Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Pushed by a commenter on another thread, I thought I’d discuss the R. W. Wood experiment, done in 1909. Many people hold that this experiment shows that CO2 absorption and/or back-radiation doesn’t exist, or at least that the poorly named “greenhouse effect” is trivially small. I say it doesn’t show anything at all. Let me show you the manifold problems with the experiment.
To start with, let me give a curious example of the greenhouse effect, that of the Steel Greenhouse. Imagine a planet in the vacuum of space. A residue of nuclear material reacting in the core warms it to where it is radiating at say 235 watts per square metre (W/m2). Figure 1 shows the situation.
Figure 1. Planet in outer space, heated from the interior. Drawing show equilibrium situation
This planet is at equilibrium. The natural reactor in the core of the planet is generating power that at the planet’s surface amounts to 235 W/m2. It is radiating the same amount, so it is neither warming nor cooling.
Now, imagine that without changing anything else, we put a steel shell around the planet. Figure 2 shows that situation, with one side of the shell temporarily removed so we can look inside.
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with a solid steel shell surrounding the planet. Near side of the shell temporarily removed to view interior. Vertical distance of the shell from the surface is greatly exaggerated for clarity—in reality the shell and the shell have nearly the same surface area. (A shell 6 miles (10 km) above the Earth has an exterior area only 0.3% larger than the Earth’s surface area.)
[UPDATE: Misunderstandings revealed in the comments demonstrated that I lacked clarity. To expand, let me note that because the difference in exterior surface area of the shell and the surface is only 0.3%, I am making the simplifying assumption that they are equal. This clarifies the situation greatly. Yes, it introduces a whopping error of 0.3% in the calculations, which people have jumped all over in the comments as if it meant something … really, folks, 0.3%? If you like, you can do the calculations in total watts, which comes to the same answer. I am also making the simplifying assumption that both the planet and shell are “blackbodies”, meaning they absorb all of the infrared that hits them.]
Now, note what happens when we add a shell around the planet. The shell warms up and it begins to radiate as well … but it radiates the same amount inwards and outwards. The inwards radiation warms the surface of the planet, until it is radiating at 470 W/m2. At that point the system is back in equilibrium. The planet is receiving 235 W/m2 from the interior, plus 235 W/m2 from the shell, and it is radiating the total amount, 470 W/m2. The shell is receiving 470 W/m2 from the planet, and it is radiating the same amount, half inwards back to the planet and half outwards to outer space. Note also that despite the fact that the planetary surface ends up much warmer (radiating 470 W/m2), energy is conserved. The same 235 W/m2 of power is emitted to space as in Figure 1.
And that is all that there is to the poorly named greenhouse effect. It does not require CO2 or an atmosphere, it can be built out of steel. It depends entirely on the fact that a shell has two sides and a solid body only has one side.
Now, this magical system works because there is a vacuum between the planet and the shell. As a result, the planet and the shell can take up very different temperatures. If they could not do so, if for example the shell were held up by huge thick pillars that efficiently conducted the heat from the surface to the shell, then the two would always be at the same temperature, and that temperature would be such that the system radiated at 235 W/m2. There would be no differential heating of the surface, and there would be no greenhouse effect.
Another way to lower the efficiency of the system is to introduce an atmosphere. Each watt of power lost by atmospheric convection of heat from the surface to the shell reduces the radiation temperature of the surface by the same amount. If the atmosphere can conduct the surface temperature effectively enough to the shell, the surface ends up only slightly warmer than the shell.
Let me summarize. In order for the greenhouse effect to function, the shell has to be thermally isolated from the surface so that the temperatures of the two can differ substantially. If the atmosphere or other means efficiently transfers surface heat to the shell there will be very little difference in temperature between the two.
Now, remember that I started out to discuss the R. W. Wood experiment. Here is the report of that experiment, from the author. I have highlighted the experimental setup.
Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.
I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the “open,” the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.
I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.
