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) | |||
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fred Berple raises the old ‘ice cube and hot object fallacy’. He says at 9:38 PM,
“A large block of ice and a small candle flame both emit the same amount of EMR. However, only one is capable of warming a human being.”
Normally we think of an ice cube as being cold, because most things around us are normally warmer than that. Thus the analogy seems reasonable at first sight. How could an ice cube warm us? We all make the implicit assumption that if the ice cube wasn’t there, there would be something else, warmer, in its place – this is our normal experience.
But lets say you are in the cold vacuum of space, close to absolute zero. Now the ice cube is relatively warm, and you will receive much more radiation from it than you were previously receiving from ‘nothing’. If the energy received from it is the same as from the candle flame (which was the predicate) then It will provide the same heating effect as the candle flame. A black body absorbs all the radiation falling on it, whether from an ice cube or a candle.
.
wstannard says: October 27, 2011 at 3:31 am
According to Trenberth’s figure the downward radiation from the GH gasses in the atmosphere. is 333 W/m2. But there must be an equal amount upward. Does’nt the atmosphere radiate infrared in all directions. If 333 W/m2 were radiated from the atmosphere to space we would have far more energy leaving the Earth then received! Surely this backradiation figure is a nonsense.
The diagram is indeed “nonsense” to the extent that it is intended to be about the simplest possible diagram. One vast simplification is that it shows the atmosphere as one object, when in fact the calculations and observations that support it must look at the atmosphere as layered.
Willis Eschenbach created a great “slightly more realistic” diagram that splits the atmosphere into a lower layer and and upper layer. This helps explain why the atmospheric radiation is not the same up into space as down to the surface.
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/trenberth_mine_latest_big.jpg
A question inspired by this article though only slightly connected. If there is some warming from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere and so the air gets warmer, but because it is an open system the atmosphere will expand slightly and increase the mean free path of the photons leaving the surface. This would mean the window to space would get slightly larger and so act as a negative feedback. Has anyone, anywhere quantified the magnitude of this and is it significant?
“This is not science, it is an attempt to understand a climate system so complex that it can be discussed, modelled, hypothesised, even analysed, but can never confidently be understood and defined in scientific certainties. Not even attaching statistical degrees of uncertainty resolves this issue. The number and degree of uncertainties far outweigh our ability to make meaningful conclusions. In particular conclusions that require or support changes to our civilization such as are currently being FORCED upon us.”
I suggest the bigger picture is, by far, the more important aspect. The above comment is extracted from my blog http://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/global-warming-more-questions-than-answers/, where this post is acknowledged.
Thanks to Anthony for the usual ‘on the ball’ posts.
For one heart-stopping moment I thought someone had really got what was wrong with ” EMR is a form of energy that is sometimes confused with HEAT.”
Ask why is it so? says:
October 26, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I’m not sure I understand this article but just to clear a few things up, radiation is not heat. Heat is the result of the absorption of radiation by a surface or molecule. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does state that heat (without work) will only travel from higher to lower temperature, that is correct, however, radiation is not heat.
Thermal radiation, thermal infrared, is heat. It is the thermal energy of the Sun. It is heat on the move. Not all electromagnetic radiation is heat.
What is wrong with this energy budget is that LIGHT from the Sun, shortwave, non-thermal, has been given the properties of HEAT from the Sun, which is thermal energy on the move, thermal infrared from the Sun direct to us, thermal radiation.
For example, visible LIGHT cannot heat water because it doesn’t have the mechanism to do so, water is a transparent medium for visible LIGHT and so visible light is transmitted through without being absorbed, visible light cannot move the molecules of water into the vibrational state which is heat.
HEAT on the other hand, does have the mechanism to heat water, and does. This is the real energy which is heating the land and oceans directly from the Sun.
Not only has the KT taken out the world’s real energy budget the energy direct from the Sun to the surface which is the real source of heating the Earth, the Sun’s thermal energy, thermal infrared – it has given the properties of thermal infrared to visible, it has swapped HEAT to LIGHT around. It is saying that shortwave is thermal energy.
