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
“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.”
1) The amount of IR actually absorbed and converted to heat is very small and unlikely to be measurable. The IPCC had to artificially augment the thermodynamic alpha factor for CO2 by 12-fold to make it more significant and then had to pretend that water vapor was enslaved by CO2 to magnify this augmented, still tiny effect another 10-fold.
2) The radiated IR from this slight warming is rejected, reflected, and not absorbed by the surface, which is warmer than the atmosphere. The energy levels in the surface are already full for this IR and thus it cannot be absorbed. To think so goes against thermodynamics. The atmosphere cannot warm the surface using IR sent back down by the atmosphere.
Never mind the details, you can agree climatology, the cause, has now gone full circle.
1984 sum of knowledge= we don’t know.
2014 sum of knowledge= we don’t know.
Except the busy little bandits from our respective governments have hoovered up trillions of dollars and imposed thousands of senseless regulations.
How many children still die before their 5th birthday?
How many poor people still wait for reliable electricity supply ?
Are we better off, having lived through this popular delusion and the madness of crowds?
u.k.(us) says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:18 pm (Edit)
Simon says: [ ” … “]
January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
==============
“Wow,
you throw Wiki ‘global warming’ out there, with no mention of climate change.
You bet all your horses to win, too?”
u.k.(us) is being sarcastic, but he is right. Arguing based on Connolley’s Wikipedia has no credibility. It is propaganda, nothing more.
Of course there is global warming. The planet has warmed since the LIA. But there is zero scientific evidence showing that the warming is anything but natural. If you will look closely, you will see that the planet cooled starting in the 1940’s, when CO2 was ramping up.
Those presuming that “carbon” is the cause of global warming always neglect to explain that inconvenient fact. If CO2 causes global warming, then the globe should have warmed during the 30 year period beginning around 1940.
It didn’t, thus: skepticism.
Tom 6:03
The temperature at the core of the earth is estimated to be nearly 6,000 K. As a first approximation we might assume that to be fairly uniform, although surely it is not. The flow of heat is from there to space. The crust and the atmosphere are boundaries through which the heat is transferred and subject to local variance. At the surface and atmosphere, two of those variances are solar input and the composition of the atmosphere and these effect the rate of transfer.
The fact remains that the earth is the SOURCE and space is the SINK. Anything at the boundary that slows the rate of transfer will back up heat in the system. This can be effected by changing the “delta T” or by changing the transfer coefficient. My point is that warming does not depend on trapping or transferring solar energy, although that may happen, but simple physics says that, ceterus paribus, the temperature of the atmosphere will rise if the rate of heat transfer from the SOURCE to the SINK slows and heat accumulates in the atmosphere.
u.k.(us), so much has been brought to light since May 7, 2011, what, 2½ years ago, time flys, that tackling this is like starting over at ground zero (IPCCs ground zero) and rerunning all of the thousands of post and comments and our current understanding once again. It’s going take a while to even decide where to begin if I can cubby enough time to start.
We all now know temperature is not tracking co2 concentration so something, maybe even our understanding of the radiative nature of not small scale (factory size) but at atmosheric scale radiation. Something does not jibe and everyone is searching for the reason why. One may very well be that it is not the science but the adjustments themselves that are merely based on papers accepted-as-fact, after all they were peer-reviwed, and applied to the global temperature records. That is a possibliblity though, I for one, cannot seem to put my finger on it but I look at HadCRUT4 or GISS without the adjustments and wonder, that looks like what you read in history.
If it is in our understanding of planet size radiation properties I find one other curious relation between the only other atmosphere that we have adequate data to even question. It has to due with the upward reistance or impedance to IR radiation upward from the surface per kilogram of a unit area column for the factor is basically identical between the two planets, Earth and Venus. I find that so telling that there is something there.
I just keep waiting for some one else to also look into these areas, that others also should at least question why they are so. I can no long buy this mad is causing “global warming” anymore without some of these good questions being answered.
@higley7 6:20pm
Ye shall be burnt. Ye are a wizard. That sort of basic physics gets people [snip]’ed around here.