Here would be my interpretation of his experimental setup:
Figure 3. Cross section of the R. W. Wood experiment. The two cardboard boxes are painted black. One is covered with glass, which absorbs and re-emits infrared. The other is covered with rock salt, which is transparent to infrared. They are packed in cotton wool. Thermometers not shown.
Bearing in mind the discussion of the steel greenhouse above, I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to work out why this is not a valid test of infrared back-radiation on a planetary scale … please consider the presence of the air in the boxes, the efficiency of the convective heat transfer through that air from the box to the cover plates, the vertical temperature profile of that air, the transfer of power from the “surface” to the “shell” through the walls of the box, and the relative temperatures of the air, the box, and the transparent cover.
Seems to me like with a few small changes it could indeed be a valid test, however.
Best regards,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I thought saying they were the same other than one empty, and the other almost full of ice was the clear give away that they were identical otherwise, and without power the empty ones temp would quickly drop without power”
Here is what you said quote:
“Ok Will,
A word problem, with you and your families life at stake.
You’re all on the moon, there are two basketball court sized buildings, ones empty, the other is 3/4′s full of ice. You just lost building power, and it has just turned dark. You all have space suits that have power that will last 20 hrs. Help will be there in 40-45 hrs. And the empty shelter will cool to outside temp in less that 10 hrs. The suits would last 35 hrs at 0C.
What do you do and why? Remember everyone’s life is at stake.”
Nowhere do you stipulate that they in anyway the same except in size.
Mental gymnastics indeed!
” Nowhere do you stipulate that they in anyway the same except in size.”
No, I listed their only differences.
And you might want to check the thermal capacity of water vs air.
Though I suppose you’ll just make something else up proving you’re somehow on to something no other scientist in the 20th century has figured out.
The steel shell model does not apply. Forget it or be confused forever. Take a simple sphere with an internal heat source of 235 w/m^2. Solve the Boltzmann equation to find its blackbody temperature T1. Now add a layer of insulation and measure the equilibrium surface temperature. Keep adding insulation until T2 is 30C higher than T1. You now have a model of the earth with atmosphere, but it still does not apply, because the atmosphere is semi-transparent to infrared. So remove the insulation covering 1/6 of the area of the sphere to account for “window radiation” and add more insulation to the rest of the sphere to recover the 30C temperature difference. Now we are close to a valid model. What about greenhouse gas forcing, solar forcing, volcanos, etc. Here is where we must apply some negative feedback. If the temperature difference gets above 30C we must make the hole in the insulation bigger to recover the 30C, and if it gets below 30C we must make the hole smaller. That is what convection (which includes clouds) does for us automatically. Where does the 30C temperature difference come from? It is the difference between the radiating zone temperature and the effective surface temperature and it’s related to the atmospheric lapse rate g/Cp which depends only on the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The lapse rate together with the mass of the atmosphere (14.7 lb/in^2 based on surface area) and insolation which depends on latitude and season, determines surface temperature. One who thinks surface temperature is controlled by “Greenhouse Gases” is ignorant of the relevant physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
Are there any other factors that can affect surface temperatures?
Yes. The above is an oversimplified picture.
MiCro says, February 16, 2013 at 10:01 pm: “Gary,
All Greg needs to do is buy a ir thermometer measure the temp of the sky and explain it.”
==========================================================
You already expressed the idea on this thread and referred to this: http://www.weatherquestions.com/A_backyard_greenhouse_effect_experiment.htm
Then I answered you using a quote from your link:
“Right, thank you, this is another way to get rid of the so called “greenhouse effect”.
Just think of why they need the “focusing infrared light onto one side of the thermocouple using a specially designed lens” and can not just use a normal thermometer to measure the change in temperature without focusing. Or is “greenhouse effect” impossible without a lens?”
Looks like focusing by a lens can help the IR from colder bodies penetrate a very small spot of the warmer sensor. This case is different from just “colder body – warmer body”. I suggest you remove the lens (the sensor will still be able to see the target) and please report us the result of the measurement of the natural effect. My guess is, without lens there would be no effect.
