Guest essay by Dr. Ira Glickstein
We’ve reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in the coming decades unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!
BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL
Alarmist Theory is Handcuffed to High Estimates of Climate Sensitivity
As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise.
Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term “tipping point”. The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.
A GREAT TIME TO PUT ALARMISTS IN THEIR PLACE
Last week, by a stroke of good fortune, I happened to be scheduled to present “Visualizing the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse’ Effect – Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?” to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live.
Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming “Research” activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the “polar vortex” literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F (0°C).
Of course, everyone knows that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and “weather is not climate”. However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact. Audiences often react more to emotions than their reason.
My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of the Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)
My presentation is based on my five-part WUWT series entitled “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse Effect'” – 1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat. The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments. I wrote the series this website attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.
HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS
I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further. That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.
HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT WORKS
All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits “short-wavelength” infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60°F to 100°F (15°C to 40°C), emit “long wavelength” radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).
The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because:
- Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up the Atmosphere,
- About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
- The remaining two-thirds of the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
- The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
- On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
- The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
- In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)
THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT
If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5°F (0.8°C) since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1°F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more. However, it doesn’t really matter whether the actual warming is 1°F or 1.5°F (0.6°C or 0.8°C) because we are arguing about only 0.5°F (0.2°C), which is less than 1% of the total warming due to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.
HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?
The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.
The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C). Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1°F to 3°F (0.5°C to 1.5°C). As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.
VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT
As I noted above, I wrote the “Visualizing” series for WUWT (1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are “Disbelievers” who have had an “equal and opposite” reaction to the “end of the world” excesses of the Global Warming “Alarmists”. By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, they have, IMHO, “thrown the baby out with the bathwater”.
Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity. Einstein never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!
So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.
Well, getting back to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect, a “disbelieving” commenter on WUWT suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.
That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the “Earth” Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.
I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read “1” unit.
If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no “Greenhouse” gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.
I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by “Greenhouse” gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 … = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads “2” units.
Thus, in my simplified analogy, the “Greenhouse” gases in the “Atmosphere” cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the “Greenhouse” gases. I think Einstein would be pleased! Read more detail, including the 340 responses.
A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.
On the left side:
(1) Sunlight is shortwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 0.5μ (microns, millionths of a meter). That energy streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 10μ towards the Atmosphere. This consists of thermal energy from about 4μ to about 25μ. For convenience in description, I have divided this range into three bands: ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by water vapor (H2O), and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O and CO2. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
Read more detail, including the 489 responses.
The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.
,
Description of graphic (from bottom to top):
Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295 K curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
Read more detail, including the 476 responses
In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.
The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.
- During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
- Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 25μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. As noted above, the primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
- The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
- The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
- The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
- The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.
Read more detail, including the 743 responses
As noted above, Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out ! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
Answering Some Objections to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse”Effect
Some WUWT commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This section is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)
The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.
So, my motivation for this Visualizing series was not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.
Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.
Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.
Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.
Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.
Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.
Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works mainly by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.
Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.
Read more detail, including the 958 responses
Thanks Dr Glickstein,
Your article explains the Greenhouse Gas effect argument well. I understand it and it is very plausible. It makes sense. I suppose that is why it is accepted by warmists and skeptics alike.
However I don’t think it is a scientific fact, because it has not been demonstrated empirically. If greenhouse gases did in fact warm the earth by 33C it would be a very big deal and it should be easily demonstrated by simple experiments.
Why do I not accept the argument?
Firstly there is a greenhouse effect on the moon. It is called Heat Capacity. The lunar surface does not get as hot as expected if it was a simple black body. The maximum day time temperature is a little less than it should be and the minimum night time temperature about 80-90K more than expected because during the lunar day, heat soaks into the lunar soil instead of being radiated away immediately. It then comes back out at night keeping the surfaced well above 0 degrees K.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
How much greater is this effect on the earth, which has massively more heat capacity in the oceans and atmosphere? Hard to say exactly but it may be enough to explain the earth’s temperature entirely and completely. No other Greenhouse effect required.
Secondly water, whether clouds or vapour cools the earth. This is clearly seen by comparing sites at the same latitude and altitude and hence with same solar irradiance. The site which has more water, humidity and rainfall is always cooler. Since water is by far away the most powerful greenhouse gas it seems to be a cooling gas. CO2 is likely the same. Sorry I can’t give more than one reference without loosing the post but I got that from Carl Brehmer.