Whatever you do, don’t mention that, to arrive at the cold sun/-18C fallacy, you have to halve the actual incoming solar flux and spread it over the entire earth’s surface, 24 hours per day. Then you get -18C, except that’s physically meaningless. But hey, a story needs legs.
The “Mighty Polar Vortex” has ended!
Where were Hansen, Gavin, Jones and “The” Trendberth? (dug deep in holes meters below ground and shivering in mortal fear … they will still not emerge before February 2 for safety and precautionary measures against CFC, CO2, Ozone and PM2.5 contaminations)
Wimps!
Ha ha
u.k (us)
“Wow,
you throw Wiki “global warming” out there, with no mention of climate change.
You bet all your horses to win, too?”
It wouldn’t matter which of the major data sets you choose. They all show significant warming during the 20th century so trying to say it was warmer in the 30’s than today is simply ignoring the facts. If you can find a recognised dataset that say otherwise then good on you, let’s see it. Otherwise simply saying it is wikipedia so it is rubbish is ridiculous. I see wikipedia quoted here all the time by both sides.
u.k.(us)… maybe that was a little Freudian slip… I meant to type “man is causing ‘global warming'” [not], not “mad is causing ‘global warming'”. Heh.
wayne says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:29 pm
===========
I know the feeling.
I mostly try to listen, unless I see what appears to be a slight upon the author of a post that obviously took a lot of work.
This is where I get lost (let me explain) …
Where is the heat sink? I can buy the notion that CO2 absorbs IR in a specific range (that water vapor is transparant to). But where does this energy go? You say some of this energy is re-emited back to the surface — but this can’t make a difference, because CO2 is a trace gas.
I can buy the notion that the heated CO2 passes energry by convection to other gases which in turn can heat the earth (and the seas) by conduction. And once the energy leaves the CO2, the gas can absorb more IR radiation. But where’s the heat sink? Eventually, all of this heat will leave the earth, right?
Why do deserts cool off sharply at night? Why do humid nights retain more heat (nighttime in Miami is oppressive in the summer months)? My answer is that there are many more H20 molecules in the atmosphere and they form a much more effective heat sink than the very few CO2 molecules.
And the higher the gas pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more quickly will the oceans absorb the gas. And the higher the CO2 percentage, the faster the growth rate of green plants which removes the gas from the atmosphere.
And what can anyone say will be the date of the onset of the next ice age?
The temperature at the core of the earth is estimated to be nearly 6,000 K. As a first approximation we might assume that to be fairly uniform, although surely it is not. The flow of heat is from there to space. The crust and the atmosphere are boundaries through which the heat is transferred and subject to local variance. At the surface and atmosphere, two of those variances are solar input and the composition of the atmosphere and these effect the rate of transfer.
The fact remains that the earth is the SOURCE and space is the SINK. Anything at the boundary that slows the rate of transfer will back up heat in the system. This can be effected by changing the “delta T” or by changing the transfer coefficient. My point is that warming does not depend on trapping or transferring solar energy, although that may happen, but simple physics says that, ceterus paribus, the temperature of the atmosphere will rise if the rate of heat transfer from the SOURCE to the SINK slows and heat accumulates in the atmosphere.
@lcf 6:28pm
But the warmie nutters aren’t majoring on accumulated heat in the atmosphere. The exact allegation is that stuff in the atmosphere is causing the surface temperature to increase. This is an important distinction from the surface cooling less slowly, upon which, I think we agree. The latter does not equal the former.
If heat were accumulating in the atmosphere, then the mythical ‘tropospheric hotspot’ would have been found by any number of means. It wasn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Lastly, there’s no need to SHOUT.
The AGW question isn’t whether or not certain gases absorbe and re-emit LW infrared thus warming air space. Of course they do and water vapor is the major player. The AGW question is three-fold. 1) How much water vapor needs to change before a change in temps is measurable, 2) How much anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for a change in water vapor, and 3) Does the AGW change rise above natural variability. And all 3 questions need to be answered for in-situ conditions, not lab conditions. A gas can and will act one way in the lab and a different way in-situ.
