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.
Robert Clemenzi,
“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
”
In case someone else hasn’t answered this,
You are measuring the BRIGHTNESS of the atmosphere with your IR thermometer. It is most likely calibrated for an emissivity of greater than .95 which is too large for the atmosphere as it was NOT designed for atmospheric work. IF it has adjustable emissivity you should do some research and set it correctly.
Next it reads this brightness from about 7-14 microns. If you will look at the numerous charts of the atmospheric emissions you will find that this is primarily WINDOW where only water vapor has a small absorptivity and emissivity.
Additionally S-B is BUILT INTO the instrument. That is, the emissivity is used along with the temperature to do an S-B relationship to give you a reading. There is absolutely no direct reading of the actual IR emitted by CO2. So, when you claim you can tell how much DLR there is, you should understand that it just may not be quite as accurate as you are assuming. It is based on assumptions that your conditions may not meet.
Tim Folkerts.
“And following up on that point, the calculations you have are all for clear skies. If you model a cumulus cloud base, the numbers are much higher. For example, the first line for looking up from 10 m in a clear tropical sky was 348 W/m^2 in your table, but 418 W/m^2 when cloudy. Arctic winter goes from 163 W/m^2 to 243 W/m^2.”
As most IR from the ground is absorbed within the first 10m, I would also think that any IR from above, if emitted from over 10m up would have little chance of getting to the ground!!! As this area is where much of the thermalization of the IR occurs I keep wondering what the real numbers are at sea level and the surface of the ocean. At higher altitudes we are cooler as there is more radiation directly to space due to less atmosphere.
Anyone got some actual ground measurements? The gradient at the surface is apparently a lot higher due to the density of the atmosphere and humidity!!!
When absorbable photons (with the right frequency or in the correct waveband) are absorbed to extinction in the lower or near ground atmosphere (relatively) by CO2 and H20 molecules what happens to them? Do they become more ‘energetic’ ie with higher velocities and therefore higher KE which can be measured as an increase in temperature? The answer logically must be yes. The temperature reached must be less than the ground emitter to obtain a net flow of photons into this system. An increase in CO2 and H2O would reduce the depth of the absorption layer but not the number of first generation photons absorbed ie Q in the equation Q=M*Cp*dT would remain unchanged. Any change in dT would depend on the depth and composition of the absorption layer (M & Cp); but whatever the change, any increase in CO2 would have virtually no effect because it is an insignificant absorber when compared with H20. There is !00 times more H2O present and H2O’s absorption bands are much wider.
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly October 28, at 6:05 am, you wrote:
But actually, it would be considerably more difficult [for Trenberth] to draw “correctly”. He could have drawn an arrow down from high (altitude) clouds and from low clouds and from middle clouds and from high O3 and low H2O and middle CO2. But soon the diagram would have 100+ arrows distinguishing flows to and from land and ocean and clouds and CO2 and sun and ….
Well yes, but very easy to draw it partly right, rather than really daft. See my quick sketch. (ignoring the values)
http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/quick-sketch-for-trenberth-cartoon/
Tim Folkerts,
“No. The IR comes from all directions, not just from one direction. There is no “night side” where IR from the atmosphere does not shine.”
You use a common dodge. How much thermal storage does a GHG molecule have?? How long can it emit without absorbing more IR??
Without the earth emitting IR as it cools and the non-GHG’s to collide with to gain energy the GHG’s would stop emitting within a second after sundown. Trying to explain a portion of an energy flow is misleading.
Further to mine just above, does anyone think it a bit odd that Trenberth shows 40 escaping directly to space passing through a window in high clouds. It would be very easy to draw so as to avoid the depicted clouds.
jae,
for a treatment of Venus that covers much of the misapprehensions and the actual DATA from the space missions John Ackerman’s paper is probably the best. The explanation of how it got so hot in the first place I would skip till later as it is speculation as everyone else’s ides. The rest on what is happening NOW probably comes closest to the reality of the planet.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
>>
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
October 28, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Further to mine just above, does anyone think it a bit odd that Trenberth shows 40 escaping directly to space passing through a window in high clouds. It would be very easy to draw so as to avoid the depicted clouds.
<<
It’s drawn the same in KT 97. I question the computation of that 40 W/m² window. But I’m the only one who seems bothered by it.
