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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
THANKS David A, Richard (richardscourtney) and Phil for continuing this discussion which I have followed closely and with great interest.
I do not have anything “deep” to add, but I think there is some “meat” in David’s example of 1 w/m^2 of SW (Sunlight) vs 1 w/m^2 of LWIR (backradiation from GHGs) striking the ocean.
Yes, of course, a WATT is a WATT in that energy is conserved, and I did NOT agree when David A said (January 16, 2014 at 6:31 am) “… SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, …”
But, if you go back and read David again, as I just did, he adds “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.”
I would never baldly assert that “not all watts are equal” as David did, but would make the point by saying “not all watts have equal EFFECT”. (Analogously, all votes for President are equal, but those cast in “purple” states have more EFFECT than those in solidly “red” or “blue” states. As a resident of Florida, which can go either way, my vote for President is more sought for by political operatives than that of a resident of a state that always goes one way.)
We all agree that a w/m^2 of Sunlight striking a bright cloud and being reflected back to Space has less effect on the energy budget of the Earth System than an equal w/m^2 of Sunlight striking a dark surface and being absorbed. But, what of the Sunlight that is absorbed on the surface vs and equal quantity of LWIR backradiation that penetrates and is absorbed in the ocean depths?
Let us consider David’s example of 1 w/m^2 of SW (Sunlight) vs 1 w/m^2 of LWIR (backradiation from GHGs) striking the ocean.
a) SW Sunlight: Clear water is nearly transparent to visible SW radiation. That 1 w/m^2 of Sunlight will penetrate deeply and be absorbed by impurities in the water or the bottom surface, which will thereby warm.
b) LWIR Backradiation: Water is opaque to LWIR. That 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation will be absorbed by and warm the ocean surface.
Thus, In David’s example, the LWIR backradiation absorbed by the ocean surface has a more immediate effect on the mean Surface temperature of the Earth than the SW Sunlight penetrating deeply below the surface.
If, in a controlled experiment, we turned on the Sunlight over the ocean for a given number of w/m^2 for a set period of time, the surface temperature would increase by “X” degrees. If we simultaneously ran the controlled experiment on a similar patch of ocean but with LWIR backradiation of the same number of w/m^2 for the same time period, the surface temperature would increase by “Y” degrees and “Y” would be more than “X”.
However, if we simultaneously turned off both the SW Sunlight and LWIR backradiation, both “X” and “Y” would decrease, AND, after some period of time, temperature “X” would be greater than “Y”, which is opposite to the initial readings. (Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George struggle over which cough medicine to buy. One is “faster acting” but the other is “longer lasting” :^)
Furthermore, consider what will happen if we run the experiments for a very long time? The LWIR backradiation would warm the impurities or the bottom surface which, in turn, would warm the water in the depths, and that warm water would rise to the ocean surface and increase the surface temperature. After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal???
In the actual case, SW Sunlight is available only during the day (duh!), but LWIR backradiation is available both day and night, though it is generally stronger during the day. How does that affect long-term “X” and “Y”?
Bottom line: Interesting to compare 1 w/m^2 of SW Sunlight with 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation. Perhaps, when averaged over a long period of time, both have an equal effect, and, a WATT IS A WATT whether is it absorbed and re-emitted after a short period of residence or over a longer period or residence.
Ira
Ira;
Say what? Water is opaque to LW, IR or other.
Thanks, Brian H (January 19, 2014 at 11:52 am) for your correction to the twelfth paragraph of my comment (Ira Glickstein, PhD, January 19, 2014 at 9:53 am). I meant to say “SW Sunlight” and inadvertently typed “LWIR backradiation”. Of course water is opaque to LWIR.
Indeed, as I said in paragraph eight:
a) SW Sunlight: Clear water is nearly transparent to visible SW radiation. That 1 w/m^2 of Sunlight will penetrate deeply and be absorbed by impurities in the water or the bottom surface, which will thereby warm.
b) LWIR Backradiation: Water is opaque to LWIR. That 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation will be absorbed by and warm the ocean surface. [Bold added]
In paragraph twelve, I meant to say:
Furthermore, consider what will happen if we run the experiments for a very long time? The SW Sunlight would warm the impurities or the bottom surface which, in turn, would warm the water in the depths, and that warm water would rise to the ocean surface and increase the surface temperature. After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal??? [Bold added]
Ira
Dear Ira, thank you for your response. The superior expression of a PHD education to my high school educated articulation of thoughts is appreciated. It is indeed bold for a complete layman to claim coinage on a law of thermodynamics; “Only two things can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in the input, or a change in the residence time of some aspect of the energy within the system.”
However I have found this very useful in considering the Greenhouse effect, and other climate questions. Please note that in some of my initial comments regarding SW radiation, verses LWIR, I commented on how the earth does this experiment annually. I asked ; Does the earth gain energy during the SH summer, despite the fact that the atmosphere cools. I appreciate greatly the question marks in your metaphorically Newtonian question, “After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal???” As we do not know the residence time of the solar SW radiation, we cannot exactly quantify the answer, although Richard provided the insight to likely at least get the sign correct, affirming that we likely do gain energy during perihelion.