Not so much a paradox, more junk science fiction produced by the AGWSF department to sell its wares.
I have just had a long discussion on this and do not have the time to go through it all again here, but for any interested in telling the difference between this junk energy budget in order to understand what is really going on in our world, this has to begin with disentangling the science fiction memes about heat and light from the real physical properties of energy and matter.
You can start here with the difference between Heat and Light:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-778960
=======================
Bob Fernley-Jones – your link to HEAT takes to a page of junk physics.
Here’s real world physics on HEAT.
The radiation budget graphic should be re-done in various scenarios:
– at noon when it is cloudy;
– at noon when it is clear;
– middle of the night when it is cloudy;
– middle of the night when it is clear.
– for the surface;
– for the tropopause
It will be a far less cloudy picture and be much more clear in that case.
Incoming solar irradiance is 1366 W/mw at noon and Zero at night. All the numbers are vastly different when it is cloudy versus clear. The tropopause energy levels barely changes at all from day to night, from clear to cloudy conditions, everything happens below that level.
Anglo-Oz “physics”.
It would be better, WUWT abstains from such “contributions”.
Sorry, but the Earth has no lid, and not having a lid impedes heat confining, as the so called “green-house effect” it is not other thing than confined heat:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
What would you choose for keeping your feet warm, a bottle filled with warm air or, instead, a bottle filled with hot water?….That´s simply because its Volumetric Heat Capacity is:
Air=0.001297 joules cm3/kg
Water=4.186 joules cm3/kg
This means that water holds heat 3227 times more than air.
Why is it that the 161 W/m^2 incoming from the sun can heat my sun tea, but the 333 W/m^2 down from the atmosphere (CO2) cannot?
wstannard says:
October 27, 2011 at 3:31 am
According to Trenberth’s figure the downward radiation from the GH gasses in the atmosphere. is 333 W/m2. But there must be an equal amount upward.
I have a similar problem with the first graphic. On the left hand side it has 161 W/m^2 being absorbed by the surface as the initial forcing but on the right hand side 396 W/m^2 as out going surface radiation.
If this figure is derived from near surface back radiation then the value in an open system can only be twice the constant input value of the black body (BB) radiator. This is because the near gas molecule can only accumulate enough energy to radiate (in this case) 161 Watts back too the BB and 161 Watts away. The BB and molecule will then be at radiative equilibrium of 322 Watts. I don’t understand where the 396 W/m^2 comes from.
jason says:
October 27, 2011 at 12:24 am
Very interesting discussion, which demonstrates clearly that the view that sceptics are politically rather than scientifically motivated is false.
Good to see R Gates removing more of his mask. He starts off posting in the arctic threads arguing with steve m, then reveals he is a buddy of Trenberth, and now demonstrates in this thread that his understanding of the subject goes way above a layman. R Gates is I believe someone far closer to the heart of the debate than he has let on until now. Genuinely sceptical mind turned, or trojan horse?
_____
Really, aspersions as to my intentions, relationships, etc. are quite unecessary and, more importantly, completely inaccurate. I comment here when I see something that sparks my interest, I have no relationship to Dr. Trenberth other than the fact that we live in the same state, and I think for many of those frequenting WUWT our knowledge of the subject at hand go well beyond the “layman”.
In terms of my own position of AGW. I remain more convinced than not that it is happening (I put the percentage at 75% just to show it is more than 51/50, but not 99%). Finally, I am currently not a believer in catastrophic AGW.
@R. Gates says:
October 27, 2011 at 7:11 am
“[…]
In terms of my own position of AGW. I remain more convinced than not that it is happening (I put the percentage at 75% just to show it is more than 51/50, but not 99%). Finally, I am currently not a believer in catastrophic AGW.”
I’ve known known your position stated in the first portion of that last paragraph, as anyone who’s read WUWT for a while has seen you post that a number of times phrased a number of different ways. I don’t recall you ever posting a statement as direct about CAGW as that last sentence, though you could have and I missed it. (P.S. Thanks for your comments. WUWT is not an echo chamber and it’s because you are one of several who helps keep it that way with some good points that you throw into the mix. Thanks again.)