Jim
kuhnkat says: October 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“As most IR from the ground is absorbed within the first 10m, I would also think that any IR from above, if emitted from over 10m up would have little chance of getting to the ground!!!
IR within bands that are emitted & absorbed by CO2 and H2O may have traveled only short distances, but IR from outside those bands (for example, from the nearly BB radiation from clouds) can travel quite far. So at least SOME IR from high above the ground can reach the ground.
kuhnkat also says:
“You use a common dodge. How much thermal storage does a GHG molecule have?? How long can it emit without absorbing more IR??”
I’m really not sure what your concern is here. As you say in the next paragraph, the GHG’s can ‘recharge’ by either absorbing IR from the ground or by colliding with the other gases in the atmosphere. We agree on that point. Based on this, the IR from GHGs can continue to radiate all night long, which is all I was claiming.
Bob FJ
Your diagram with sloping arrows has some good points.
My concern is that – by trying to indicate a depth to the atmosphere – you now open yourself to all sorts of questions about how quickly the arrows should taper of and how high the clouds are and how energy is transferred within the atmosphere and how high convection goes and ….
Trenberth apparently chose to avoid those details in his diagram. You are welcome to include more details (like Willis did), but I don’t think that necessarily makes one “better” than the other — just different.
Bob Fj
“Further to mine just above, does anyone think it a bit odd that Trenberth shows 40 escaping directly to space passing through a window in high clouds. It would be very easy to draw so as to avoid the depicted clouds.”
I was reading a thesis on minimum local emissivity variances by David Taylor of UWM. There was 1RU ~ 20K unaccounted for in the Arctic that appeared to be absorbed by the atmosphere and not a calibration issue, i.e. missing in action. The Antacrtic flux readings are even more bizzare, +/- *0 Wm-2 in some areas. I believe the 40 is a don’t know indication. NASA shows the absorption and indicates atmospheric window radiation from the clouds as it should be, water and ice have a different spectrum.
About the only thing that can be learned from K&T is that they aren’t very sure what’s going on other than models are much more accurate determining 0.8Wm-2 net warming +/-0.18 CI 🙂
Windchaser,
“And by slowing down the loss of heat through the stratosphere, the troposphere will also become warmer.. and thus the overall global warming effect.”
And just how much slowing do you think extra CO2 causes, 1 second 2???? If it isn’t at least 24 hours…
Bob FJ,
“for instance water that is wave affected only has a fairly momentary oopsy, because what was concave alternates with being convex, at which time, it will radiate to below the horizontal. (= radiate more than S-B). Also, on land, (even on collectively flat ground), vegetation might at first seem to be an issue, but broadly speaking it’s all in equilibrium. (Well, according to Trenberth anyway). Thus that vegetation will simultaneously radiate to below the horizontal in more or less isotropic fashion”
For water there are always waves from small to large. The SB would be at worst there. Very small irregularities like cracks would cause small irregularities in SB. I haven’t seen any work on how much would cause a significant problem, but, my wag would be that Mountainous areas, water that isn’t very calm, and vegetation would not provide surface areas that would allow reasonable SB computations. The crude experiments where Solar Cookers are used to freeze water at night shows why this could be an issue. When surface areas radiate themselves there is a much larger energy flux than when just the atmosphere is at work. The water won’t freeze. When surface irregularities are blocked from irradiating the cookers view of a clear sky, water can be frozen at an air temp of 40F. Clouds also can interfere, but, not as much as trees, buildings…
We are told that DLR slows cooling of the surface. These crude experiments show that surface roughness can slow the cooling of the surface!!!!! As you point out there would appear to be more radiation in a horizontal mode. This would be an important issue here.
Do you know if there are computations where the Planck Equations have been used to estimate the actual emissions from the atmosphere or their absorption?? SB simply doesn’t apply and the Spectra simply doesn’t provide data as to where radiation is actually coming an going. Only that there are “holes” at the top and the bottom. It doesn’t tell us if that radiation has been frequency shifted by collision and emission.
The horizon issues are in reference to your geometry picture mostly. As anything but straight up is almost certainly to be reabsorbed the IR has a second (or 3,4,5,6…) chance to be transferred thru collision or emitted to the ground. I have issues as to whether much ever gets thru the dense surface layer to hit the ground, but, that is for another day.