I would like to clarify my residence time traffic analogy. Numbers are simplified to a ten basis, for ease of math and communication. Picture the earths system (Land, ocean and atmosphere) as a one lane highway. Ten cars per hour enter, (TSI) and ten cars per hour exit (representing radiation to space.) The cars (representing one watt per square meter) are on the highway for one hour. So there are ten cars on the highway. (the earth’s energy budget)
Now let us say the ten cars instantly slow to a ten hour travel time. Over a ten hour period, the energy budget will increase from ten cars, to 100 cars, with no change of input. Let us say we move to a one hundred hour travel time. Then there will be, over a one hundred hour time period, an increase of 990 cars.
Of course the real earth has thousands of lanes traveling at different speeds, and via conduction, convection, radiation, evaporation and condension, albedo changes, GHGs, etc, etc, trillions of cars constantly changing lanes, with some on the highway for fractions of a second, and some for centuries. Also The sun changes WL over its polarity cycles far more then it changes total TSI. Additionally the sun can apparently enter phases of more active, or less active cycles which last for many decades.
Such thoughts caused me to question the disparate contributions to earth’s total energy budget of SWR verses LWIR.
Such thought are cause for me to question the total amount of geothermal heat within the oceans, as many of these cars are on a very slow, century’s long lane.
Such thought cause me to question the assumption that the earth, if it had an equally dense atmosphere, sans any GHG would be 33 degrees cooler. I will accept this as the radiative effect of GHGs.
However, in such an earth, sans GHG, a great deal more radiation would reach the surface. A great deal more energy would leave the surface to the atmosphere due to conduction for two reasons. One, the greater energy reaching the surface. Two, the residence time of the conducted energy in the atmosphere would increase. The local thermodynamic equalibrium would gradually expand, via the second law, to the entire atmosphere, until a conductive balance of “back conduction” to the surface was reached. The lapse rate would flatten, and, due to a lower density of molecules, all in a thermodynamic equilibrium, reduce convection. Reduced convection equals longer energy residence time. Convection, due to the night day cycle, different incident angles, and earth’s rotation, would of course continue, but just be reduced. No GHG to radiate the conducted energy equals longer residence time.
Now add one (very lonely) GHG molecule to such an atmosphere. If it receives energy from a conducting non GHG molecule, and zips that energy to space, it reduces the residence time of the conducted energy, (Cooling) verses it increasing the residence time of a LWIR photon from the surface. (Warming) if it redirects that energy back to the earth.
So, it may be fair to say that, in general, (I lack the courage, or perhaps hubris, to assert another law) “GHG molecules reduce the residence time of conducted energy, and increase the residence time of radiated LWIR energy.” It may be fair to say that the relationship between the percentage of GHG in an atmosphere, and the amount of conducted verses radiative energy in an atmosphere, creates a nonlinear relationship to the warming or cooling effect of additional GHG molecules.
Thank you for listening.
Cheers,
David Anderson
Heat balance: Input – output = accumulation
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Gentlemen discussants , long time and I’m in finding the underlying causes of climate change and following it with a discussion about including this in this forum . I have something important to point out, of course , if one of you and other interested parties have the desire and the ability to solve this enigma . Almost every term that you remarks, which may affect climate change , it is not even close to the same cause , but only occurs as a result of what is the cause of all these phenomena. Science has not yet realized it , and it seems there is no desire to listen to this as I am . EVERYTHING HAPPENS TO THE SUN has one basic cause. I have some indicators to prove the most occurrences, but it is very difficult for me that I resolved without the powerful program , astronomical data and material resources . Since this is a decision the greatest enigmas related to the whole of humanity , and much worth, I offer collaboration to try to solve , but only under contractual obligations . Sunspot cycle of 11.2 years are changed up to 17.5 years , but there are some legality as well as the butterfly diagram of 123 years ( 11×11 ) , and so on . My findings can be used for the occurrence of an earthquake . You should try it, and if it proves true, this will be my way to justify the costs if he understood . My e – mail is : majstor.n @ur momisugly hotmail.com ; nmilović483@ur momisuglygmail.com ; nikolamilović26@ur momisuglyjahu.com
I expect a call , even though I was an unknown , see the discussion on Linkedin.com
chemengrls says:
January 20, 2014 at 2:24 am
Heat balance: Input – output = accumulation
===================================================
Yes, because energy cannot be destroyed. But determining the residence time, now that is the rub.
Dr. Ira Glickstein
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.
Your claim is the AGW memespeak that “visible light is the heat we feel from the Sun” – we cannot feel visible light from the Sun, we cannot feel shortwaves as heat. . That is simply a physical fact.
Your claim is the AGW memespeak that we do not get any longwave infrared heat from the Sun – the NASA page contradicts you.
We cannot feel visible as heat because it is not powerful enough to move our molecules of flesh and blood and water in us into vibration. That is simply a physical fact.
Visible light works on the much tinier electron level, it is called electronic transition, not on the bigger more powerful molecular vibrational. This tinier electron level is the level of photosynthesis and the stimulation of nerve impulses which give us sight. Visible light from the Sun gets bounced around the sky by the tinier electrons of the whole molecules of nitrogen and oxygen – bounced around more is blue light, because it is more energetic it gets to be bounced around more. That is how we get our blue sky.