I dislike simple statements that are not based on solid mechanisms under in-situ conditions.
Dr. Glickstein,
I would like to raise two points –
A- I believe you have in some measure used “strawman” arguments against those sceptics like myself that object to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.
B- You’re late to the party. I have already demonstrated how the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis can be disproved by empirical experiment.
With regard to my first point, sceptics who reject the GHE hypothesis do understand radiative physics and why two shell radiative models fail. There is little wrong* with radiative physics, it’s just that climate “science” is giving it a bad name. The central claim of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the planets radiative cooling ability. The critical flaw here is believing that temperature profiles for moving fluids in a gravity field can be derived from SB equations alone.
It is worth reviewing Sir George Simpson’s criticism of Callendar’s 1938 global warming claims –
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”
– This criticism from 1938 is still valid. The original claims of global warming Doooooom! were based on two shell radiative models that simply parametrise non-radiative transports within the atmosphere. Even today GCMs do not have the vertical resolution to model these energy transports correctly.
With regard to my second point it is possible to disprove not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect via simple empirical experiments. A full climate model is not required.
I have previously show empirical experiments that demonstrate that the radiative physics behind the two shell model work for materials that are not fluid (just like Willis’ “steel greenhouse”).
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
*But I have also shown experiments that that demonstrate that incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. (all climate models have this fault as they show DWLWIR as having the same effect over the oceans as it does over land)
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Another important experiment demonstrates why Sir George Simpson was right. The temperature profile of gas column in a gravity field cannot be determined by just measuring the energy entering and exiting the column. The relative height of energy entry and exit must be known.
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
It is also possible to show by empirical experiment why gravity is important in determining atmospheric temperature. The surface is far more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it. (almost all two shell radiative climate models do not include this “gravity bias”)
http://oi49.tinypic.com/akcv0g.jpg
But the simplest way to disprove the entire radiative greenhouse hypothesis is with this simple (yet expensive) empirical experiment.
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
This experiment simulates what would happen to the oceans if the planet did not have an atmosphere (and the oceans could be prevented from boiling into space). The experiment heats a water sample with an intermittent SW source at depth. The sample can cool only by IR emitted from the surface. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. There is also virtually no LWIR incident on the surface of the water. Initial temperature of the water 15C
How hot will can the water get?
Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
Or will it rise toward 80C?
What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?
If the oceans can reach 80C in the absence of an atmosphere (assuming they didn’t boil into space) that would prove that the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases. This would mean that not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect is disproved.
I have not conducted this last expensive experiment due to lack of “dark money” and “big oil dollars”
However I have conducted a quick check to see how hot water exposed to sunlight can get if evaporative and convective cooling is restricted –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
That’s 76.4C the thermometer is showing and I’m nowhere near the equator.
Sadly that experiment is not “clean” The water is exposed to DWLWIR and there are considerable conductive losses.
Dr. Glickstein,
Looking at the clean (yet expensive) version of this experiment –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
Could you give me your answer to the following questions –
Will the water sample freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
Or will it rise toward 80C?
What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?
@Pamela Gray 6:54pm
Good points. I was listening to 2 CAGW zealots on the BBCO2 a few days ago, waxing lyrical about “warmer air can hold more water vapour, so expect heavier rainfall”.
Set aside there has been no global warming since 1998. They never complete the cycle and never mention that if there is increased evaporation due to localised warming, then more heat will be transported away from the surface. More clouds will form, therefore more sunlight will be blocked by the clouds, hence the locality will cool down again. It’s nature’s thermostat doing what it should do for a system blessed with a water cycle. It is not a cause for alarm.
Tanner, thanks for your comment.
Clarifying the first point you quote above:
(1a) The interior surface of a physical greenhouse is warmed by RADIATIVE effects (Sunlight radiation being absorbed by the soil and plants).