R. Gates;
Really, aspersions as to my intentions, relationships, etc. are quite unecessary and, more importantly, completely inaccurate.>>>
REPLY: If you would provide straight forward answers to questions that wouldn’t be the case. But you don’t.
R. Gates;
I comment here when I see something that sparks my interest, I have no relationship to Dr. Trenberth other than the fact that we live in the same state,>>>
REPLY: You proudly proclaimed yourself as the “go between” who arranged for an invitation for 20 people from WUWT to meet with Kevin Trenberth. You accomplished this merely by living in the same state as Trenberth? I call BS.
R. Gates;
and I think for many of those frequenting WUWT our knowledge of the subject at hand go well beyond the “layman”.>>>
REPLY: Putting aside the royal “our”, excuse me, but you barely qualify as a layman. Consider the bet with me which you jumped into and then welched on. You agreed to wager that Al Gore’s experiment, if conducted as illustrated, would show the results as illustrated. You failed to notice that Al Gore’s experiment as illustrated made use of infrared heating lamps, making it IMPOSSIBLE for the experiment to demonstrate the greenhouse effect in the first place. Then, to compound your so called “well beyond” the knowledge of a layman, you suggested taking the globes OUT of the jars as they were superflous to the experiment. Really? Tell me please, with nothing in the jar to absorb SW and re-radiate it as LW, exactly how could the “greenhouse effect” be demonstrated? That thread alone demonstrated how limited your understanding of the physics is, and I could draw many more examples from many more threads. You constantly parrot the words of others, and when people with knowledge start asking pointed questions, you get backed into a corner and simply stop responding. Or welch on the bet. Whatever.
R. Gates;
In terms of my own position of AGW. I remain more convinced than not that it is happening (I put the percentage at 75% just to show it is more than 51/50, but not 99%). Finally, I am currently not a believer in catastrophic AGW.>>>
REPLY: Really? Can you point to a single skeptic comment about any part of the CAGW debate anywhere in the WUWT forum? Ever? Just one? As for not believing in “C”AGW, shall I cut and paste from all those comments of yours about chaos theory and sand piles collapsing under the weight of a single grain of sand?
The difference between solar radiation and back radiaiton is that the latter is hardly absorbed at all by a volume of water. ( 65 percent solar) Water in the energy buget diagram is completely ignored is this situation and despite the oceans being the most important with regulating global atmospheric temperatures. This is easily shown by comparing how a volume of water warms during one day in the sun and in the shade. Therefore the heat transfer is demonstrated to be huge by solar, but negligible with back radiation. I always new the energy buget diagram was wrong and didn’t reflect observed reality.
Myrrh says:
October 27, 2011 at 5:15 am
For example, visible LIGHT cannot heat water because it doesn’t have the mechanism to do so, water is a transparent medium for visible LIGHT and so visible light is transmitted through without being absorbed, visible light cannot move the molecules of water into the vibrational state which is heat.
Yet it does. 100 meters of water absorbs all the visible light falling on it, so heats it. Visible light move water molecules into overtones of symmetric and anti-symmetric vibrations.
R Gates says…In terms of my own position of AGW. I remain more convinced than not that it is happening (I put the percentage at 75% just to show it is more than 51/50, but not 99%). Finally, I am currently not a believer in catastrophic AGW.
Well there is wisdom in that, would you care to quantify the warming thus far between natural, UHI, and AGW?
One more question if you are in the mood. If a hypothetical GHG were to increase the LWR in the atmosphere, but decrease the SWR entering the oceans by an equal amount, which would have a greater effect on the earths energy budget and would that affect be warming or cooling?
Richard Keen says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Along with the paradox, the Trenberth et al. diagram also contains a statistical fantasy, which is the obscenely precise value of 0.9 W/m2 for the net absorbed.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing-the-hype/the_flat_earth
Thanks. I’ve always had a hard time even looking at Trenberth’s representation, because it’s really too much like a Cartoon out of some pre-Kindergarten book.