‘More energetic shortwaves’ bandied about by AGW to suggest that this equals power to heat is sleight of hand to distract that the more highly energetic the tinier it is, and the much tinier microscopic and even tinier visible light cannot move whole molecules into vibration, ergo, it cannot heat them – AGW removes all sense of scale, but those who know the difference in size and effect between the wavelengths of heat and light are not fooled.
Your AGW memespeak claims that visible light is the powerful heat energy from the Sun which is absorbed by the surface and physically heats it up. Your AGW memespeak is that we get no thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared from the Sun.
That is what you told me when I first discovered this was the AGW teaching, direct from you.
Visible light from the Sun is not the same as heat from the Sun and so visible light does not move land and ocean into vibration so cannot be heating them up – look up transparent in optics..
Deal with the facts as the NASA page clearly shows, we know that what we are getting from the Sun as heat is longwave infrared because we can FEEL it, that is how we can tell it is heat. That is how we can tell it is longwave infrared. It is invisible but we can feel it. It takes heat from the Sun to heat up matter. To get matter into vibration which is kinetic energy which is heat.
You cannot ignore what that NASA page is telling you.
It is telling you that we do get direct heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared so that immediately shows your AGW memespeak Trenberth et all energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is a load of nonsense. We get longwave in.
That is the truth, that is the physical fact.
But more, that direct from NASA page shows that the AGW energy budget is a deliberate load of nonsense, because traditional teaching still knows the difference between heat and light and industries make a living from knowing the difference. So who are AGW memespeakers trying to fool?
Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”
This is standard elementary science which we have known since Herschel’s great work, his discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible infrared, and we have refined it further with better measurements than his crude moving of a glass prism by hand at the edge of a table. We know now that shortwave infrared is not hot, that it is not heat, so we do not call it thermal infrared – that is reserved for the longer waves of infrared which are the real heat energy, thermal means ‘of heat’.
AGW memespeak again tries to confuse here, it claims “thermal means it comes from a hot source” so it can pretend by association that “visible light is thermal therefore hot therefore able to heat matter”, because it needs to back up its “shortwave in” in order to use real world measurements of the direct thermal longwave infrared from the Sun and its heating effects for AGW’s “backradiation”.
That direct from NASA page is proof that “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is not possible in traditional well known by years of empirical testing and application real physics, because, it shows up the AGW trick of taking real world measurements of longwave infrared heat downwelling direct beam from the Sun and pretending that this comes from backradiation, with the deliberate lie that visible from the Sun is heat and doing the work of heat.
No one who knows that all the heat we feel direct from the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared and visible light is not heat can be conned by this.
Here, deal with this too:
“Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
Since AGW claims only “shortwave in” and says of that its shortwave infrared is only an insignificant 1% – what has it, AGW/CERES/Trenberth done with the rest of the infrared from the Sun?
It pretends it comes from ‘backradiation’ …
The AGW Trenberth CERES energy budget claiming real world direct beam measurements of longwave infrared from the sun is “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is a deliberate science fraud just like all the manipulations of temperature data. That is a fact.
The direct from NASA page giving traditional empirically well known science teaching shows us how this was done.
You cannot ignore this.
Myrrh says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
+++++++++++
There’s a lot of interesting material here. I look forward to hearing some responses.
This will be a learning moment.
Ira, if you find time to respond to the thoughts expressed in my post here, David A says: January 20, 2014 at 1:48 am, I am certain I will find it informative, as I find all your comments. My thoughts on the accumulation of energy, and it relationship to “residence time” within any defined system, (the traffic analogy) are based on the law of the conservation of energy, where energy can only enter and exit a defined system, but as long as it is within that system, it is indeed energy.
In particular I am curious what you may consider to be the total geothermal heat content of our oceans, and what may be a very long residence time of deep volcanic heat flow through a thinner ocean crust. How long might that residence time be? Also your thoughts on my assertion that GHG does, about 50% of the time, increase the residence time of LWIR from the surface, but may decrease the residence time of energy the atmosphere has received from conduction. (This is why I was asking Richard C questions on how often GHGs receive conducted energy vs radiated LWIR.) Like many things, in the real world, it gets quite complex. Thanks in advance. Sorry to be the annoying student with so many questions. In truth, my assertions are questions.
David A, someone once quipped that “a fool can ask questions that even a wise man cannot answer.” :^) – and you are not a fool and I am not a wise man when it comes to the Climate System.
I hope there is someone in the WUWT community who can comment more wisely on your “residence time” ideas.
I have been thinking about it and I gave some of my thoughts earlier in this thread.
Here is a thought I have not expressed earlier: All the fossil fuels stored underground are packets of energy that came to the Earth from the Sun millions or billions of years ago. When that Solar energy reached the Earth it was absorbed by the land surface and ocean surface and near-surface, warming the Earth System. Some of that energy was re-radiated out to the Atmosphere and eventually lost to space.
But some of that Solar energy was taken up by bacteria and plants and so on. Most trees mature and die and decompose, releasing their stored energy for other life forms to eat, or as warmth that gets radiated away in a relatively short time period. Most land and sea life similarly matures and dies and decomposes, releasing their stored energy for other life forms to eat, or as warmth that gets radiated away in a relatively short time period.
