Putting Sir Isaac Newton on the right path
Short story by Christopher Bowring
When lay global warming skeptics point out to alarmists that the recent seventeen year period of steady global temperatures invalidates their climate models which predicted runaway global warming, there is often a standard response.
‘How can you, global warming (or climate change) denier, who have no experience of climatology, dare to argue with me, a renowned expert in my field of science?’ Let us return to the England of the seventeenth century to see what is wrong with this rebuttal.
I am in Grantham in Lincolnshire. It is a sunny day. A respectable looking man in a wig is sitting under an apple tree. It is Sir Isaac Newton. I greet him. He smiles back, but looks agitated. ‘What is wrong?’ I ask. ‘I have made a wonderful discovery,’ he replies. ‘I call is my Law of Gravitation’. ‘What does it say?’ I enquire.
‘It says that any two bodies in the universe repel each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart’. ‘Really?’ I respond. ‘But that is nonsense!’ ‘Nonsense?’ explodes the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. ‘Nonsense? How can you, a nobody, a nonentity, dare to question the mind of the greatest living scientist in the world?’
‘Sir, I refute your law quite simply’. And with that I take an apple from the tree and drop it on Sir Isaac’s head.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If energy is stopped some where in the atmosphere by increasing amounts of CO2 (kinda like clouds ,i guess) then the amount of energy getting to the surface decreases ? or changes? or ?
Just wondering about that
…thanks
Maybe not “stopped” but ,converted ,changed ,emitted ,re-emitted ,absorbed ,delayed,stored ,etc.
Because if it is then those diagrams about how energy like short wave coverted to long wave and reflected(emitted?) from the surface forgot about atmospheric losses of energy that would otherwise be reaching the surface, because of increasing amounts of CO2 and other so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Seems to me somewhere there’s a point of diminishing returns?
Does the Thermosphere heat the lower levels of atmosphere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
from reference link:
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. “
The greenhouse gases I know absorb infrared radiation, not visible light (that’s why they’re colorless and invisible). So energy can make it to the surface as visible light (which GHG’s will not absorb), heat things up down there, and when those hot things emit energy in the form of infrared radiation, greenhouse gases prevent some of that energy from escaping into space.
That is the point of the diagrams you saw. Look at this diagram, also from Wikipedia, to see which wavelengths are being absorbed the most and which ones get through to the surface. (The colored bars represent visible light, and everything to the right of them is some kind of infrared. The apparent 100% opacity for ultraviolet light is not quite right. Obviously some ultraviolet light gets through – that is what causes sunburn for example – but per that diagram and the article you linked on the thermosphere, most of it does not.)
“The greenhouse gases I know absorb infrared radiation” ….?that would otherwise go to the surface or be absorbed by other matter ,right?
So, if it was not absorbed it would make it through to the surface ?
So, absorbed infrared radiation is absorbed both ways ? and radiated back in ever increasing amounts?
How come this effect isn’t noted in everyday/practical profitable enterprises like home heating (attic filled with radiative otherwise nonreactive gases stuff like that)?
Is it like another layer of the atmosphere highly diluted like the Troposphere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
Where it says that Friction is the cause….
“The lowest part of the troposphere, where friction with the Earth’s surface influences air flow, is the planetary boundary layer. This layer is typically a few hundred metres to 2 km (1.2 mi) deep depending on the landform and time of day. ”
Friction causes heat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction
“This property can have dramatic consequences, as illustrated by the use of friction created by rubbing pieces of wood together to start a fire.Kinetic energy is converted to heat whenever motion with friction occurs, for example when a viscous fluid is stirred. “
“The greenhouse gases I know absorb infrared radiation” ….?that would otherwise go to the surface or be absorbed by other matter ,right?
Again, the infrared radiation in question is coming from the surface…from things that were heated by visible light or other means. Reread that (which I linked to a couple of times above) – it’s very short and clear.