Thirdly the proposal that low temperature radiation is absorbed by a warmer body and help keeps it warm is not supported by my own experiments. I know that seems to contradict well accepted radiative physics. Metal foils or mirrors placed near warm or hot black objects do not make them warmer, even when the object is being continuously heated.
If anyone has a good experiment that shows reflected radiation does make an object warmer and it can be replicated I might change my mind.
David A:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at January 14, 2014 at 10:58 pm.
Taking your concluding point first, you say
Academic questions which interest laymen are important.
The real world has importance to laymen and academic issues are often merely hypothetical.
You say
Please note that the energy is also distributed. Most of the surface is ocean and most of the “energy hitting the surface” is in the tropics. The oceans transport energy from the tropics to polar regions: the tropics absorb net radiation and polar regions emit net radiation.
However, on average the surface is warmer than the air (because most solar heating is of the surface) so net conduction is from the surface to the air.
Also evapouration and convection move much energy from the surface to altitude. The evapourated water falls as rain so you may want to think how much energy you would expend trying to carry that water in a bucket up a ladder to the clouds.
Quantifying all these changes requires assumptions because adequate measured data do not exist. Different people use different assumptions (hypotheses) so obtain estimates. I gave you Trenberth’s cartoon and said I did not agree with its numbers. Here it is again
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/energybudgets.html
For comparison here is the similar cartoon with numbers estimated by Willis Eschenbach
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/co2-and-ceres/#comment-1535782
Others, including me, have made different estimates. Each estimate represents the effects of the assumptions used by the estimator.
And you say
Global temperature rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land and oceans being better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.
However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).
So, it seems that
(a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
and
(b) the energy in the system increases as the global temperature falls and vice versa through the year.
This is the opposite of ‘common sense’ (reality often is) but it results from how the energy is stored and distributed through the system throughout the year.
I hope I have understood what you are asking this time and that my attempt to answer it in ‘layman’s language’ is adequate.
Richard
Thank you Richard, and yes, it helps, but let me question a bit further…
Richard quotes me…
“This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.”
Global temperature rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land and oceans being better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.
However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).
So, it seems that
(a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
and
(b) the energy in the system increases as the global temperature falls and vice versa through the year
——————————————————————–
I would agree with minor changes. My changes in bold to differentiate them…
“Global temperature (Change Global to ATMOSPHERIC) rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land, and oceans being a better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.
However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global ATMOSPHERIC temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small TO THE ATMOSPHERE, AS IT ENTERS AN 80 PERENT PLUS OCEAN SURFACE. (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).
So, it seems that
(a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
and
(b) the energy in the system increases as the global ATMOSPHERIC temperature falls and vice versa through the year.
———————————————————————————————————–
That would be my guess as well, but it is not quantified. This well illustrates why I always think in energy residence time of our planets earth, ocean, atmosphere, as critical. Willis, who you linked to, did not understand my point to him that even if, when comparing the watts per sq’ M of LWIR due to back radiation of clouds, as being the same, or equal to the watts per sq’ M of SW radiation minus clouds, the feed back of clouds would be strongly net negative, due to the residence time of energy entering the system. In short, the SW photon drives slower, (speed is a metaphor for time) and while still in the system, perhaps for years, yet more cars,(photons) continue entering the system, so clouds are net negative, as they reduce residence time of energy in the system compared to SW energy entering the ocean without clouds. Willis could not follow my unique (read layman) thought process.
BTW, such an annual quantification of overall annual energy increase or decrease is important on astronomical scales. In current Lunisolor Precession theory, every 12,000 or so years, during January, the NH would be closest to the Sun. (If I understand precession theory correctly) I would think this would have profound affects on global climate, but am not certain this is seen in the record.
One more thought. In an atmosphere with GHGs, would not some molecules of non GHG, conduct their energy via collision to a GHG molecule, therefore potentially releasing that conducted non GHG molecules energy to space, thus cooling?
PS, I am grateful for a real conversation, and by academic, I mean a conversation not corrupted by political view or human ego, but guided by logic and the scientific method.
David A:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 15, 2014 at 1:15 am. I am pleased that I have – at last – managed to understand what you were really asking me.