HOWEVER, some trees get covered by soil and, eventually become COAL.
HOWEVER, some sea life gets covered by soil and, eventually becomes OIL and GAS.
COAL, OIL and GAS are therefore, in effect, packets of Solar energy that have a VERY LONG ‘residence time’ (millions or billions of years) on Earth. Of course, when we extract COAL at the mine or OIL or GAS at the well, and burn them as fossil fuel, they release their stored energy and that energy gets radiated away in a relatively short time period.
Question: If packet “A” of Solar energy contained in a quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a MILLION years, and packet “B” of Solar energy contained in another quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a BILLION years, and both are burned today, did packet “A” and packet “B” contribute the EXACT SAME amount of warming to the Earth System?
If “A” and “B” contributed the EXACT SAME, and “B” has a ‘residence time” 1000 times as long, that would seem to indicate that ‘residence time’ is not that important. On the other hand, if “B” has contributed more to the warming of the Earth System, what is the mechanism?
Ira
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Myrrh says: January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
… Your AGW memespeak claims that visible light is the powerful heat energy from the Sun which is absorbed by the surface and physically heats it up. Your AGW memespeak is that we get no thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared from the Sun. …
…Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
Please LOOK at the Solar Spectrum chart from the Wikipedia page you are quoting. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the diagram is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)
Note that we get UV, VISUAL, and NEAR-INFRARED radiation from the SUN. Please NOTICE that Solar radiation peaks around 500 nm (0.5 micron) in the VISIBLE LIGHT region, and that it extends from about 300 nm (0.3 micron which is UV light) through about 2,500 nm (2.5 micron which is NEAR-INFRARED).
Yes Ira, that is my argument.., that is the same AGW memespeak you are regurgitating and even this wiki page contradicts it on the same page.
What don’t you understand when I say that traditional science says this AGW claim is bs because you have excised the direct beam heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared which is what we actually feel as heat from the Sun?
As I have shown by the direct from NASA quote and even this wiki page gives the traditional breakdown of more than half infrared from the Sun measured at the ground, when AGW memespeak says this is not even produced by the Sun let alone received as heat at the ground.
We call ALL of this incoming Solar radiation “SHORT-wave” because, being less than 2,500 nm (2.5 microns), it is much shorter than the “LONG-wave” radiation from the Earth surface which peaks at about 10,000 nm (10 microns) and runs from about 4000 to 25,000 nm (4 to 25 microns). ….I hope this clears everything up for you.
Best wishes, Ira
My best wishes are that you listen to what I’m saying… The contradiction comes from a direct NASA page – you cannot ignore this contradiction.
The NASA page says that you are repeating a lie in your claim that we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun and this means that the energy budget premise on which your “backradiation from greenhouse gases” is based is also a lie – it is clearly fake physics, clearly a science fraud. This is not something which you, as a scientist, can ignore.
We cannot see longwave infrared, but we can feel it as heat. That is how we know it is longwave infrared, because we can feel it as heat.
We can feel it heating us up as we absorb it on our skin and internally. The powerful longwave infrared from the Sun raises our temperature and makes us sweat.
We cannot feel shortwave because it does not have this affect on us, shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is classed in with light not heat. Reflective not Thermal.
That is why shortwave infrared is not called thermal, (from the Greek meaning of heat), because it is not the infrared wavelength of heat. It is not hot. We cannot feel it as heat.
AGW memespeak’s energy budget has taken out the real thermal energy from the Sun because it needs to use real world figures of this to pretend it comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases”.
Enough Ira – concentrate on the fact that AGW memespeak claims we get no direct longwave infrared heat from the Sun when traditional science direct from NASA and the wiki quote I gave contradict this.
Traditional physics which understands the difference between light and heat we get from the Sun contradicts this AGW/Trenberth/CERES energy budget and can see that it is a deliberate perversion of basic physics.
You must deal with this contradiction.
AGW has taken out all the direct longwave infrared heat we get from the Sun and falsely attributed it to “backradiation from greenhouse gases”.
Ira Glickstein, PhD:
Thankyou for your reply to David A at January 24, 2014 at 6:15 am.
Your introduction of the ‘residence time’ of the chemical energy in fossil fuels is excellent. It provides a good explanation of the issues I tried but failed to explain to David A when presenting my view. I wish I had thought of it.
Perhaps the matter will be resolved one way or the other by addressing your question; viz.
And, of course, human use of fossil fuel is not the only return of energy stored by fossil fuel. Natural consumption of fossil fuel with resulting energy release is much more; e.g. from bacteria digesting oil seeps, natural coal seam fires, volcanic subduction with volcanic return, etc.
Personally, I see no such mechanism. However, and sincerely, if David A does suggest such a mechanism then I will be pleased to have learned.
Richard
In a previous thread on WUWT I said that I would no longer reply to your comments, and now, having been accused of “repeating a lie”, I am sorry to have wasted my time doing so.