Joseph, the following words in your statement are incorrect: “….that would otherwise go to the surface or be absorbed by other matter”. INSTEAD, A MORE ACCURATE STATEMENT OF THE PHYSICS IS: ” IN THE ABSENCE OF GREENHOUSE GASES, INFRARED (THERMAL) RADIATION FLOWING UPWARDS FROM THE EARTH’S SURFACE WOULD PENETRATE THE ATMOSPHERE AND LEAVE EARTH.” Thus energy flow out of the earth’s system is diminished by GHGs; because energy flow out of the earth’s system is reduced by GHGs, the Earth’s temperature rises, thereby increasing thermal radiation outward until the system stabilizes again. Thus the earth warms when GHGs are added to the atmosphere.
That was mbur’s statement, not mine, which I was quoting in italics so as to answer it; read the rest of the conversation above it and see.
Sorry, Joseph. My note should have been addressed to mbur. We should also tell him that infrared thermal radiation transmission through the walls of his house is small, and the effect of GHGs in his walls will be vanishingly small.
Joseph W. says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:47 am
“Samuel, no, none of this is true. You’re making some false assumptions about time. If you heat the electric coils on your stove to 150 degrees C, they will eventually cool down to room temperature…but for the time being they have, indeed, trapped some heat, and as they emit that heat, they heat up their surroundings. They haven’t trapped the heat forever but they have trapped it for that time.”
———————–
Sorry bout that, Joseph W, but everything I stated was true. If the object in question is emitting thermal energy then said energy is NOT trapped. And my response was based on the parameters you defined in your conversation with Box of Rocks …. who stated, to wit:
——————–
[December 2, 2013 at 12:09 pm] “You had me till you said -”heats up the atmosphere and makes the earth warmer”.
How can something that is less than 1% of something retain enough energy to warm the remaining 99%?”
——————
But, Joseph W., you completely REVERSED those parameters in your cited example for doing said calculations …. apparently for the purpose of getting the results your wanted to get.
You can not associate or correlate 100 cc’s of H2O that is confined within a container who’s surrounding are extremely warmer than the H2O itself …… to CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that are not confined within a container and who’s surrounding are extremely colder than the CO2 molecules themselves.
Technically, Joseph W., your 100 cc of water is getting warmer regardless of whether or not you add that 1 cc of hot H20 to it …. unless the container is in your freezer. Which in that case, the freezer will suck the heat out of that 1 cc of H2O before it can affect the temperature of the total volume of H20.
Joseph W., at 398 ppm the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are …. FAR & FEW between, … therefore very little of the IR radiation from the surface makes contact with them. But when it does, it is absorbed by the CO2 molecule …… and then almost immediately the CO2 molecule starts emitting that energy in ALL DIRECTIONS, …… just like a light bulb emits light. And if said CO2 molecule makes contact with another gas molecule in the air it will “conduct” some of said energy to the other gas molecule …… unless said contacted molecule contains more thermal energy than it does which will result with the CO2 absorbing more energy.
Given the above said is why it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to calculate the “warming effect” of atmospheric CO2. And atmospheric Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules will get “hot-as-blazes” just from making contact with the surface that is radiating all of that IR energy.
When measuring near-surface air temperature …. you are measuring the thermal energy that is being EMITTED by all the different gas molecules, ….. not just specific ones.
That was my question after the quotes.
What i’m thinking,then,after i read that explanation(not referenced) is that, these/those ‘greenhouse gases’ are not reactive with any other radiation from the sun or space,right?(thermosphere and water ignored)
That’s what the physics of it are ,right ?according to general understanding?
Then if my attic and walls were mixed ‘greenhouse gases’ inside with my insulation.Around1% or some thing like that,and wouldn’t need to be sealed right ? (like the atmosphere)and could release the gas in summer time.(don’t want run-away warming)
Then with less or the same energy added(thermal from burning natural gas and electricity)to my sub-system.
It would be like a green house nice and warm. Frosty would have to stay outside,right?
How come i’ve never heard of that practice?Think of the money saved.and those ‘evil’ fuel companys would have to suffer with less fuel being bought and the ‘good’ greenhouse gas companys would be rich,right?
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
sorry ,didn’t see that other reply above…..
….thanks for the interesting comments.