” I suggest you remove the lens (the sensor will still be able to see the target) and please report us the result of the measurement of the natural effect. My guess is, without lens there would be no effect.”
And if you removed the lens from your camera, you shouldn’t be surprised then your pictures suck.
Baa Humbug says:
February 16, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“There has to be an engineering application there where we can start with the smallest of energy sources and multiply it by just…”
This is the common misconception, confusing energy flow per unit of time with energy.
The nuclear core is producing some number of Joules of energy per second (a Joule per second is a Watt). So, if you can prevent those energy packets from escaping, then you are continually accumulating energy.
There is nothing magic about it. It is simple accounting. It is just like putting a dam across a river, such that the water starts accumulating behind it. Start with the smallest river or creek and, if your dam is big enough, you can make a lake. The lake is ultimately limited in size only by the rate of evaporation, just as the amount of energy held back by the shell is ultimately limited only by the rate of outward radiation.
Greg House says (February 16, 2013 at 9:45 pm): “My “Yes, Virginia”? (shock) I have nothing to do with that fictional story.”
Exactly. You and other disciples of the imaginary 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Will, Bevan, Bryan, etc) won’t touch that experiment with a 10 foot pole, not to perform it, not even to predict the result, though you’re perfectly happy to debate endlessly over steel greenhouses. I’m beginning to suspect we’ve discovered the SooperFizzycyst’s Kryptonite. 🙂
“In science a fiction remains a fiction until proven real.”
Bingo. Yet none of the SooperFizzycysts will even attempt to prove their fiction. WUWT?
Gary Hladik says, February 17, 2013 at 12:21 pm: “You and other disciples of the imaginary 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Will, Bevan, Bryan, etc) won’t touch that experiment with a 10 foot pole, not to perform it, not even to predict the result, though you’re perfectly happy to debate endlessly over steel greenhouses.”
============================================================
First, I did not debate over steel greenhouses. Second, what you call “that experiment” is not an experiment, it is a fictional story. On this thread you sometimes know that, then you do not know that, then you know that again, then you have forgotten that you knew that. I do not know, really. (lol)
Will says:
February 17, 2013 at 2:39 am
Don says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:10 am
“It is able to detect IR radiation through the radiative heating (or, ahem, “thermalizing”, if you will) and expansion of IR-absorbing gases(!),”
No, the gas does not “thermalize” the IR. The gas is warmed by a AC current through a metal plate.
This is an “optical microphone”.
http://gentec-eo.com/Content/uploads/downloads/5-THz_Detectors/AN_121D-201924_THz.pdf
****************************************
Will, you looked up Golay cells! Good for you. I hope other readers will do the same.
The link you provide says this:
“A Golay Cell is a “photo-acoustic” device that is sensitive, works at ambient temperatures and has a broad spectral response. The basic elements that make up a Golay Cell are: the 6 mm HDPE input window, a small fragile gas chamber that includes a thin, partially absorbing metallic film and what is called an “optical microphone section”. When IR or THz radiation is absorbed by the thin film in the gas cell, the gas is heated, causing it to expand and distort the mirrored back wall of the cell. This distortion (or movement) is monitored and measured by the combination of an LED, some optics, a grating and a photodiode. The output of the photodiode is proportional to the displacement of the mirrored wall of the gas cell. Its output is calibrated against a source of known power output in Volts/Watt.”
First, to be fair, let me say that some references such as the one above do not say the IR heats the gas directly; rather it heats a film which heats the gas which expands and contracts.
But at least one reference seems to speak of the radiation heating the gas directly, though this is an insignificant detail in the larger discussion. Per Rogalski (Infrared Detectors, Second Edition), “The Golay cell (Figure 8.1) is a thermal detector consisting of a hermetically sealed container filled with gas (usually Xenon for its low thermal conductivity) and arranged so that expansion of the gas under heating by a photon signal distorts a flexible membrane on which a mirror is mounted. The movement of the mirror is used to deflect a beam of light shining on a photocell and so producing a change in the photocell current as the output.” Either way (indirect or direct heating of the gas by radiation) it is radiation from the object under measurement that does the heating, which may be cooler than the Golay cell.