My final words to you:
1) The Solar Spectrum graph on the Wikipedia page you approvingly quoted from shows that virtually ALL the radiation energy received by the Earth from the Sun is SHORT-wave (meaning it is less than 2,500 nm or 2.5 micron). That is NOT a lie. That as been measured and recorded and studied extensively, both by satellite instruments in Space and careful observers on the ground. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the Solar radiation graph is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)
2) As you admit, you feel warmth when your skin is radiated by Sunshine. Thus, SHORT-wave radiation as depicted by the Wikipedia page IS capable of causing HEAT when it is absorbed by your skin. (I am sure you have taken a magnifying glass and focused Sunlight on paper and seen it char and even burst into flames, which PROVES SHORT-wave Sunlight radiation, when absorbed, is HEAT energy.)
3) As depicted in the upper part of the fourth graphic in my main Topic, radiation from the Earth to Space has been measured by instruments looking down from satellites. As depicted by the lower part, and radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere. These measurements have been taken many times in different places and, as indicated by the dashed lines in my fourth graphic, they ALWAYS approximate so-called “blackbody” radiation that peaks in the LONG-wave region at 10,000 nm (10 microns). As indicated, the measured curves have “bites” taken out of the idealized “blackbody” curves and those “bites” correspond to the well-known and often measured absorption and emission spectra of H2O and CO2, the main so-called “greenhouse” gases. That is PROOF that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real. That is NOT a lie.
Ira
Ira postulates…
“Question: If packet “A” of Solar energy contained in a quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a MILLION years, and packet “B” of Solar energy contained in another quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a BILLION years, and both are burned today, did packet “A” and packet “B” contribute the EXACT SAME amount of warming to the Earth System?”
If “A” and “B” contributed the EXACT SAME, and “B” has a ‘residence time” 1000 times as long, that would seem to indicate that ‘residence time’ is not that important. On the other hand, if “B” has contributed more to the warming of the Earth System, what is the mechanism?
Ira
———————————————————————————————————————-
Thank you for your response and questions. Let us see if ingenuity is equal to the maze.
The law stated was, “Only two things can change the “energy content” of a system in a radiative balance, either a change of input, or a change of some aspect of the residence time of the energy within the system.
(Short answer) If “B” was here 1000 times as long as “A” , then the energy content of the “system” was, that much higher, for 1000 times as long.
Your analogy isolates the inflow, hence my “short answer” The affect of residence time depends on inflow not changing, and being continuous.
If continuous equal packets of energy, continuously flow into the 1000 times as long (B) fossil fuel lane, and into the the1000 times shorter, (A) fossil fuel lane, then lane (B) will eventually have 1000 times the energy content of “A”. The “B” fossil fuel reserves will indeed become, over that 1000 times longer “residence time”, or one billion years, 1000 times larger. By stopping the inflow in your analogy, you forced the short answer given.
We have always agreed that 1000 watts, is 1000 watts. ( Myrrh’s comments to please be set aside) So, 1000 watts, cannot ever be more, or less, then 1000 watts, via the conservation of energy laws. Your analogy, by separating the relationship between continuous inflow and accumulation, says, in my view, nothing more then that.
Accumulations of energy depend on continuous input. The Greenhouse effect, is dependent on continuous input of more solar insolation, while GHG molecules delay the release of LWIR from the surface. (This last sentence should be in caps)
The fact that all energy does not always manifest as heat is not in dispute. It is the inflow, for now assumed to be continuous and invariable, energy residence = accumulation, outflow.
Now, back to your analogy. Fossil fuel production is a miniscule portion of earth’s solar energy input. (Lately measured in Hiroshima Bombs, (-;) It is miniscule compared to the geothermal heat flow into the oceans, (which most climate scientist dismiss as being to small to be of consequence) which is continuous, and does quantitatively add to the oceans heat content, the total amount in the ocean is indeed based on residence time, which no one has bothered to analyze that I am aware of. (I suspect that there are a lot of Hiroshima Bombs there)
So, I am more curious about your thoughts regarding the total geothermal heat in the oceans, and your thoughts cogent to my comments on GHG molecules increasing the residence time of LWIR, (warming) but maybe decreasing the residence time (Cooling) of atmospheric energy which reached those molecules via conduction and convection. This was expressed in more detail here, in my comment on January 20, 2014 at 1:48 am.
All the best, and I am thankful Richard is still following this conversation. His comments are ever welcome.
Ira, thank you; I posted a good response, (if I don’t say so myself) but it disappeared. So, when I have a bit more time I will redo it.
All the best
David A
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 24, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Myrrh says: January 24, 2014 at 7:31 am …
… you have excised the direct beam heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared which is what we actually feel as heat from the Sun?
As I have shown by the direct from NASA quote and even this wiki page gives the traditional breakdown of more than half infrared from the Sun measured at the ground, when AGW memespeak says this is not even produced by the Sun let alone received as heat at the ground. …
… The NASA page says that you are repeating a lie in your claim that we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun and this means that the energy budget premise on which your “backradiation from greenhouse gases” is based is also a lie – it is clearly fake physics, clearly a science fraud. This is not something which you, as a scientist, can ignore.
We cannot see longwave infrared, but we can feel it as heat. That is how we know it is longwave infrared, because we can feel it as heat.
We can feel it heating us up as we absorb it on our skin and internally. The powerful longwave infrared from the Sun raises our temperature and makes us sweat. …
In a previous thread on WUWT I said that I would no longer reply to your comments, and now, having been accused of “repeating a lie”, I am sorry to have wasted my time doing so.
