2 Km | From 4Km | From 6Km |
| Tropical Atmosphere | 348 | 252 | 181 | 125 |
| Mid-latitude Summer | 310 | 232 | 168 | 118 |
| Mid-latitude Winter | 206 | 161 | 115 | 75 |
| Sub-Arctic Winter | 162 | 132 | 94 | 58 |
| Trenberth Global | 333 Shown as coming from high cloud area (= BS according to MODTRAN) | |||
How’s that laptop holding up, Bob?
..Am I at 888 yet?
[OK, sorry, I had trouble resisting this single followup comment. Sorry.]
Bob, I definitely agree that “However, you cannot sensibly ignore the other processes which happen interactively.”
I am not ignoring them per se. I do, however, think that they will be relatively small in most cases. Or more specifically, I think that there will be very little CHANGE in distances on the order of 10 m or 100 m.
Of course, we will not resolve the magnitudes of these numbers just discussing them here. But in any case, this is a very different idea than “most of the IR is sideways rather than upward”. I think interplay among the different sorts of energy transport could be interesting and possibly fruitful to better understand energy flows. I don’t feel the same about your horizontal/vertical arguments.
But apparently we will also not resolve that in this setting either. So it is time to sign off from this part of the discussion, too, and get back to other things.
Myrhh:
I will use “>” to mark off quotes your used from another source and “>>” for what you say.
> The atoms and molecules in the metal of the burner are moving very rapidly because the electrical energy from the wall outlet has increased the thermal energy in the burner.
If you agree with that, why do you object to this:
The atoms and molecules on the earth are moving very rapidly partly because the electromagnetic energy from visible light and from other photons from the sun have increased the thermal energy on the earth.
Why can electricity warm the conductor but visible light (or another form of radiation) can’t warm its own “conductors”? In each case you have a source of energy that gets used up to some degree (battery or sun) as energy flows from source to sink through a medium.
What evidence can you offer that only radiation of a certain wavelength can warm things, in general?
Also, what happens to the energy of the visible light hitting the earth’s surface.. say black surfaces? What about photons above visible?
> When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat.
It is not saying that only if you can feel it, is it heat. It simply says that if we feel something, there is heat.
> Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
Why do you assume that visible light cannot impart energy to molecules?
Myrrh>> the science fields of optics and thermodynamics.
These are just two approaches optimized to solve a different set of problems.
What does that thermo theory say happens when light strikes a surface? If it doesn’t cover light very well, then the theory is incomplete.
So we have theories that say a lot about “heat” but little about “light”.
We have theories on light which say a lot about light but perhaps don’t say much about “heat”.
And then there are theories that say a fair amount about both “light” and “heat”.
Tim is basing his discussion on some of these last group of theories. Those theories say things the others do not. They fill in blanks left by the other theories.
So, yes, light does more than just “reflect”, “refract”, etc. Yes, “heat” can turn into “light” and vice-versa. There are experiments to support these broader theories. Perhaps we should be talking more about these experiments.
Let me ask this again:
> Lastly, if you go back to the last of the comments I made that you quoted, I provide a link to wikipedia page on attenuation. I then asked how you would explain what happened to that missing energy [from sunlight that is attenuated as it passes through shades]? If molecules get excited with visible light and presumably through that mechanism remove energy from the light shining through it, then what happens to that energy in those excited molecules in that solid?…
What does thermo say about what happens to that energy that excited the molecules as that sunlight was attenuated?
… What do you think about NASA saying that light can turn into heat?
>> don’t be distracted into making it more complicated than it is, even a primary school child should be able to understand the following
Does a child understand the general theory of relativity? Some theories, in order to do a better job explaining phenomenon that simpler theories fail to answer, are more complex.
>> the heat from the Sun in transfer by radiation is heat; this the invisible thermal infrared, which is heat, which is heat energy, which is thermal energy in transfer by radiation, which is why it is called thermal.
Why do you want to exclude visible light and other frequencies from what is capable of transferring heat?
Can you find a single source that says that if we can’t feel something as heat with your hand, then it is not heating us and imparting us with thermal energy, that is, increasing the kinetic energy of our molecules?
Our bodies have different types of sensors, but that doesn’t mean visible light can’t be absorbed and heat things up just because we can’t feel it.
Should I ask again, where does the energy from visible light go when that light passes through sunglasses and comes out with less intensity?
Also, keep in mind that visible light is a very narrow range of frequencies. There is a lot more overall infrared energy than pure visible energy.
Of course, if our biological “heat” sensors aren’t tuned to react with our brain in a coordinated way when pure visible light hits them (let’s assume), then we won’t feel the heat imparted to us.
>> near infrared microscopic, thermal infrared, the invisible heat we can feel, the size of a pin head
Yes, the wavelengths are different, but the question I have is why do you say that visible light cannot be absorbed and heat things, generally?
Why do you appear to say that if we can’t feel it with our skin then it isn’t heat?
What happens when visible light hits a black substance? Where does the light go? Where does the energy go?
If electrons are excited, what happens when they lose their excitation state? Where does the energy go?