No reference on Golay cells that I have read, including the one you cite, says that the “gas is warmed by a AC current through a metal plate” as you claim. WUWT?
Greg House says (February 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm): “what you call “that experiment” is not an experiment, it is a fictional story.”
It’s an experimental setup that no SooperFizzycyst has ever used to turn his fiction into reality. WUWT?
Ok, this is getting farcical. For the most hard-headed of anti-CO2ers, I present the following:
http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/en/view/?id=41703
On this link, some scientists detail pictures that they believe show CO2 escaping from a champagne glass based on their understanding of the radiative properties of CO2. If CO2 does not have those radiative properties, then it stands to reason that this picture is capturing something else besides CO2 escaping that glass.
Honestly, I am all ears. If the understanding of CO2’s radiative properties is wrong, what do the pictures on this link show (ie what is the multicolored jet shown leaving the black champagne glass when the champagne is poured).
Cheers, 🙂
Don says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:17 pm
“The Golay cell (Figure 8.1) is a thermal detector consisting of a hermetically sealed container filled with gas (usually Xenon for its low thermal conductivity)”
And yet Xenon is apparently NOT a “greenhouse gas”.
http://www.medicalgasresearch.com/content/3/1/3#B8
Can’t seem to get your “greenhouse effect” story straight, any of you!
@Will
” a small fragile gas chamber that includes a thin, partially absorbing metallic film and what is called an “optical microphone section”. When IR or THz radiation is absorbed by the thin film in the gas cell”
“The Golay cell (Figure 8.1) is a thermal detector consisting of a hermetically sealed container filled with gas (usually Xenon for its low thermal conductivity)”
They’re not using the gas to absorb ir, so no It’s not a GHG, It’s not suppose to be.
pochas says:
February 17, 2013 at 10:35 am
The steel shell model does not apply. Forget it or be confused forever. Take a simple sphere with an internal heat source of 235 w/m^2. Solve the Boltzmann equation to find its blackbody temperature T1. Now add a layer of insulation and measure the equilibrium surface temperature. Keep adding insulation until T2 is 30C higher than T1. You now have a model of the earth with atmosphere, but it still does not apply, because the atmosphere is semi-transparent to infrared.
A terrible experiment, if you want to make it close to realistic you’d have to make the following changes:
Put it in a vacuum chamber with the walls cooled to iiq He temperature (cheap alternative liq N2),
surround it with a shield of germanium, vary the thickness of the shield or use concentric shields until T2 is 30ºC higher than T1. Poly IR 3 might make a cheaper substitute for the germanium.
Shawnhet says, February 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm : “For the most hard-headed of anti-CO2ers, I present the following: http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/en/view/?id=41703
On this link, some scientists detail pictures that they believe show CO2 escaping from a champagne glass based on their understanding of the radiative properties of CO2. If CO2 does not have those radiative properties, then it stands to reason that this picture is capturing something else besides CO2 escaping that glass.
=======================================================
It is not about CO2 just having radiative properties, it is about the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC not working.
Hey, Will, I corrected and qualified my original statement re the greenhouse gas in the cell. It’s a minor side point, doesn’t change the fact that if your position is right a Golay cell cannot work as advertised and in the way it has been used for decades. If I am wrong about this, there are many intelligent and helpful and better-qualified-than-I folks who monitor this site and can correct me in a reasonable and convincing manner, and I would happily learn from it.
Stupid me, I’ve been feeding a troll. ‘bye Will.
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“It is not about CO2 just having radiative properties, it is about the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC not working.”