Ira, I am trying to point out to you physical facts here which show that basic science has been corrupted to produce the AGW energy budget, I have given a page direct from NASA which clearly contradicts the AGW energy budget claim.
It is obvious to those who do know the difference between heat and light from the Sun that the AGW energy budget is a lie. It cannot be called anything else, therefore, it is a science fraud.
I cannot make you willing to investigate this fraud for yourself or make you follow my explanations, but, what you cannot dismiss is that my explanation is on a page from one of the most prestigious science bodies in the world – it is their teaching which directly contradicts the AGW energy budget which you continue to repeat. Your argument is with them, not with me..
My final words to you:
I hope not.
1) The Solar Spectrum graph on the Wikipedia page you approvingly quoted from shows that virtually ALL the radiation energy received by the Earth from the Sun is SHORT-wave (meaning it is less than 2,500 nm or 2.5 micron). That is NOT a lie.
And the NASA page and quote I have given says it IS a lie.
Because it excludes the great heat waves we feel from the Sun, which is longwave infrared.
Traditional teaching from NASA says you are wrong.
That as been measured and recorded and studied extensively, both by satellite instruments in Space and careful observers on the ground. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the Solar radiation graph is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)
And as I am trying to point out to you here, these figures are being presented selectively in aid of the AGW science fraud.
They do not show the great amount of heat energy, longwave infrared, from the Sun, because, they are using real world measurements of it to pretend it comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases”, “from the atmosphere”.
They have excised the great invisible longwave infrared heat from the Sun completely – and to stop it being thought of at all they have put two scenarios in place which are now ubiquitous in general education.
The first that the Sun only produces their claimed “shortwave in” as you’ve given from wiki, and the second that there is “an invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse preventing any longwave infrared heat from the Sun entering”.
While exploring further from our first discussion, nearly three years ago when I first learned about this AGW energy budget, and asking for information on this unknown to traditional physics “invisible barrier preventing longwave infrared from the Sun enterring at TOA”, I was told, with a degree of disdain, that this was only the claim from CAGWs, that AGWs said the Sun didn’t produce any amount of it of any significance so no significant amount of it reached us, as per the wiki you’ve just given this postulated from the planckian 6000°C Sun…
I spent only a short time musing which was the most ridiculous, an invisible barrier preventing the great heat we feel from the Sun entering or that our millions of degrees hot STAR was not radiating any heat.., but you won’t be able to appreciate that as long as you are unwilling to see this from my perspective.
2) As you admit, you feel warmth when your skin is radiated by Sunshine. Thus, SHORT-wave radiation as depicted by the Wikipedia page IS capable of causing HEAT when it is absorbed by your skin.
That is disingenous Ira – the NASA page and quote I give says clearly that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, and that we cannnot feel heat from shortwave infrared. In fact, it says, we cannot feel near infrared at all.
I have explained why we cannot feel shortwaves as heat, because it isn’t big enough to move our whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter.
(I am sure you have taken a magnifying glass and focused Sunlight on paper and seen it char and even burst into flames, which PROVES SHORT-wave Sunlight radiation, when absorbed, is HEAT energy.)
That is absurd, it proves nothing of the kind to artificially enhance light from the Sun and you are excluding the actual invisible longwave infrared heat from the Sun. Are you claiming that there is a magnifying glass all around the EArth at TOA..? Or are you claiming here that longwave infrared cannot get through glass?
Because you certainly can no longer claim that we do not get longwave invisible heat from the Sun because that direct from NASA page contradicts you – it clearly and unambiguously says that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, which is longwave infrared and the same invisible heat we feel from a fire, etc.
I remind you that what I am saying is traditional physics, empirically well understood and used in countless real world industries..
C.O.D. empirical – based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory;
According to AGW faked physics, all those companies making glass and film for windows are conning us by claiming they are reducing the direct heat we get from the Sun, and instead by maximising the entry of visible light they are actually heating our rooms!
3) As depicted in the upper part of the fourth graphic in my main Topic, radiation from the Earth to Space has been measured by instruments looking down from satellites. As depicted by the lower part, and radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere. These measurements have been taken many times in different places and, as indicated by the dashed lines in my fourth graphic, they ALWAYS approximate so-called “blackbody” radiation that peaks in the LONG-wave region at 10,000 nm (10 microns). As indicated, the measured curves have “bites” taken out of the idealized “blackbody” curves and those “bites” correspond to the well-known and often measured absorption and emission spectra of H2O and CO2, the main so-called “greenhouse” gases. That is PROOF that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real. That is NOT a lie.
And what I am saying is that their measurements are not “radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere” – but, measurements of the direct longwave infrared heat from the Sun.
This is the precise point where their sleight of hand fraud for “backradiation” begins – the pretence that the great heat we get direct from the Sun is “from the atmosphere”.
Real world measurement are not “from the atmosphere”, they are from the Sun. They go to great lengths to get clear sky readings. Hence, as on the same wiki page, we get over half of the radiation reaching the ground direct from the Sun to be infrared.
While AGW say only 1% of their “solar shortwave in” is infrared – so I ask again, what have they done with the rest of the infrared direct from Sun which has been measured at the ground?
