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
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the most important number in all of climate science. Yet, despite a decade with an unprecedented increase in the quality and quantity of new data, the IPCC’s uncertainty in ECS has increased by 20% from the already wildly imprecise [2.0C – 4.5C] to [1.5C – 4.5C] between the IPCC’s AR4 and AR5, which is also a retreat to the “likely” range reported in the Third Assessment Report.
What are the conditions that cause the uncertainty in the estimate of a natural constant to increase, rather than decrease, with the addition of new and better data? The estimates of the speed of light, or the age of the Earth, all became more certain with the addition of more and better data.
The failure of the estimate of a natural constant to reduce uncertainty with new and better data is the hallmark of a mistaken assumption – a wrong model. One does not even need to understand anything about greenhouse gasses to appreciate this basic principle of the practice of science. Dr. Glickstein correctly identifies the mistaken assumption a high ECS as preventing the refinement of this constant with new data, despite ever more powerful computer models, with higher spatial and temporal resolution. They can never arrive at a more confident estimate until they are unchained from the mistaken assumption of dominant positive feedbacks, and they are free to follow the data, wherever it leads.
If the greenhouse effect were not a “scientific fact”, it would not be possible for more energy to cycle between the surface and the atmosphere than the earth receives from the sun. That does not mean that human CO2 is a contributor. CO2’s concentration by volume is one part in 2500 and if all the increase since 1850 is ours, our contribution is one part in 10,000. Even as a percentage of greenhouse gasses, CO2 is a wimp. Water vapor’s concentration, on average, is a couple of orders of magnitude higher. To raise the temperature of the atmosphere, our one part (which is the very outside limit of our contribution) must raise the energy level of 10,000 other molecules.
And then there is the material properties thing. Some commenters have tried to help me understand how SW is converted to LW. One expounded on the Plank temperature, but that is overwhelmed by material property variations at this scale range. Another kindly explained that asymmetrical molecules, like ozone, resonate like the Mamba and can transfer energy for emission at lower wavelengths. But ozone is up in the stratosphere and nobody is suggesting that lots of IR is coming from ozone.
Sticking with the hypothesis that the oceans convert for now. What materials besides ozone in the system efficiently absorb SW? Chlorophyll?
Tom, here is your answer as to why water vapor is a greenhouse gas: In the Winter of 1999,
I did 2 month long stints (a month apart) on a refinery shutdown in Puget Sound in Northern
Washington.
With average temperatures at about 25 degrees F, It did not take long to notice if you woke up
and saw cloud cover, it would be a Hell of a lot warmer than the clear day before (Or after.)
The clouds trapped the heat, resulting in a warmer day. On the clear days, we froze our
nads off! This happened so many times in the course of 60 days, every Millwright in our crew
looked up as he left the hotel for work in the morning looking for signs of clouds.
Water vapor is indeed the primary greenhouse gas. And on the hot days, clouds shield
us from the heat of the sun. The proponents of global warming predict that we are all
going to fry, yet ignore the fact that increasing temperatures would cause an increase in
evaporation, which would lead to increased cloud cover which would mitigate “Global
warming.”
pat says:
January 12, 2014 at 7:11 pm
“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.”
Yawn. We all know the esteemed chief Global Warming strategist Steven “efficient or honest” Schneider featuring prominently in that big Global cooling TV production narrated by Spock so please. When the chief TV scientist and Kapo of the later Global Warming catastrophism tried to rent-seek on the back of the ice age scare back then what more do you ask for?
Ira, I read some bucking your point that gases about a planet “warm” the surface but it all depends on what you mean by “warm” and your definition. That is a bad term to use for by the science that most people are used to, warm means raising the temperature, THAT radiation raising the temperature. I do read what you mean though, it is that because there is mass in the atmosphere and all matter, and all matter has mass, radiates when above absolurte zero and this radiation from the atmosphere impedes the surface from shedding a portion of heat by radiation that it normally would lose if there was no atmosphere at all, and that is precisely correct.
But LW radiation from the atmosphere does not “warm” the surface, the radiation-that-is-absorbed-from-the-sun is the radiation that literally warms the surface and to a degree warmer with any atmosphere, even an argon or nitrogen atmosphere if not so cold that all degrees of freedom are frozen out, above what it would be without an atmosphere at all. There, on that precise point I do agree with you so I am not always trying to counter everything you say. 😉
The fact this leads to a correct view as Willis’s “steel shelled planet” idea of shells inside shells inside shells and that is what atmospheres do. That is why Venus is so much hotter, not from co2 per se instead of mainly water vapor, but from the physical sheer mass and what that means to an e/m vibrating atmosphere that is isotropically radiating (and that is where the amount of window radiation from the surface directly to space becomes so important and often ignored in thought experiments).