But, there are many ways in which their schema can “not work” without invalidating the basic concept. Here are a few:
1) As I have pointed out above, the effect of raising the surface temperature above where it would be without any GHGs at all does not establish that increasing the amount of GHGs will increase it further – you can have a positive function which does not have a positive partial derivative at all points. E.g., a little alcohol makes you feel good. A lot of alcohol does not generally make you feel better.
This is especially true for a spherical body – flat Earth approximations do not capture the effect of the increasing surface area radiating into space, and decreasing the surface area radiating back to the planet. The very significant value I see in Willis’ thought experiment is that it reveals this aspect of the problem in sharp relief. As I showed here, and MikeB independently corroborated here.
2) The GHGs are not separated from the planet’s surface by a vacuum – there are avenues for conduction and, especially, convection of heat upward which are more powerful than radiative transport.
3) On a planet which is 2/3 water, evaporative cooling plays a major role in transporting heat away from the surface.
4) Somewhat related to the above, evaporation produces clouds which block sunlight, which may nullify or even reverse any other warming effect.
So, you don’t have to go all conspiracy-minded and reject even the most well-established theory in order to maintain a healthy skepticism. The basic GHE, even if true (which it is), does not establish that the Earth in its current state will be heated further by additional GHGs (which, I believe the evidence shows, it isn’t).
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“It is not about CO2 just having radiative properties, it is about the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC not working.”
Ok, maybe we’re getting somewhere here. If you agree that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) has the capacity to absorb and emit radiation in some wavelengths( as demonstrated in my champagne link), doesn’t this necessarily imply that CO2 has some ability to insulate the Earth’s surface?
IOW, doesn’t heat from the surface take longer to reach space when it has to radiate through a medium with CO2 in it than through one without it (because it “bounces” off CO2 molecules on its way out)? If not, why not? Please be specific.
Cheers, 🙂
Bart says, February 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm: ““Greg House says, February 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm: “It is not about CO2 just having radiative properties, it is about the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC not working.”
But, there are many ways in which their schema can “not work” without invalidating the basic concept. Here are a few: …”
=============================================================
I mean, the Wood experiment demonstrates that the IPCC basic concept (the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC) does not work.
If you have another basic concept, then I suggest you find another name for it, just to avoid confusion. Call it e.g. “Bartgreenhouse effect”, no problem with that. Then, however, the question would arise, why should anyone be interested in discussing “Bartgreenhouse effect”. Because certain policy, treaties, taxes etc. are all based on the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, not on the “Bartgreenhouse effect”.
Shawnhet says, February 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm: “…doesn’t this necessarily imply that CO2 has some ability … doesn’t heat from the surface … If not, why not? Please be specific.”
===========================================================
This stuff is 150 years old. Won’t work, see the R.W.Wood experiment above.
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 5:15 pm
The Wood experiment does not really demonstrate anything. The signal being sought was very tiny relative to the overall heating, the apparatus and measurements were crude. There were conductive and convective effects which could nullify the effect. To proclaim the experiment demonstrated anything, you would need to repeat it under strictly controlled conditions, and pursue any possible alternative reason for the outcome failing to produce the expected result.
But, you don’t need to. As I have pointed out above, the experiment is performed every orbit on satellites in space with MLI blankets. The theory works. But, it only works under the specific conditions to which the theory applies. The IPCC is insisting it works even where those conditions do not specifically hold. That is the weak point in their argument, and where you should address your criticisms.
Bart says:
February 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 5:15 pm
The Wood experiment does not really demonstrate anything. …
==============================================================
I did not say that, these are your words. It would be nice, if you could avoid this kind of confusion in the future. Thanks.
Bart says, February 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm: “The Wood experiment does not really demonstrate anything. The signal being sought was very tiny relative to the overall heating, the apparatus and measurements were crude. There were conductive and convective effects which could nullify the effect. To proclaim the experiment demonstrated anything, you would need to repeat it under strictly controlled conditions, and pursue any possible alternative reason for the outcome failing to produce the expected result.”