Ira, you cannot keep repeating your claims still insisting you are right because I have given you information which contradicts you on the precise point on which the AGW backradiation fraud hinges, it is contradicted on this point by no less a body than NASA.
If you ever do find yourself willing to explore this contradiction I think you will be as appalled and saddened by the destruction of basic science in general education as I am, and as amazed at the cleverness of the fraud in the subtle sleights of hand employed in creating it.
@Myrrh January 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm
+1000
Your capacity for politeness, in the face of terminal denialism, is greatly to your credit. Why can’t people see the bleedin’ obvious?
Think back to any pleasant spring day when you might decide to have the first sunbathing session of the year, in a shade temperature of, say, +20C/68F. It’s fine in direct sunlight, even with a breeze; however, as soon as one small cumulus cloud casts its shadow on you, you sense that it instantly becomes markedly cooler. The cloud drifts on and you immediately sense this as the sun’s direct heat blasting in to you is restored.
I sense that NASA has a party line which follows its source of funding; however, earnest scientists in the organization have commenced Operation BACKPEDAL.
Occam’s Razor.
Well David A, I think you may actually be correct. In an earlier comment, I asked “what is the mechanism?” (for a packet of Solar energy “B” that happens to be stored as fossil fuel for a billion years increasing the energy or temperature of the Earth System 1000 times more than an equal packet “A” that happens to be stored only a million years, if both are burned today).
Here is my take on the mechanism, and it is basically what you said in your most recent comment, but I will say it differently. Here goes:
1) Consider the Earth System: ALL energy comes to the Earth System from Space and goes from the Earth System to Space via RADIATION (except for physical things like meteors coming in from Space and spaceships going out to Space, which may be discounted because they are insignificant compared to the RADIATION in terms of energy to and from).
2) When a packet of Solar energy (SHORT-wave radiation) comes into the Earth System via RADIATION, it raises the total energy in that Earth System by that amount.
3) When a packet of energy leaves the Earth System via RADIATION (SHORT-wave radiation reflected from white clouds or other light-colored objects, or LONG-wave radiation from the Surface or from GHGs in the Atmosphere), it reduces the total energy in the Earth System by that amount.
4) Say a packet of Solar energy comes in and is immediately reflected by a white cloud. During that very brief period, the total energy in the Earth System has been increased, and then immediately decreased.
5) Now consider a packet “A” of Solar energy that comes in, is absorbed by some plant, which, over time gets covered in soil and turns into coal that remains buried for a million years until it is burned today and turned into electrical energy, and used to power a spotlight that radiates it out to Space. The total energy of the Earth System has been raised by the arrival of packet “A”, and remained raised for a MILLION years.
6) Now consider the Solar energy in packet “B” that was absorbed a billion years ago and burned and radiated out to Space today. The total energy of the Earth System has been raised by the arrival of packet “B”, and remained raised for a BILLION years.
7) So, packet “B” has raised the total energy in the Earth System for 1000 times as long as Packet “A”. Looked at this way, ‘residence time’ does seem to have a direct proportional effect on total energy content of the Earth System.
So, does total energy content of the Earth System translate into higher Global temperature? I (now) think it does! Consider a gas. The “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the moving molecules. If we had a quantity of gas inside a perfectly insulated container (zero radiation, convection, conduction), and we add energy, the temperature will increase and remain higher forever. The “temperature” of a liquid or solid is something like the average vibration of the molecules, so the temperature of a quantity of liquid or solid material in a perfectly insulated container will increase if we add energy, and remain higher forever!
But, what about phase changes? We know that transition from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to a gas, requires a great deal of energy input, but yields no temperature increase. (A container of ice absorbs lots of energy as it turns to water, but the temperature remains at zero C. A container of water absorbs even more energy as it turns to steam, but the temperature remains at 100 C.) So total energy content is NOT directly proportional to temperature, is it?
Considering fossil fuels. As they were formed over eons, that represents conversion and storage of Solar energy into coal, oil and gas that continually increased the energy content of the Earth System. If we were to burn all fossil fuels in a short period of time and RADIATE ALL that stored energy out to Space, that would decrease the energy content of the Earth System.
Does that mean that human burning of unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels over a relatively short time period is DECREASING the energy content of the Earth System (compared to what it would be if fossil fuels remained undisturbed)? Does that mean that human use of lots of fossil fuels only temporarily increases temperatures on Earth (by the direct heating effects plus increase in GHGs) and that when that burst of energy is radiated out to Space, as it will eventually be, that the long-term effect will be a cooling of the Earth System?.
Someone (richardscourtney?) please help us out here!
Ira
Mario Lento says:
January 23, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Myrrh says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
+++++++++++
This will be a learning moment.
We can only hope..
Tom says:
January 25, 2014 at 7:41 pm
@Myrrh January 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Why can’t people see the bleedin’ obvious?
It is only obvious to those who were or are still being taught traditional physics, the general population who don’t require it for their work or interest in some applied science form or other will simply accept the faked physics of AGW as if science facts. Even of those who can spot the difference, how many take an interest in these arguments at all let alone come across a discussion which might stimulate to think about what is being said?