I did see your reference Joseph W.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
” Radiation that is 100% transmittance is not blocked but travels straight through the sample”
so the atmosphere is what? % Transmittance?
@warren a very passionate reply . I have a question:
“because energy flow out of the earth’s system is reduced by GHGs, the Earth’s temperature rises, thereby increasing thermal radiation outward until the system stabilizes again.”
If the energy flow is reduced ?then that must be where the ” increasing thermal radiation outward ” energy comes from, right? and good thing to that it “stabilizes ”
Is more energy added?Maybe ,Geothermal? oh ,i get it,energy is stored by more GHG’s?
How come it’s cold?
Really?”that infrared thermal radiation transmission through the walls of his house is small, and the effect of GHGs in his walls will be vanishingly small.”
you’re saying that the GHE is only applicable to global atmospheric systems and not on small scale sub-systems?So, my house isn’t as good as the atmosphere at storing energy?
I am adding a lot of energy from my heater(thermal radiation) .
?small transmission rates ?doesn’t that mean that less is transmitted?So, by your words
“infrared thermal radiation transmission through the walls of his house is small, and the effect of GHGs in his walls will be vanishingly small.” so thermal radiation would not be transmitted(or reduced?) and remain in the system(my house)?
*(or -energy flow- reduced?) ….by having GHG’s in my walls?
mbur – Solar energy gives only about 1000 1000 watts/square meter on a good day (the average, says that article, is more like 250). The fanciest most expensive new solar panels apparently can convert about 44% of that into electricity for heating your house. By checking your electric bill you can figure out how much surface area it would take to power your house on sunlight alone.
The Wiki on Radiative Forcing claims that the difference in energy caused by greenhouse gases is much lower – on the order of 3 watts per square meter…two orders of magnitude smaller. So pumping up the GHG’s even to much higher concentrations would be way too little energy to heat a house by itself. (Of course it would be only the beginnings of your problems – gases diffuse into each other, so you couldn’t keep the GHG concentrations that high anyway; plus you need to breathe the air in your house…) I’m not going to attempt any more detailed calculations but I think you get the general idea.
Samuel – You’re missing the point of a very simple example. He asks, “How can 1% of a sample heat up the rest of the sample?” A simple and honest question deserving a simple and honest answer. I set a problem that shows how it can (1 cc of hot water can indeed heat up 100 cc of cold water; if you can do some basic algebra you can solve the problem of “how much?” – as you haven’t done. Assume the lab is “just over freezing temperature” and don’t worry about the long run when the water adjusts to the temperature of the lab; what would the temperature be right after mixing?).
You started talking about “E=mc^2” and “black holes” — not even close to relevant to the question or its answer. If you want to instruct people on basic physics, first you should learn some basic physics.
@Joseph W.-thanks for yor reply.nice to engage in some’comment science’ with you in this fantastic forum -WUWT
folowing your links led me to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation
Some of this radiation is directed back towards the Earth, increasing the average temperature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore, an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas would contribute to global warming by increasing the amount of radiation that is absorbed and emitted by these atmospheric constituents.
The OLR is dependent on the temperature of the radiating body. It is affected by the Earth’s skin temperature, skin surface emissivity, atmospheric temperature, water vapor profile, and cloud cover.[1]”
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AIRS_OLR.png
in that diagram is where OLR is higher is that where GHG’s are?or maybe aren’t? does that change? is there a more current version for comparison? can i look at seperate years or ‘snapshots’ side by side?
Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
“The radiation balance is altered by such factors as the intensity of solar energy, reflectivity of clouds or gases, absorption by various greenhouse gases or surfaces, emission of heat by various materials. Any such alteration is a radiative forcing, and causes a new balance to be reached. This happens continuously as sunlight hits the surface, clouds and aerosols form, the concentrations of atmospheric gases vary, and seasons alter the ground cover”
what i was saying earlier in this thread was that those diagrams showing radiation ? yellow arrows in this diagram(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg) show an amount that should be a variable right?
mbur says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:25 am
“How come i’ve never heard of that practice? Think of the money saved.and those ‘evil’ fuel companys would have to suffer with less fuel being bought and the ‘good’ greenhouse gas companys would be rich,right?”