Myrhh, this is not a climate science page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html
>> The different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum have very different effects upon interaction with matter. Starting with low frequency radio waves, the human body is quite transparent. (You can listen to your portable radio inside your home since the waves pass freely through the walls of your house and even through the person beside you!) As you move upward through microwaves and infrared to visible light, you absorb more and more strongly. In the lower ultraviolet range, all the uv from the sun is absorbed in a thin outer layer of your skin. As you move further up into the x-ray region of the spectrum, you become transparent again, because most of the mechanisms for absorption are gone. You then absorb only a small fraction of the radiation, but that absorption involves the more violent ionization events. Each portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has quantum energies appropriate for the excitation of certain types of physical processes. The energy levels for all physical processes at the atomic and molecular levels are quantized, and if there are no available quantized energy levels with spacings which match the quantum energy of the incident radiation, then the material will be transparent to that radiation, and it will pass through.
(cont)
> Visible Light Interactions
> The primary mechanism for the absorption of visible light photons is the elevation of electrons to higher energy levels. There are many available states, so visible light is absorbed strongly. With a strong light source, red light can be transmitted through the hand or a fold of skin, showing that the red end of the spectrum is not absorbed as strongly as the violet end.
> While exposure to visible light causes heating, it does not cause ionization with its risks. You may be heated by the sun through a car windshield, but you will not be sunburned – that is an effect of the higher frequency uv part of sunlight which is blocked by the glass of the windshield.
Did you note that: “visible light causes heating”
This is not “climate science”.
Do you remember what NASA said? Visible light can turn into heat.
Myhrr:
>> So, lots of confusion created by AGWSF to better sell its propaganda, it has reduced the physical world to a one dimensional reality
The following doesn’t sound 1 dimensional to me:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html
> How do we model climate?
> Climate models are systems of differential equations derived from the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry formulated to be solved on supercomputers. For the solution the planet is covered by a 3-dimensional grid to which the basic equations are applied and evaluated. At each grid point, e.g. for the atmosphere, the motion of the air (winds), heat transfer (thermodynamics), radiation (solar and terrestrial), moisture content (relative humidity) and surface hydrology (precipitation, evaporation, snow melt and runoff) are calculated as well as the interactions of these processes among neighboring points. The computations are stepped forward in time from seasons to centuries depending on the study.
Jose_X @ur momisugly December 4, at 6:18 pm
Actually, my laptop is becoming painfully slow, in this very long thread, and to make matters worse I’m heading to the mountains for a couple of days, where I may get a poor radio signal or maybe even none at all.
I’m rather surprised that the comment count as given at the head of comments has reached just over 600, you hitting #600, although it has wandered a bit off-topic. Why 888, or did you mean 666?
I hope you can find time to carefully read the Bishop Hill article in full, because there are many important revelations in there. It may be a while before I can respond to your other issues, but I hope to get back to you soon. Meanwhile, I should mention something to Myrrh that he may have overlooked in his long-standing crusade to radically change quantum theory and stuff.
Myrrh,
I see you are still crusading that EMR in the visible, near IR, and UV is not thermal radiation. I take it that you still do not accept that sea water absorbs sunlight mostly by around 100m depth, and that you did not conduct an experiment with IR blocking glass. Etc, etc and etc.
Here anew for your consideration is a graph of the spectrum of sunlight, which follows quite closely a Planck curve as if the sun were a black body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Notice that the Y axis has the same parameters for ALL wavelengths. Notice also that according to this graph, the far IR comprises a rather small proportion of the depicted energy output from from the the sun.
Are you able to explain why you think that this Planck curve is wrong, and at what wavelength is the boundary between thermal EMR, and some other undescribed form of EMR in the same units, that you allege is not thermal?
Tom Folkerts, does that Utube experiment infer that the entire infra red spectrum is absorbed by CO2? This cannot be true, particularly of the 5 to 12 micron waveband.
* This simple experiment disagrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
Robert
The video doesn’t say what wavelengths of IR the camera picks up. Presumably it is tuned to pick up only (or at least primarily) in a band that is absorbed by CO2.
Tom Folkerts says – ‘ Presumably it is tuned to pick up only (or at least primarily) in a band that is absorbed by CO2.’
In other words it is ‘cherry-picked’ for the AGW cause; it is far more potent than the hockey stick!
Robert
One man’s “cherry-pick” is another man’s “highlight”. Since I see no intent to deceive, I have no problem with them showing that CO2 does indeed block some of the IR, which is exactly what is claimed by scientists when explaining the “greenhouse effect”. I really don’t expect a 2 minute video clip for the general public to show any greater detail than this.
The “hockey stick”, however, does bother me a bit. It appears that they selected data not based only on how good the data was, but also partly on how well it supported their hypothesis. That is poor practice in anyone’s book (other than a defense attorney’s).
Tom Folkerts says – “One man’s “cherry-pick” is another man’s “highlight”. Since I see no intent to deceive, I have no problem with them showing that CO2 does indeed block some of the IR, which is exactly what is claimed by scientists when explaining the “greenhouse effect”.