I took an interest in this particular aspect from a discussion instigated by Willis pondering the Trenberth energy budget and continued to explore it because I wanted to know what was actually meant by the terms used in it – and couldn’t quite bring myself to believe it really was saying shortwave heated land and water, mainly visible light, and that there was no radiant heat from the Sun as the AGW base premise. What really shocked me as I read description after description giving the same fake physics as if real was that these descriptions came from universities and science bodies without showing the slightest embarrassment. It has now become establishment teaching over the last couple of decades and you can see this in new papers written, not as often as you will see AGW memespeak on temperature and carbon dioxide incorporated into premises, but I have seen it in passing.
I sense that NASA has a party line which follows its source of funding; however, earnest scientists in the organization have commenced Operation BACKPEDAL.
Well, this page from NASA was actually saved from being lost by those earnest scientists.. The whole section was on the main NASA pages with the note saying it would remain up for a month and then disappear, when I first found it. I wanted to save it online and Anthony showed me how, but that disappeared after a few days and couldn’t be retrieved, and then the section itself disappeared from the NASA site. I thought it had gone for good, and then around a week later it reappeared again as you see, but as a stand alone. Someone there was determined to keep it available.
Traditional teaching is still available.., but it is now very hard to find online.
The thing to remember by those to whom the differences are not immediately obvious, is that traditional physics makes sense. But they will have to look around for themselves to find the great difference in size between shortwave and longwave and the different effects these have on meeting matter before they can see that the claims made are nonsense, and to watch out for the world play..
AGW is very clever at word association in their sleights of hand, for example as above in using “atmosphere” together with real world measurements of downwelling radiant heat which is actually measured direct from the Sun. It is not until one can see they have taken out the real downwelling radiant heat from the Sun that their “backradiation from greenhouse gases” becomes obvious as a fraud.
Another is the use of “absorbed” in their claim that visible light heats the ocean; by deliberately confusing the general use of absorbed meaning attenuation, which could be for a variety of reasons, with the specific meaning of absorbed as in energy being absorbed by an electron or whole molecule. Water is a transparent medium for visible light from the Sun, it is not even absorbed on the electron level but transmitted through unchanged, and on that level couldn’t be heating it anyway. If it could be absorbed it would be bounced around by the electrons as the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen bounce it around in the atmosphere – though you won’t get an answer if you ask how much this is heating the atmosphere, as their memespeak is “all energy from the Sun is the same and all creates heat when absorbed”…
It becomes even more obvious when you bring in photosynthesis – if visible light is the great heating energy we get from the Sun then there would be no life in the oceans as we know it and we would not have evolved into the carbon life forms we are from these first protoplants moving onto land.
It is not just that real world traditional physics makes sense, the parts make a coherent whole, but it is that AGW memespeak makes nonsense of it. That is when it really becomes obvious it is faked.
But it is a clever fraud, it is all in the detail and the detail needed to analyse it is difficult to gather from all the different science disciplines involved, and gets convoluted very quickly… Here I’ve gathered it all down to the very pivotal point of the “backradiation” fraud on which their whole AGW claim is based, as having the fewest parts..
That AGW/Trenberth/CERES et al’s energy budget is a fraud because they have taken out the direct longwave infrared we feel as heat from the Sun in order to give it their “backradiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” claim, ergo, the backradiation by greenhouse gases is a fraud.
They have corrupted empirically very well known science on the difference between heat and light from the Sun as still taught traditionally. And the direct from NASA page I have given contradicting them is proof of their science fraud.
It doesn’t get simpler than that.
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
@ur momisugly Myrrh January 26, 2014 at 8:42 pm
It’s all very simple when you stick to basic physics. I now have 2 killer arguments which, from different routes, expose the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect as a fraudulent invention – at least in terms of net surface warming caused by backradiation from trace gases such as CO2.
I hope you will agree there is a strong delayed cooling effect from condensing water vapour. Delayed cooling (eg when cloud cover prevents night frosts long enough for the sun to reappear) is quite different to an already warmer surface being made yet warmer by backradiation from gases, which don’t change state, in a cooler sky.
The other explanation that the UNIPCC GHE is fraudulent comes from unpicking the KT energy budgets cartoon. Their error is in equating energy flux in = energy flux out. There is no universal law which mandates that these 2 things must be equal. There is such a law, however, which demands that energy in = energy out. The sleight of hand in the cartoon is to ‘average’ what should be 480 W/m^2 blasting half of the globe at all times, to 240 W/m^2 falling on the entire globe. From that point on, any ‘science’ which flows from that fantasy is physically meaningless and is designed to deceive. The outcome of that fraud is that the artificially cooled sun (NB the T^4 factor) can support a maximum ‘average’ surface temperature of -18C. It follows that magic must happen from the sky in order to explain why the ‘average’ temperature is +15C. Mouth-breathing PPE grad politicians easily fall for this and we get taxed, thanks to junk science and a global 24/7 information warfare campaign over decades by MSM.
So, they take real sunlight which can heat things directly by LWIR and they say it can’t. Also, they artificially cool it by deceitfully doubling the surface area which it hits. All of a sudden, the sun can’t melt ice (-18C) or evaporate water and it’s magic from the sky to the rescue. Who knew? (Certainly not Dr Ira).