——–
Hey now, you just haven’t been reading my various forum commentary over the past 10+ years because I’ve been telling those avid believing proponents of CAGW that if they actually believe that “junk science” then they should get their homes and houses “insulated” by pumping a 20% mixture of CO2 into the attic and walls of their abode, … which is GUARANTEED by James Hansen et el, hundreds of scientific organizations and the IPCC …. to keep their home warm in winter and cool in summer at only 1/3 their present cost of heating and cooling.
@Samuel C Cogar -Thanks for the reply.
I knew that i was missing something .
…—>
Warren says:
December 4, 2013 at 9:52 am
“We should also tell him that infrared thermal radiation transmission through the walls of his house is small, and the effect of GHGs in his walls will be vanishingly small.”
——–
Warren, take a quicky “looky see” at these 3 images , to wit
#1 – http://aspencore.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/infrared-house.jpg
#2 – http://www.nachi.org/images10-2/infrared_house.jpg
#3 –
Then tell us again about that thar IR radiation transmission thingy.
Joseph W. says:
December 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“The Wiki on Radiative Forcing claims that the difference in energy caused by greenhouse gases is much lower – on the order of 3 watts per square meter…two orders of magnitude smaller. So pumping up the GHG’s even to much higher concentrations would be way too little energy to heat a house by itself. (Of course it would be only the beginnings of your problems – gases diffuse into each other, so you couldn’t keep the GHG concentrations that high anyway; plus you need to breathe the air in your house…) I’m not going to attempt any more detailed calculations but I think you get the general idea. ”
——–
Joseph W, just what in the world are obfuscating about now?
What does the energy required for pumping up the CO2 (GHG) have to do with the energy required to heat/cool a house or home? Do you know some more “junk science” that I haven’t read about yet?
HA, and breathing the CO2 insulation that you pumped into the walls, ceilings and attic of your house, …. HUH?
Now that was a cutey.
=================
Joseph W. says:
December 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“Samuel – You’re missing the point of a very simple example. He asks, “How can 1% of a sample heat up the rest of the sample?””
——–
Yup, Joseph W, and you are still in obfuscation mode.
He was asking about atmospheric gasses, ….. not about a pot of water fresh out of a freezer.
==============
“if you can do some basic algebra you can solve the problem of “how much?” – as you haven’t done. Assume the lab is “just over freezing temperature” and don’t worry about the long run when the water adjusts to the temperature of the lab; what would the temperature be right after mixing?). ”
——–
You need common sense and logical reasoning to help you employ that basic algebra.
Joseph W, now you changed the parameters to a “closed environment” …. which the atmosphere is not one. Anyway, your example is still FUBAR because your specified quantities are unrealistic relative to the question asked. …. 1% of 20cc is not 1cc, ….. it is 0.2 or 2/10th of a cc.
Joseph, here are some realistic figures, to wit:
average mass of the atmosphere = about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.
CO2 in the atmosphere = at 393 ppm — 0.000393 or 0.0393%
@ur momisugly 0.0393% there is about 1,965,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
@ur momisugly 0.0393% there is about 1,965 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Therefore, @ur momisugly 393 ppm, each ppm of CO2 is equal to about 5 billion tons of CO2.
Therefore, an average 2 ppm yearly increase in CO2 is about 10 billion tons of CO2.
Joseph, if you dumped 10 billion tons of hot water into …. 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) tons of ice cold water it would hardly make a riffle, let alone change its temperature enough for you to measure.
===============
“You started talking about “E=mc^2″ and “black holes” — not even close to relevant to the question or its answer. If you want to instruct people on basic physics, first you should learn some basic physics.”
——–
HA, E=mc2 defines the “trapping” of thermal energy, …. the conversion of energy to mass. Where in hell do you think that fossil fuels got their energy from, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Joseph W, you should learn the definition of the word “trap” or ”trapped” and quit talking junk science. Your implied definition is equivalent to saying “a female is only ½ pregnant”.