This leads to my responding to your saying that Willis did not understand a point you put to him. And I offer some sincere advice in hope of being helpful to you (n.b. this is NOT negative criticism).
When you have a point or a question to put then please try to make it as clear and succinct as possible. Try to present it as a single statement then add any explanation and/or exposition after that. In this thread I repeatedly failed to understand the point you were really addressing. Many people don’t have time to try to find out what you really mean, and Willis is certainly such a person because he needs to reply to many points put to him in threads discussing his articles.
I assure you that time you take to formulate your statement will provide you with great rewards. And I repeat for emphasis that I offer this advice with complete sincerity.
Having said that, I address your final three paragraphs.
You say
Please research Milankovitch Cycles.
(Milankovitch was a Serbian cement engineer who did seminal work on this subject.)
Yes, but the opposite is also true. The net effect is warming of the atmosphere by collisional de-excitation of GHG molecules because most molecules are N2 and O2 which are not excited by absorbing photons as GHG molecules are.
It happens all the time on WUWT. It is why I come here: I learn from exchange of ideas especially when I am shown to be wrong. And it is why I revile trolls: they attempt to prevent discussion of ideas with a view to learning.
Richard
@Myrrh says: January 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm
The sources you show are pretty old. The Diviner project is now over 4 years in operation and is actually mapping and measuring moons surface with moon orbiting satellites.
see eg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Greenhagen.pdf
I’ve been tracing the so called Effective temperature (Te) back to planetary astronomy calculations that try to get a ballpark estimate for surface temperatures of planets.
see eg http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Albedos.html
It seems the greenhouse believers just copied/pasted this calculation for earth.
The Te for the moon is ~270K, actual is ~197K.
So obviously there is something seriously wrong with this calculation.
Problem is the spreading around the WHOLE surface of incoming solar, and then calculating an average surface temperature. They might have noticed that in solar systems with only one sun there is a distinct day and night side on every planet, and that the SB formula has a fourth power.
Doing the same simple calculation for day side only gives for the moon ~322K, night side 0K (neglecting cosmic background radiation). So average surface temperature for the moon in radiative balance is 161K. Actual is ~36K higher due to some heat storage during the day resulting in higher night temperatures.
Thanks Richard; I said,
“One more thought. In an atmosphere with GHGs, would not some molecules of non GHG, conduct their energy via collision to a GHG molecule, therefore potentially releasing that conducted non GHG molecules energy to space, thus cooling? ”
Yes, but the opposite is also true. The net effect is warming of the atmosphere by collisional de-excitation of GHG molecules because most molecules are N2 and O2 which are not excited by absorbing photons as GHG molecules are.
================================================================
Yes, it is clear that if a GHG molecule, redirects received LWIR back towards the surface, it is increasing residence time of said energy, thus net warm. But it is such a short answer to a complicated question. How often does the former occur, IE, the GHG molecule receives energy via conduction- collision with a non GHG molecule? How much of the energy in the NON GHG molecules in our atmosphere is there via conduction? After a GHG molecule releases its LWIR induced excitation, is it then cooler then the local thermal dynamic equilibrium, and now more likely to receive and liberate to space conducted energy from a non GHG molecule? What would determine a GHG net warming to the atmosphere is truly the net difference, but how do we know what the net differences is. The solar energy deposited into the warm tropics, eventually releases itself from the ocean in more pole ward locations, where the water is far warmer then the surface air. This is a great amount of conducted and convection energy warming, via conduction eventually to GHG molecules. One less GHG molecule, is one less chance for energy received by non GHG collision, to escape our system.
Where is the above actions and reactions quantified. You have admitted that a non GHG atmosphere would continue to receive conducted energy until the atmospheric flow of conducted energy equalized with the surface, via Back conduction to the surface. Would this chew up some, or all of the 33 degrees estimated GHG warming of earths surface, lowering the GHE?
Steven McIntyre has asked for an engineering type explanation of the GH effect, but I have never seen such a paper,
What do you think of my question to Willis. Is a watt a watt, or, as I reason, if the cloudless SW insolation is equal to the cloudy LWIR back radiation, it still produces far more warming, over time, due to the long residence time of SW radiation penetrating the surface? My traffic analogy,
BTW, I have read on the Milankovitch Cycles, and will do more so at your suggestion. However the majority of these cycles, refers to far longer cycles, then the 360 degree precession cycle of the axis rotation, which, if I understand it, reverses the earths seasonal tilt every 12000 or so years, putting the earth alternatively closest to the sun in January or in June every 1/2 cycle. Perhaps I have missed something in this, but if current Lunisolor Precession theory is correct, I do not see how this would be avoided.