Tim Folkerts,
“IR within bands that are emitted & absorbed by CO2 and H2O may have traveled only short distances, but IR from outside those bands (for example, from the nearly BB radiation from clouds) can travel quite far. So at least SOME IR from high above the ground can reach the ground.”
SOME IR is NOT ~320w/m2.
“As you say in the next paragraph, the GHG’s can ‘recharge’ by either absorbing IR from the ground or by colliding with the other gases in the atmosphere. We agree on that point. Based on this, the IR from GHGs can continue to radiate all night long, which is all I was claiming.”
Thank you. Many people seem to think that GHG’s somehow BLOCK IR and RETAIN it in the atmosphere or HEAT the earth with it. I simply wish to make sure the flow is understood and that it never stops. A continuous COOLING except when an energy supply is present.
I apologize for the snarky comment.
kuhnkat says:
October 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm
You are measuring the BRIGHTNESS
That is a good point. I interpret the readings as “number of photons”, more or less.That way I don’t really care about the emissivity. On a clear day, it might read -20F, but on a cloudy day, about 40F. This clearly shows that more photons come from clouds than from a clear sky. When pointed at the Earth, the “temperature” can also be interpreted as a number of photons.
The point is that a simple $10 tool can demonstrate the reality of back radiation. But kuhnkat is correct – it is wrong to interpret the reading as a “true temperature”, but I think is is still a good representation of an “effective temperature” – the temperature of a blackbody emitting the same number of photons that the atmosphere is currently emitting.
it reads this brightness from about 7-14 microns
Unfortunately, I have no way to determine the tool’s frequency range. I agree that this is one area that could (should) cause major problems. Thanks for pointing it out.
In my October 28, at 2:44 pm, I wrote:
Robert Clemenzi @ur momisugly October 28, at 1:09 pm, & Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly 9:03 am
I recollect that Willis launched his version over at Steve McIntyre’s site several years ago, based on K&T97.
I’m a bit surprised that he has not joined in, in this here.
Well here it is; the Willis-wisdom from January 2008: Energy Balance at the Tropopause, at CA:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/10/energy-balance-at-the-tropopause/
If you have the energy to go through all the comments, you may recognise some commenters that have also appeared here.
In my previous life, under a “nom de blog” of Black Wallaby, (indicating Oz heritage), I also appeared there, but not as Bob_FJ.
Back in those days Willis Eschenbach, when he constructed his “improved” Trenberth thingy, he was obviously still learning on some of the physics. For instance, how about this absolute gem of his:
Honest; me not joking; that is what he actually wrote…… (and with some repetition), read through the 2008 thread comments if you don’t believe me.
kuhnkat @ur momisugly October 28, at 8:32 pm
Thank you for your comments, but I need time to think on some of them, and will get back to you later
RE: Bill Illis October 28, 2011 at 7:10 am
Michel says:
October 28, 2011 at 1:08 am
The major air components O2, N2, and Ar don’t absorb in the IR range.
———————–
Sure they do.
About 0.00000000015 seconds after a CO2, H2O, or CH4 molecule absorbs a photon in the IR range.
_______________________________
Bill,
Sorry, you can’t be right, or you would have to show an absorption spectrum in the IR range for those molecules (O2, N2, Ar).
But you are also right: the consequence of absorbing IR radiations is a temperature increase, (energy absorbed divided by the heat capacity = delta T).
This heat is dissipated within the whole air mass by conduction (and later convection).
This is the mechanism explaining “forcing”.
And this is approx. 3.7 W m-2 for each doubling of CO2 concentration (it’s a logarithmic scale):
– from 280 to 560 ppm: 3.7 W m-2
– we are now at 391 ppm: therefore the forcing is at about 1.8 W m-2 as compared to the alleged historic value of 280 ppm
– from 391 to 782 ppm: another 3.7 W m-2
So, let’s not panic for these small and slow, nonetheless existing, effects.
Tim Faulkner says:
“Trenberth apparently chose to avoid those details in his diagram. You are welcome to include more details (like Willis did), but I don’t think that necessarily makes one “better” than the other — just different.”
I have to disagree. It is not just another way to portray the energy budget. Since radiation in a gas can emit in any direction in a full spherical manner, Trenberth, you I assume and others like to view it as ½ traveling upward, 396 Wm-2 from a 16 °C average surface and then there’s the 333 Wm-2 radiation raining down from the sky blue. But, under those conditions there must be 666 Wm-2 “up there” radiating in all directions ½, or 333 Wm-2, returning to keep the surface warm at 16 °C as people who believe in back-radiation see it.