(1b) If, as is usually the case, the roof is made of glass is opaque to upwelling infrared radiation from the soil and plants, the glass will absorb the upwelling infrared energy and become warm and then re-radiate infrared energy in all directions. Some of the infrared energy will be radiated back down to the interior surface of the greenhouse, causing some additional warming. [However, if the greenhouse is made of rock salt or other material that is transparent to infrared radiation, the upwelling infrared will pass through to the outside air and the greenhouse will be a bit cooler than it would with a glass roof.]
(1c) Some of the greenhouse warmth is lost to the outside air via infrared RADIATION from the warmed glass roof and walls.
(1d) Some of the greenhouse warmth is lost to the outside air and ground via CONDUCTION and/or CONVECTION because no practical greenhouse can be perfectly insulated or totally airtight. However, the MAIN reason a physical greenhouse STAYS warm is that it is pretty well airtight and insulated. A physical greenhouse would not stay very warm if it was subject to major CONVECTION (say from an inadvertent leak or an open door or window).
So, for a physical greenhouse, radiation warms and convection and conduction (if and when they occur) cools. OK?
Clarifying the second point you quote above:
(2a) The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmed by RADIATIVE effects (Sunlight radiation being absorbed by the ocean and land Surface).
(2b) Given an Atmosphere that includes so-called “greenhouse gases” (GHG – mostly water vapor but also including carbon dioxide) that absorb upwelling infrared radiation, the Atmosphere will warm. The warmed Atmosphere will radiate infrared energy in all directions and some of it will be downwelling towards the Earth Surface and cause additional warming. [Fortunately, our Atmosphere has GHGs. If there were no GHGs the upwelling infrared radiation would pass out to Space and the Earth Surface would be too cold to support life as we know it.]
(2c) The only way the Earth System (Surface plus Atmosphere) can lose energy is via RADIATION to Space. If there is more incoming Sunlight energy than outgoing reflected Sunlight plus infrared from the Top of the Atmosphere, the Earth System will warm, and vice-versa.
(2d) Some of the Earth Surface warmth passes into the Atmosphere via CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.). Indeed, I subscribe to the idea put forward by Willis Eschenbach and others that there is a kind-of “thermostatic” system where a warmer Earth Surface generates more thunderstorms and clouds, or generates them earlier in the day, and these effects help to cool the Surface and partially counteract the effect of additional GHGs.
So, for the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, radiation warms the Earth Surface and convection and conduction (via thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.) cools. OK?
If you compare (1a) and (2a), (1b) and (2b), and so on, you will see how a physical greenhouse and the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect are, in some respects, similar, and in other respects, quite different.
Ira
only MSM carrying this so far is Murdoch’s News Ltd. in Australia. unbelievable!
12 Jan: News Ltd: ANTHONY SHARWOOD: Peter Gwynne, reporter who wrote story about global cooling, is a climate change believer after all
PHOTO CAPTION: It may well be time for so-called “deniers” and “warmists” to mend the fence between them, much like this NSW farmer toiling away in 49 degrees last week. Source: News Limited
A SCIENTIST who 40 years ago wrote about global cooling has admitted his story was probably wrong and has distanced himself from climate change deniers who champion his story to this day…
But the counter-theories aren’t always particularly robust. For example, climate change deniers often cite a story which appeared in Newsweek magazine in 1975 about the theory of “global cooling”. That humble nine paragraph story which appeared on page 64 of the respected journal is one of the key weapons deniers turn to.
However the science and technology reporter who wrote the story has today distanced himself from it. His name is Peter Gwynne. Now 72-years-old, Gwynne spoke this week to US website climate.org.
“When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster,” Gwynne told the site. “It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking.”