David A:
I am giving a brief reply to your post addressed to me at January 15, 2014 at 7:17 am because – as I said at the outset – your interest is so wide that you would benefit from undertaking a course on it. And, importantly, me answering your questions here would not provide such a course.
A few points as reply.
Not all energy is in the form of heat.
The heat of a gas is expressed by its temperature which is an indication of the average speed (actually RMS speed) of the gas molecules. Increase the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets hotter. Decrease the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets cooler.
A GHG molecule gains energy but does not get hotter when it gets excited by absorbing a photon: it is raised to a higher quantum level (by increasing the vibrational or rotational energy of the molecule). Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule then the nitrogen molecule is accelerated: the energy that was stored in the GHG molecule becomes kinetic energy in the nitrogen molecule so the gas gets hotter.
Similarly, if a collision causes kinetic energy of a nitrogen molecule to be transferred to be stored in a GHG molecule then the gas is cooled because the nitrogen molecule is decelerated but the GHG molecule is not accelerated.
There are too many complexities for an “engineering type explanation” of all that happens in the climate system. That is why GCMs exist: they are models which attempt to emulate the bulk behaviours of the atmosphere (but they don’t work which is not surprising). The best we can do is make estimates based on assumptions and I linked you to two such estimates; i.e. those of Trenberth and Eschenbach.
A Watt is a Watt. What else could it be?
I think you are asking how an amount of energy is expressed as temperature. If so, then that depends where the energy is and where it is going. For example, energy going into ice may melt the ice with no resulting temperature change. An amount of energy going into land will obtain more temperature rise than the same amount of energy going into water. Energy going into air may provide winds (i.e. bulk kinetic energy) with no temperature change or may be thermal energy which increases the air temperature and so increases convection. etc..
I suppose these energy exchanges could be considered to be analogous to traffic flows, but I don’t see the benefit of the analogy. One can track where the energy is going (as the Trenberth and Eschenbach diagrams do).
I hope this helps.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 15, 2014 at 7:52 am A GHG molecule gains energy but does not get hotter when it gets excited by absorbing a photon: it is raised to a higher quantum level (by increasing the vibrational or rotational energy of the molecule). Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule…….
Q) Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ? If so which waveband supplies the photons.
chemengrls:
re your post at January 15, 2014 at 11:08 am.
Sorry, but I do not understand your question; viz.
I do not understand which waveband of what supplies which photons in your question?
A photon is a quantum of EM radiation which has a wavelength related to the energy it carries. When it is absorbed by a GHG molecule then – as I said – it either increases the vibrational or the rotational energy of the molecule.
Richard
Werner Brozek says:
January 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm
richardscourtney says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ?
This person meant something along the lines of a photon of certain energy raising the electron from the first level to a higher level such as level 5 for example.
This person meant photons in the principal emission bands of CO2 for example are at about 2.64 to 2.84, 4.13 to 4.5 and 13 to 17 microns. The photon energies depend on the frequencies; my question is which photons cause vibrational and rotational changes in the molecule and which if any raise the electron excitation levels.
richardscourtney says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ?
This person meant something along the lines of a photon of certain energy raising the electron from the first level to a higher level such as level 5 for example. In the case of hydrogen, 13.6 eV would cause ionization, but a lower energy could raise the electron to a higher level. I see no reason why this could not happen to an H in CH4 for example. Of course the same energy would be re-emitted when the electron dropped down from its higher energy level.
richardscourtney (Jan. 13, 2014 at 7:58):
While you claim to prove my assertions false, and provide quotes that (you claim) support this proof you do not provide the proof. A “proof” is an argument whose conclusion is true under the principles of the classical logic. If you have composed such a proof, what is it?
The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values.
++++++++++
What is the time range for the temperature range you speak of?
Wait -Isn’t the overall range of climate sensitivity being lowered as the models continue to prove themselves wrong Terry?