A greenhouse blocks all of the IR which is not the same thing. That camera in the video clip should be tuned to the wavelengths that CO2 does not block to give a balanced view. I learnt this when I was first studying physics at 14. So I could never accept the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the warmists. Most folks watching that clip believe that all IR is absorbed by CO2 .
Robert Stevenson,
That youtube experiment was not “natural” unfortunately. It was created for demo purposes of CO2 absorbing potential. The CCD used to view the image was not at a realistic frequency and computer enhancement was rather tuned to that narrow range. It may have been partly to oversell global warming, maybe, I don’t know. It may have been partly as many science demos are for young students, to attract them to science. However, the title is rather straightforward and shows that effect. One can assume it is not a regular camera.
I had come across a page on the web that specified those details, but I can no longer find that same discussion.
Robert.. an update. The page doesn’t specifically mention computer manipulation (maybe I just assumed they used computers to do digital filtering), but you can read that they use filters and focus on a tight range in order to show the effect. http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html .
Jose_X, – So reading between the lines you seem to agree with me on this point then Jose. Incidentally are you going for the world blogging record; can’t be far looking at the above posts.
Jose_X, says:
Robert Stevenson,
That youtube experiment was not “natural” unfortunately.
Viewing the clip for a second time I must say it is a charlatan’s trick to inflict that experiment on schoolboys. They’ll all go home and ‘lecture’ their parents about the evils of carbon dioxide and catastrophic, hyperfeedback, ice-cap melting, man-made, global warming; becoming distorted scientific thinkers at an early age. Unless they see through it of course.
Robert >> So reading between the lines you seem to agree with me
Yes, I think it overplays the effect. Doing so is an significant issue depending on context. Backers will say that it is better to be safe than sorry, that it’s a partially inaccurate presentation of an accurate effect intended to warn of a believed important global issue. The planet is not candle hot, surely, but a few degrees of warming can be very serious (the latter is currently accepted science regardless of what non-experts think).
I don’t like seeing inaccuracies. You can for a very long time have misconception about physical effects because of being mislead by an experiment.
I think the key is to explain how the experiment was done without overselling it (ie, this is a show of x effect, period). This would include toning down the dialog in a couple of places.
I’m not appalled by it, but, especially in the current environment, there might be many who would be angered.
BTW, my objection is at the very beginning and later on where it is suggested that the actual atmosphere blocks a great deal of radiation that perhaps it does not. However, I agree with Tim, that you can only get so precise in such a short demo. The page I linked to can serve as the needed disclosure.
So the CO2 absorbed in the 4 micro range not the 15 micro range. That is roughly 750 K. Bad experiment.
mkelly, I think you are generalizing too much based on peak wavelength notions. The radiation at 300K is very broad. What was chosen could have been at the other end of the spectrum in a different part of CO2 absorption band (implying something much colder than average daily temperatures). The chosen focal point was done based on available technology. It needed to be sharp so that the effect would stand out. In many ways, the actual narrow slice is arbitrary, and the experiment wouldn’t be too much better or worse if chosen elsewhere.
Jose_X, I went to the link you provided. The experiment does not show that Co2 absorbs in the 15 micro range to show the effects of AGW . It is an exaggerated experiment, so bad.
Mkelly & Jose
This wonderful “experiment” reminds me of OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG from University Queensland, an extreme activist prophesying the death of the Great Barrier Reef. He appeared on a Richard Attenborough BBC Movie where he demonstrated that by blowing air from his lungs through a tube into a container of seawater, the alkalinity dropped slightly. THERE! Death by acidification! What a fruitcake! I wouldn’t mind his job though!
Then in that recent Al Gorathon, Anthony Watts showed that in the “experiment” heating a jar with CO2 in it, that it was done with naughty video techniques
The Utube experiment is typical of the global warming bias on BBC TV, a public broadcaster funded by a licence fee payable (£145 pa) by every household in the UK. The BBC is a politically driven organisation with a strong left wing bias; for instance a play commissioned by the BBC entitled ‘The Falklands Play’ was denied a prime time slot because it was allegedly deemed too sypathetic to the former prime minister Mrs Thatcher.
The experiment was akin to the apalling film made by Al Gore; I watched that film on TV and was amazed by just how blatantly flawed it was, not one bit of it rang true.
etc….
Robert, Jose & mkelly
What annoys me about these crap experiments is that some people are impressed by them, and it is intended to scare the pants off them, what with gross exaggeration, and even irrelevance.
Furthermore, the silly thing is that sceptics mostly agree that there is global warming, (well, up to about a decade ago), but that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is a significant factor in it, or that it is unprecedented. Many influential people still believe or claim that the hockey-stick proves that there was no MWP, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and proof that the scientists involved were & are, very naughty indeed.
Coming back to that Youtube experiment, it was only 1 minute long so I watched it. One thing that puzzled me was that the candle, with a colour temperature of over 1,000 C, emits a lot of visible light, yet the CO2 was demonstrated to extinguish that light. Doesn’t the greenhouse theory depend on CO2 not absorbing visible light?