Didn’t know before tonight that you have a PhD in physics so maybe you can clarify for us here just where this 666 Wm-2 (kind of prophetic) is located vertically in the sky and why there is not the other half 333 Wm-2 radiating upward to space plus the 396 Wm-2 from the surface. (seems it is you that said radiation “knows nothing of it’s surrounding matter”).
You talk like you know physics, so, don’t you see why so many rightfully have problems with Trenberth’s presentation of the IR portion? And that is just one aspect. Bob hit another one on the head in his article.
kuhnkat says:
October 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“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.”
kuhnkat if I correctly understand gases do radiate only in the same bands that they receive, only if the temperature is high enough. This would mean the CO2 from the stratosphere will radiate in the lower CO2 bandwidths, not the higher ones, and the radiation will be intercepted by CO2 about 10 meters below and above it. All this radiation in both directions is still net heat transfer from warm to cold.
Michel says:
October 29, 2011 at 1:43 am
N2, O2 etc do absorb a little infrared, if you have ever used infrared spectroscopy before, the background absorbance reading is around 10 percent when none of the main greenhouse gases cover this band. (H2O, CO2, CH4, or O3 etc) This is down to the main gases in the air, nitrogen and oxygen. (only small yes, but still there.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
October 28, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Well here it is; the Willis-wisdom from January 2008: Energy Balance at the Tropopause, at CA:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/10/energy-balance-at-the-tropopause/
Thanks, but I don’t see it there. Perhaps you are referring to greenhouse.bmp, which is not found. The earliest example I have found is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/another-look-at-climate-sensitivity/
At any rate, it appears that Willis invented that image himself. In my opinion, it is wrong at many levels. First, the water in the troposphere emits a significant amount of energy directly to space. The proof is the increasing emissions from 400 to 600 cm-1 in figure 5 above. Next, the peak in the CO2 emissions to space (also in figure 5) comes from above the stratopause. In addition, there are no significant atmosphere to atmosphere photons that cross the tropopause. In addition, there is a significant energy transfer from the stratosphere it the tropopause.
I don’t see any allowance in the charts for the nuclear furnace beneath our feet. Something other than the sun is heating mines of 1,000 feet to 120F degrees and more. Magma isn’t being kept fluid by the sun or gravity. Seems it should be at least a few percent, and should show up in measurements and models if we think they are accurate to 10ths of a percent.
There seem to be lots of flaws in Trenberth’s diagram. The most obvious to me is designating all the downward LW radiation received at the surface as ‘back radiation’. This is highly misleading, as downward LW has three potential sources and only a fraction of it is ‘back radiation’ (that which last originated surface emitted LW). The diagram makes it look like of the 396 W/m^2 emitted from the surface, 333 W/m^2 is coming back from the atmosphere, which is incorrect.
He also designates 78 W/m^2 of the post albedo is being ‘absorbed by the atmosphere’ and then brings this to the surface as part of the 333 W/m^2 designated as ‘back radiation’. This portion isn’t not ‘back radiation’ but ‘forward radiation’ from the Sun yet to reach the surface (key distinction).
Also, has anyone else noticed that he returns all the non-radiative flux from the surface to the atmosphere (latent heat and thermals) in the form of downward LW lumped in as part of the 333 W/m^2 designated as ‘back radiation’? What then is the source of the energy in the temperature component of precipitation? It’s not there.
Robert Clemenzi @ur momisugly October 29, at 8:47 am
Sorry, I did not check the links, but I can assure you that the Willis version was there, back in 2008. He remains proud of it, because he cited it again last August in his article here; “Radiating the Oceans”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/#more-45114
Somewhere in the over 900 comments. He sure does generate debate!
HEAT: Semantic misconceptions
Here is an extract from Wikipedia under that heading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
My recollection is that physicists, not long ago, were quite happy to define HEAT at the quantum level as the state of kinetic energy within matter. Nowadays it seems that they prefer to consider it as a transfer of thermal energy from A to B.
The latter terminology is in conflict with engineering, where there is a whole field on “Heat Transfer”. In engineering, the heat content of matter can be calculated for any constant temperature; it is not necessarily a transient condition.
I think the sensible solution to the semantics issue is to consider the context of the use of the word.