Mario Lento:
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
As it has multiple meanings, the term “climate sensitivity” is logically troublesome because the ambiguity of definition of this term supports applications of the equivocation fallacy. What do you mean by “climate sensitivity” in your pair of questions for me?
Hi Terry: You mentioned a climate sens’ range.
When was the claim made? AR3, AR4 or AR5? Or more recent.
For what period of time is that range projected to exist? Is between now and 2100?
.
Mario Lento:
I notice that you’ve not responded to my request for disambiguation of the term “climate sensitivity” as you use this term. Is disambiguation a problem for you?
Terry Oldberg says:
January 15, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Mario Lento:
I notice that you’ve not responded to my request for disambiguation of the term “climate sensitivity” as you use this term. Is disambiguation a problem for you?
+++++++
Terry: Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. You wrote climate sensitivity and I questioned you about it. So why are you asking me what it means?
You wrote, “The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values”
Mario Lento:
In this conversation, the term “climate sensitivity” has at least the three meanings referenced by the quote provided by Richard Courtney. What specifically do you mean by “climate sensitivity” in your post of January 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm?
I was asking you the same thing Terry.
This is getting really old. You’re telling me I am not allowed to ask you a question fine. But your questions was answer. AGAIN – I was asking you what you meant on your post. You put it there, and I asked about it.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Richard, I appreciate your patience, and yes it is required with unconventional layman. However hang in a bit longer with me, and I think clarity at least, if not agreement, will result. I will insert my comments in capital letters into the cogent parts of your comment below, to aid in clarification.
A Watt is a Watt. What else could it be? BEAR WITH ME. THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY STATES THAT ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. HOWEVER IT CAN CHANGE FORMS. THUS A SW PHOTON, CAN BE CONVERTED TO A LWIR. IT IS VERY COGENT TO UNDERSTAND THAT “THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO CHANGE THE ENERGY CONTENT OF A SYSTEM IN A RADIATIVE BALANCE. EITHER A CHANGE IN INPUT, OR A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE TIME OF SOME ASPECT OF THAT ENERGY WITHIN THE SYSTEM.”
NOW WE MUST DEFINE THE SYSTEM. IN THIS CASE WE ARE REFERING TO TE EARTH, INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND, OCEANS, AND ATMOSPHERE. ENTROPY WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS NOT A LOSS OF ENERGY FROM THE SYSTEM, DUE TO THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. THUS RESIDENCE TIME OF ENERGY ENTERING THE SYSTEM, IS RELVANT TO THE HEAT CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM. THE GREATER THE RESIDENCE TIME, THE GREATER THE HEAT CAPACITY, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT THEN MANIFEST AS HEAT.
A SW PHOTON OF VISIBLE LIGHT STRIKES A CLOUD, AND REFLECTS BACK TO SPACE= SHORT RESIDENCE TIME. A SW PHOTON STRIKES THE MIDDDLE OF THE TROPICAL OCEAN, PENETRATES UP TO 800 FEET. IT HAS A VERY LONG RESDIDENCE TIME OF YEARS IN THE SYSTEM.
SO YES, THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS SPOT ON. ALL THE VARIOUS WAYS THE EARTH SYSTEM CAN WARM WHICH YOU CAN THINK OF DEPEND ON EITHER A CHANGE IN INPUT, OR A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE TIME OF THAT ENERGY WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
IF 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER OF DEEPLY PENETRATING SW ENERGY FLOWS INTO THE TROPICAL OCEAN TODAY, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE TOMORROW WHEN ANTHER 100 WATTS PER SQ METER of SW ENERGY ALSO CONTINUES TO FLOW INTO THE OCEAN.
IF THAT SAME 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER STRIKES A WHITE CLOUD, IF MAY WELL BE GONE, AND SO THE NEXT DAY, AGAIN STRIKEING WHITE CLOUDS, IT WILL NOT ACCUMALATE WITHIN THE EARTHS SYSTEM, AS YESTERDAYS WATTS ALREADY LEFT YESTERDAY. IF THE RESIDENCE TIME IS YEARS, NOT MINUTES HOURS OR DAYS, THE ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM BUILDS, SO YES, IT IS CRITICAL WHAT ROADS WITHIN THE SYSTEM THE ENERGY, HERE DEFINED AS WATTS,TAKE.