R. Gates says:
October 27, 2011 at 7:11 am
“Finally, I am currently not a believer in catastrophic AGW.”
That’s quite a statement because the main sceptic argument has been this, not that a little AGW likely doesn’t have at least a little influence.
Matt G says:
October 27, 2011 at 8:23 am
The format doesn’t like “” close together with numbers.
Therefore the bracket in this previous highlighted post should read ” (absorbance less than 1 percent LWDR v greater than 65 percent solar)”
mkelly askes:
“Why is it that the 161 W/m^2 incoming from the sun can heat my sun tea, but the 333 W/m^2 down from the atmosphere (CO2) cannot?
Perhaps you are looking at it incorrectly. The “natural” temperature of the universe is 3K. Absent some input of energy, objects would radiate away energy until they reached this temperature. If you took your sun tea far from the earth and sun, the sun tea would cool to 3K. Bring that sun tea back to the earth in a transparent, insulated container that removed any heat transfer by conduction. Even if all sunlight is blocked, the IR radiation would heat the sun tea to ~ 300 K.
Conversely, if you kept the tea far from the earth’s IR, but exposed it to 161 W/m^2 of sunlight, it would warm up, but it would end up well below 300 K (around 230 K for a blackbody).
So it is easy to argue that the earth’s IR is BETTER at warming your sun tea than the sun. The sun can only effectively warm the tea if the IR is ALREADY present.
Myrrh,
Without going in to the rest what you wrote, let me simple state that the source you choose as “real world physics” gives two completely contradictory definitions of “heat”.
1) “Heat is thermal energy in transfer.”
2) “Heat is always the thermal energy of some system.”
“Heat” cannot be both always within a system and always between two different systems.
If you base your posts on a source that is clearly inconsistent, then there is a good chance that any of your conclusions will also be inconsistent.
This is a most welcome article. Many thanks to WUWT for having the cahones to showcase it.The comments are also a delight as they reveal that more and more skeptics are waking up to the ‘Slayers’ science. The paradigm shift is upon us: there is no greenhouse gas effect and the K-T energy budget is utterly bogus.
Astrophysicist, Joe Postma says it all here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Tim Folkerts says:
October 27, 2011 at 8:44 am
mkelly askes:
“Why is it that the 161 W/m^2 incoming from the sun can heat my sun tea, but the 333 W/m^2 down from the atmosphere (CO2) cannot?
Mr. Folkerts says: “Even if all sunlight is blocked, the IR radiation would heat the sun tea to ~ 300 K.”
Balderdash. The IR given off by CO2 cannot do this. The 15 micro emission has an associated temperature via Wien’s Law of -73 C. The best that could happen is the tea would attain the air temperature via conduction.
Also, please let us talk of the earth and the atmosphere and not of space. I don’t live in space beyond the atmosphere. So what is important is what does or can happen where I live. I was looking at it correctly. The KT diagram says 161 W/m^2 at the earth’s surface that is where I put my sun tea and the sun heats it, CO2 cannot.
David Socrates asks:
1. Does back radiation to the Earth’s surface occur at all or is it “unphysical”?
Yes it does. It is easy to measure it with an IR thermometer. It can be seen in lapse rate plots. Back radiation is what causes the morning temperature inversion over land.
2. If it does, what proportion of that back radiation is due to CO2?
That is the important question. No one knows. My analysis indicates that it is close to zero at the surface and about 100% in the stratosphere.
To all, the fact that the amount of energy toward space is less than the amount toward the surface is proof that the atmosphere is IR opaque over a significant part of the spectrum.
R Gates
I have asked you this many times and perhaps you have answered but it got lost within the deluge of comments.
When do you believe the globe started warming? (we shall leave aside the one third of stations that are cooling that we pointed out in our article ‘in search of cooling trends’
I believe it started warming from 1607/8 albeit it has been in fits and starts with numerous serious reversals and astonishing advances (such as around 1700.)
Berkely appear to partially support my view with a rise from their start date of 1800.
Supplementary question; Who do you believe, Michael Mann or the Berkely study?
tonyb