=======================================================
Well, exactly, the “trapped radiation effect” was found to be less than 1C, if any, “even under the most favourable conditions”.
“The conductive and convective effects” could not have had any significant influence, since the boxes were well insulated. The difference in conductive properties of rock salt and glass results actually in a higher temperature in the glass covered box than in the other one, hence the effect was apparently zero or very much close to zero.
Bart says, February 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm: “As I have pointed out above, the experiment is performed every orbit on satellites in space with MLI blankets. The theory works.”
========================================================
I know, you referred to this article from Misleadingpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation.
The article seems to be fraudulent to me, because it refers to the unproven claim about “back radiation warming” (not using this expression though) and does not mention the purpose of the multi-layer insulation blankets: to protect satellite from the excessive solar heating.
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 5:23 pm
“This stuff is 150 years old. Won’t work, see the R.W.Wood experiment above.”
If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to explain your thinking. It is looking more and more like you can’t do this. I asked you some pretty simple questions that follow directly from an experiment that you apparently can’t find anything wrong with. Either you can answer them or you can’t.
Also, for the record, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately or simply refer to the post. What you quoted from me made me look as though I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying.
Shawnhet says, February 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm: “Also, for the record, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately or simply refer to the post. What you quoted from me made me look as though I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying.”
=========================================================
No, it was not a distortion. You mean this quote, I guess: “…doesn’t this necessarily imply that CO2 has some ability … doesn’t heat from the surface … If not, why not? Please be specific.”
Nobody can conclude anything from that, either what you were asking or what you were not asking. I made the quote this particular way to illustrate that your questions were irrelevant in my view and said that the Wood experiment addressed the main issue properly (the main issue is the effect of the back radiation on the temperature of the source).
Greg House says:
February 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Shawnhet says, February 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm: “Also, for the record, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately or simply refer to the post. What you quoted from me made me look as though I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying.”
=========================================================
No, it was not a distortion. You mean this quote, I guess: “…doesn’t this necessarily imply that CO2 has some ability … doesn’t heat from the surface … If not, why not? Please be specific.”
Nobody can conclude anything from that, either what you were asking or what you were not asking. I made the quote this particular way to illustrate that your questions were irrelevant in my view and said that the Wood experiment addressed the main issue properly (the main issue is the effect of the back radiation on the temperature of the source).”
No one can conclude anything from what you posted me as saying because *you butchered what I wrote*. Here is some of what I actually posted. Clearly what was saying was a lot more clear than you are pretending it was.
IOW, doesn’t heat from the surface take longer to reach space when it has to radiate through a medium with CO2 in it than through one without it (because it “bounces” off CO2 molecules on its way out)? If not, why not? Please be specific.
So how about it? Can you respond *intelligently* to the exceedingly simple question I pose above without garbling my question or otherwise dodging it? Again, please be specific.
By the way, just in case, you were unaware just because the surface doesn’t cool primarily due to the effect of radiation doesn’t mean that the atmosphere as a whole doesn’t. All energy entering the Earth’s system must ultimately leave as radiation, so the radiative properties of the atmosphere (which you apparently don’t disagree with) are still relevant regardless of what Wood’s experiment showed about surface temps.
Shawnhet says, February 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm: “Can you respond *intelligently* to the exceedingly simple question I pose above […] the radiative properties of the atmosphere (which you apparently don’t disagree with) are still relevant regardless of what Wood’s experiment showed about surface temps.”
==========================================================
To questions, there is no obligation to answer them. Besides, you can simply make your point and people will or will not comment on it.
To your point “the radiative properties of the atmosphere (which you apparently don’t disagree with) are still relevant regardless of what Wood’s experiment showed about surface temps”, I care primarily about “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, because it is politically relevant, and it is about the surface temperatures. Luckily, the Wood experiment debunked it.
If you want to talk about things irrelevant to the surface temperatures and thus also irrelevant to the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, it is perfectly fine with me, but you can not really expect me to participate in that.