NOW IF 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER OF LWIR, “BACK RADIATION” STRIKES THE OCEAN SURFACE, AND THAT ENERGY IS ABSORBED INTO LATENT HEAT OF EVAPORATION AND RELEASED AT ALTITUDE, THEN THOSE WATTS HAVE A SHORTER RESIDENCE TIME THEN THE SAME 100 WATTS OF SW RADIATION DEEPLY PENETRATING THE OCEAN SURFACE.
SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS THEY ENCOUNTER. THE MAY CONTAIN EQUALL ENERGY, BUT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT RESIDENCE TIME WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND SO THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.
RICHARD, YOU YOURSELF CONFIRMED ALL THAT I STATED ABOVE, IN AFFIRMING THAT THE EARTH GAINS ENERGY DURING THE S.H. SUMMER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ATMOSPHERE COOLS. EVENTUALLY THAT ENERGY ENTERING THE TROPICS AND S.H. OCEANS, MAKES IT WAY TO THE POLES, AND RELEASES TO THE ATMOSPHERE. JOHN DALY PLACED A SEVEN YEAR RESIDENCE TIME ON MUCH OF THIS ENERGY.
I think you are asking how an amount of energy is expressed as temperature. If so, then that depends where the energy is and where it is going. For example, energy going into ice may melt the ice with no resulting temperature change. SORRY RICHARD, BUT YOUR EXAMPLE CONFUSES ME. LIQUID WATER IS WARMER THEN FROZEN WATER? YET I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTHALPY OF VAPORIZATION IS RELEASED IN THE ENTHALPY OF CONDENSATION AT ALTITUDE.
An amount of energy going into land will obtain more temperature rise than the same amount of energy going into water. YES, BUT THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY STILL APPLIES, AND THAT ENERGY IS NOT LOST.
Energy going into air may provide winds (i.e. bulk kinetic energy) with no temperature change or may be thermal energy which increases the air temperature and so increases convection. etc. YES INDEED, AND CONVECTION IS YET ANOTHER MEANS OF REDUCING THE EARTH’S ENERGY RESIDENCE TIME. SOME SPECULATE THAT AN INCREASE OF GHG , CREATES AN INCREASE OF CONVECTION TO ALTITUDE, THUS A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
I suppose these energy exchanges could be considered to be analogous to traffic flows, but I don’t see the benefit of the analogy. One can track where the energy is going (as the Trenberth and Eschenbach diagrams do). THESE DIAGRAMS IGNORE TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YEARS OR DECADES MAY BE INVOLVED. THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY HAS NO TIME LIMIT, ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM, NO MATETER THE RELATIVE ENTROPY WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SAID ENERGY IS NOT LOST, AND CAN IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE BE THERMALISED IN PERTUITY,UNTIL IT ENTERS THE ONLY OFF RAMP, SPACE.
FIFTY OR SO YEARS OF SOLAR CHANGE, WHERE DISPARATE WAVE LENGTHS CHANGE FAR MORE THEN TSI, CAN CAUSE UNKNOWN ENERGY FLUX IN THE OCEANS,
ACUMALATING OR REDUCING FOR THE ENTIRE CHANGE IN TSI, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, WHICH ONLY MANIFEST SLOWLY TO THE ATMOSPHERE.
A WATT OF LWIR IS NOT THE SAME AS A WATT OF SW ENTERING THE OCEANS. OUR ANNUAL SEASONAL CYCLES DEMONSTRATE THIS.
Richard, I agree whole heartedly, after literally hundreds of hours of study, there is much we do not know or yet understand. There are many Newtonian principle of action reaction, within our fascinating and complicated earth. However I go as a cool luke warmer; by this I mean there may be an initial small increase in atmospheric heat due to GHG, but the negative feedbacks may negate almost all of this, and an annual analysis of the inflow and outflow at the top of the atmosphere, may not be accurate to the degree necessary, and it may not incorporate the necessary time needed, as energy entering the oceans can take years to manifest, and GHG may create a slow net negative to earth’s largest heat sink, the oceans.
I think we can both agree that the C is missing in CAGW. Hell Richard, lately the G and W are missing as well.
Cheers, at your service
David
Friends:
I am answering Terry Oldberg, David A and chemengrls in the same post. This is for convenience and is not intended as a slight to anybody. And I include sincere thanks to Werner Brozek.