Since then, the science of climate changed has evolved greatly. The relationship between human generated carbon dioxide output and warming was not clearly established then. Though still far from universally accepted in its fine print, the basic theory is now so well-documented that virtually every scientist accepts it…
Peter Gwynne, who penned the original global cooling story in Newsweek, today accepts the warming science. He still writes science stories and is the North American correspondent for Physics World, based in England…
“I’ve been willing to accept that some of [my writing] is misused and misinterpreted,” Gwynne said.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/peter-gwynne-reporter-who-wrote-story-about-global-cooling-is-a-climate-change-believer-after-all/story-e6frflp0-1226800020634
——————————————————————————–
It bothers me, too. Long before I found WUWT, my teenage son had to write a paper on ‘Global Warming’ for an English class. I told him, “Twenty thousand years ago Boston was under a mile of ice [OK, maybe it wasn’t a mile, but that sounded impressive]. One thousand years ago northern England was warm enough for wineries, and the Vikings settled Greenland. Can these ‘global warming’ hysterics explain those events? If not, what credence can you give their ideas, which seem more like fear-mongering than real science?” I don’t know if he convinced the instructor, but he did all right on the paper.
It would really help to know what causes ice ages, as we may not be that far from the next one.
/Mr Lynn
Satellite data shows zero increase when you use equipment margin of error and re-calibration of satellites in 2002 to match Aqua. ZERO increase since 1979
Ira, I think you’ve got it right up to the point you state the back radiation warms the surface. That is only a small part of the story. The surface is primarily covered in H2O. When IR hits H2O it enhances evaporation. Essentially, much of the energy that might have warmed the surface is instead used to accelerate the water cycle. The amount of actual warming is probably less than .5C/doubling.
We actually have a measured, increased trend in global precipitation that supports this view. The overall effect is a small warming, a small increase in rainfall along with the CO2 increase. These are the 3 main ingredients in plant growth. Added CO2 leads to a balanced enhancement to the biosphere. Just exactly as we see so often in Nature.
This is one reason I never argue with people that claim humans are responsible for all the increases in CO2. The added CO2 is the best thing we could do for our planet. The benefits outweigh negatives 100-1. It would be nice if we could push CO2 up to 1000 ppm as that would be close to optimal. Too bad we don’t have enough cheap fossil fuels to ever get there.
I tend to agree with
richardscourtney says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
And
Elizabeth says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm
The natural negative feedbacks completely outweigh any other effects we would have fried thousands of years ago if it were not so duh.
I read a lot of criticism that the GCMs aren’t representative of the real world (e.g. treatment of clouds is either nonexistent or incomplete, feedback is only a guess, no definitive knowledge of atmospheric CO2 cycle, etc.). Lets assume the physics in this post is 100% accurate and applies to the climate. Just like the GCMs you can’t draw conclusions based on this physics without including clouds, feedback, knowledge of the atmosphere CO2 cycle, etc.? It is just another incomplete model that may or may not have anything to do with the climate.
Those who believe the magic money molecule CO2 is causing AGW base their opinion on science that is only partially understood. All things are not equal. No discernible global warming from human activity has been detected. Natural variability is almost a complete unknown. If in the real world GHG physics is a climate factor, the fact that the temperature of the earth has been bounded at 22°C for at least 600M years http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif implies negative feedback. The IPCC guesses climate sensitivity of “between 3°F and 8°F”. Presumably based on this post, Dr. Clickstein guesses they are “off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three.” Based on data my guess is that “Elizabeth” and “rscourtney” are correct and sensitivity is zero or negative (possibly nonlinear). The elephant in the room is data which trumps physics.
Sometimes back in 1993-94 I had given a presentation to joint Armed Forces on “Global Warning- A Hoax?” and had same conclusion!!
Have you ever considered the fact that human activities may have zero effect on weather climate:
1. Because they simply do not.
2. Because negative feedbacks completely overwhelm any effect.positive effect on temps.
3 If living things were to possibly affect affect climate, there probably is much greater effects from insects, cattle, birds, bacteria planckton etc etc on temps if at all, than human effect!
4. C02 has been 1000 times more in atmosphere during global Glaciations! ???(stand to be corrected here)
This is just more pandering to the AGW mantra
Simon says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“……. Otherwise simply saying it is wikipedia so it is rubbish is ridiculous.”
==========
I never said that.
You did.
Defensive much ?
It has its uses.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html
Oh those Koch bros make such stuff that is unreal, no?
Check the credits…….
Then perception…… of reality.
Just sayin,,,,,,
That is called learning.