I repeat that people who want to know this stuff should take some courses. It is not possible for me – or anybody else – to explain all of this in a blog thread.
However, my replies are genuinely intended to help although I am dismayed by the behaviour of Terry Oldberg.
Terry Oldberg:
Your post at January 15, 2014 at 7:11 pm is either egregious or an example of your lack of reading comprehension.
I DID “prove” you were talking twaddle in my post at January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1534315
and – using your terminology – I did “disambiguate” when I wrote in that post saying
Your subsequent discussion with Mario Lento provides further evidence that you “don’t have a clue what you are talking about”. All he has done is to ask you for clarification and your responses consist solely of evasions and obfuscations.
I strongly suggest that you drop the matter because you are not helping yourself.
You were wrong.
I explained how and why you were wrong.
I need do no more except to acknowledge your thanks when you provide them for my having shown you were wrong.
David A:
I am answering the latest in your series of post addressed to me. For the convenience of others, I provide this link to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1537606
OK. You say you find your “traffic analogy” useful to you. In that case, then use it. I don’t find it useful so I will continue to consider energy fluxes as they are known or estimated to exist.
I do understand that your analogy gives you a better feel for flow rates. I am content to consider the flux rates.
Secondly, all Watts ARE equal.
By definition a Watt is a unit of power which is one joule per second. (A joule is a unit of energy which is equal to the work done by a force of one newton acting through one metre.)
Energy can be stored. The joules may move or not. Their movement is their flux.
Ice does melt to water without change of temperature. The absorbed energy breaks the bonds which makes the ice a solid and becomes stored in the water. You can check this using a drinking glass containing some water, several ice cubes and a thermometer.
I think your conceptual problem may be confusion between temperature and heat. Temperature is not an indication of energy, and heat is energy. A Watt of SW IR entering the ocean IS the same as a Watt of LW IR whether or not it enters the ocean. However, the SW and LW can interact with matter in different ways although they are both electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Consider visible light which is also EM. Visible light interacts with your eyes so you can see it but IR does not.
The energy balance models do not “ignore” time. They indicate the rates of energy flows in, out and within the system. These rates are provided as Watts which are flows of energy as joules PER SECOND.
I hope I have clarified the issues.
chemengrls:
I found the contribution from Werner Brozek at January 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm very helpful to me because prior to that I really did not understand what you were asking me, and I take this opportunity to thank him.
We are discussing the difference between GHG molecules and other molecules. As I said, to you
The effects are quantised by the shape of the molecule and its bonds. Hence, vibrational absorbtion is possible for a CO2 molecule
C – O – C
Because the ‘angle’ between the C atoms attached to the O atom can change to provide the vibration.
But such vibrational excitation cannot occur to an O2 molecule (or an N2 molecule)
O – O
Because the molecule has no ‘angle’ to change.
However, individual atoms can also absorb or emit photons. They do this by moving an electron from one shell to a higher shell. This effect is used e.g. for analysing materials by energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (EDX).
The EM absorbtion by individual atoms is NOT the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The molecules of GHGs in the atmosphere absorb and emit much, much more EM than individual atoms can. Indeed, in the atmosphere the atomic absorbtion and emission is so small relative to the molecular effect that it is usually ignored.
I still may have misunderstood but – following Werner’s comment – it seems to me that you are confusing EM absorbtion by atoms as being the EM absorbtion by GHG molecules. It is not.
I hope all this is clear and what was wanted.
Richard
Thank you, we will agree to disagree on some things. I clearly stated SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS THEY ENCOUNTER. THE MAY CONTAIN EQUALL ENERGY, BUT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT RESIDENCE TIME WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND SO THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.”
So both the vibrational WL of the watt, and the materials it encounters, affect residence time of said energy within the system. Increase the residence time, and you add energy: decrease it, and you remove energy. You apparently do not wish to admit to the law I stated which expresses this succinctly. That law is useful for the affect of GHG, and for comprehending ANY proposed change in the energy of our system. land, oceans, and atmosphere. All energy gains or losses, independent of a change in input, are dependent of the residence time of indestructible energy.
You refuse to address if a watt of LWIR energy striking the ocean surface,has the same residence time, as a watt of SW penetrating the ocean surface. If the SW energy is still within the system tomorrow, and receives more tomorrow, and the LWIR undergoes evaporation and condensation at altitude, then exits to space, then the one watt is net increased energy to the system compared to the other. Neither you or Willis appear to accept this, and simply say all watts are equal. Equal energy, yes, equal residence time and warming, or potential warming, no.
So Willis, ignores residence time of the energies involved in stating that the increase in SW to the surface under clear sky conditions, is watt to watt, equal to the increase in LWIR of a cloud. The LWIR has a shorter residence time within the system. In affect, via the traffic analogy, it drives faster on the highway, and so there is less traffic accumulation on the highway then with the same wattage flow of SW penetrating the oceans, and accumulating daily. So again, the traffic analogy is useful.
Clearly a GHG increases residence time when they redirect an exiting LWIR photon back into the system. Clearly they reduce residence time if they encounter a non GHG molecule and receive energy via conduction, which they then may zip off to space, which would otherwise just conduct about the atmosphere indefinitely, thus the GHG in this case is reducing residence time, net reduction of energy in the system.
Clearly a non GHG atmosphere would continue to receive conduction from the surface, until it warmed to net, net equal the surface, expanding a local thermodynamic equilibrium to the entire atmosphere. something it does not do now, as the surface is warmer then the atmosphere. Clearly the lapse rate would be reduced in a non GHG planet, as it would be dependent on a reduction in the number of molecules per square meter with altitude, but not dependent on increased convection resulting from GHG molecules cooling an aspect of the atmosphere, resulting in different flow rates within the atmosphere. I explained that convection would likely be reduced, and a reduction of convection, is an increase in residence time of energy, thus a positive feedback.
I have postulated that some of the 33 degrees of warming of GHG molecules, would be made up for by an atmosphere which may now convect less, and remove from the atmosphere less conducted energy, as that energy has no easy escape route to space. I have proposed that the cooling affect of reduced GHG molecules, is partially made up for by more conduction from the surface, and that a reduced or non GHG atmosphere, would lose this conducted heat more slowly and have to warm in mass, until back-conduction to the surface was equal to flow from the surface, and that to some degree this would make up for the GH affect. It is true that I do not have the means to quantify this, but I think those factors are logical to the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation.
You have agreed that the energy flow models are all uncertain, and have flaws. I have pointed out that they do not factor in time, equal to the law of the conservation of energy, or equal to the residence time of some of the energy which enters our system. They work mostly on a daily basis, and somewhat on an annual basis. However we could be gaining or losing very small amounts daily, entering , or no longer entering, the deep oceans, which if this small flow continued, positive or negative for decades, we would not detect on a daily or annual basis but over decades, due to the very long residence time of the energies involved, would matter if
a TSI change, or a cloud flow latitude change persists for several consecutive solar cycles. A small watt per meter change, in a very long residence time of energy, matters over decades and eventually can result in a large change in net energy.
Phil. says: January 13, 2014 at 9:43 am
A very comprehensive rebuttal. Thank you for taking the time.
I would like to recommend a site for you to look at:
http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap2/planck_curve.html
Beware, your security system might object as the site is unsigned.
I have been referring to that site for over a year without problems.
Regards
Richard111
chemengrls says:
January 16, 2014 at 3:34 am
This person meant photons in the principal emission bands of CO2 for example are at about 2.64 to 2.84, 4.13 to 4.5 and 13 to 17 microns.
Infrared radiation can do many different things, and that includes raising the electron in a hydrogen atom from level 3 to a higher level. To raise an electron from level 2 requires a visible photon and to raise an electron from level 1 requires an ultraviolet photon. For more information, see:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=hydrogen+series+balmer&rlz=1C1TSCD_enCA503CA503&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GRzYUoC2ItPloATB3YLoBA&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=987&bih=498
Of course this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases as such. For other effects of infrared radiation, see what Richard said.
richardscourtney says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:04 am
You are welcome!
Mario Lento:
I gather that by “climate sensitivity” you mean the “effective climate sensitivity.” Regarding the period of time over which this range is projected to exist, I’m not aware of a specification for this period. If there is such a specification I’d appreciate hearing of it.
By the way, I trust you agree with me that in proving the conclusion of an argument, disambiguation of the terms of this argument is a requirement.
richardscourtney:
Contrary to your assertion, your post of Jan. 13, 2014 at 3:58 am contains no proof.