“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. ”
So in 1880 you had the world plastered with thermometers including 70% of Earth: that stuff called Oceans and Seas you know? plus + Deserts+ Mountains, African Savana and Siberian Stepe? Plus Interior China?
I would not even go to precision, location, etc…
Not even today you get 0.2C…
“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. ”
Really? where is the evidence?
“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.”
We will have to agree to disagree. The world has not warmed. What has happened is Global Warming Faux Scientists have cooked the books.
Keepers of weather station temperature records chose to use “adjusted” records over actual (raw) temperature records. Same keepers chose to make upward adjustments, when they should have been adjusting downward for Weather Stations that have over time become effected by Urban Heat Island effect. Those keepers also chose to leave leave off or lose temperature records as time progressed for weather stations located in colder climates vs. warm climates, further upward biasing overall annual temperatures.
Using raw temperature data, and using approximations for missing records based on previous and following temperatures recorded; there is no indication of Global Warming due to humans. Using raw temperature data, and using the few weather stations that have been around since early recording began that have continuous records; there is no indication of Global Warming due to humans.
Dr. Glickstein
Your PPTx presentation also runs fine on my Linux (Mepis) system with LibreOffice. I would also assume that Macs have a suitable application so everyone should be able to use the presentation without worrying about their platform.
Great read. The greenhouse models not being anywhere near the same as the Earth re: warming is spot on in my uneducated opinion.
With your indulgence I’ll post this bit of trivia you may find interesting.
Redcliffe grandmother finds 110 million year old fossil of Ichthyosaurs at Richmond in outback Queensland
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/moreton/redcliffe-grandmother-finds-110-million-year-old-fossil-of-ichthyosaurs-at-richmond-in-outback-queensland/story-fni9r1i7-1226799214070
And so far not one single evil coal-fired power-station has been credited with the demise of the poor creature. Amazing. But give it time. This’ll end up being the fault of AGW in the end. 🙂
no surprise – it’s now in Scientific American, with an odd url:
10 Jan: Scientific American: How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs, written for Newsweek in 1975, continue to trump 40 years of climate science. Its a record that has its author amazed
By Doug Struck and The Daily Climate
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fenergy-and-sustainability+(Topic%3A+Energy+%26+Sustainability)
Doesn’t matter how much logic you use or explaining you do. To the vast numbers of indoctrinated warmers the “science is settled”. Their minds are made up and they’re ready to throw tons of YOUR money on the alter of carbon forgiveness…
You know, there is something really, really, really interesting (but I have never seen mentioned anywhere) in this conversation
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Simple “experiment” Take those Ice Core temps and place a marker at every 1000 year period.
…what do you see?
It is shocking in it’s consistency. Every 1K (+/- ~100) years we are seeing a temperature spike, ranging from very large to unbelievably extreme.
Maybe someone should look at that when trying to figure out why we saw a bit of a rise in this, a ~1K period we have been experiencing.
Extra credit “experiment”: Go back and look what happens after all but one of those peaks – the Temps pretty much go back to where they started pre-spike. Looking at this odd coincidence(? …I guess that is what the AGW crowd would have to call it?), those saying there is possibly a Little Ice Age in our future seem to be on the right path, based off a seemingly established pattern playing out right before our eyes, in plain sight, with no one seemingly noticing.
[Request you explain the (negative ?) values on the scale on the right side of this plot. Mod]
‘Simon says’
Picking the ’30s is easy because all the data were adjusted lower then to make it look like warming now. News reports find them out: http://pindanpost.com/2014/01/13/hot-hot-hot/
Not Wiki-doo doo …
Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr37Xn9IL8
“Tom Harley Says
Picking the ’30s is easy because all the data were adjusted lower then to make it look like warming now. News reports find them out: http://pindanpost.com/2014/01/13/hot-hot-hot/
Not Wiki-doo doo …”
Pretty clever then of those sneaky scientists to manage to manipulate all the data sets.
Went to your site and frankly it had the smell of someone on a crusade. Incidentally, didn’t you guys in OZ just record(by some measure) your hottest year on record?
Ira,
re your point 6 of the greenhouse mechanism, you refer to re-radiation of IR in all directions. Seems to me that some of this that hits the Earth goes up, through the same type of cycle again, then some repeats down again, and so on, so that maths using just one pass instead of a cascade will be somewhere between about 50% too low an estimate depending on a few side effects.
On the broader point of whether greenhouse is real, there are very many long term sites in Australia that show cooler times recently than the hot days of pre-1900. That is, they don’t show any warming. There are others that do, as you’d expect from noisy data. And, of course, there are other times like the last 20 years in which there has been not much change at all, globally and not just in Australia.
I’ve never seen any attempt at an explanation for a patchy response of warming caused by CO2. The initial expectation is that it is quickly well mixed (established by the bomb test isotope studies) so that GHG warming would be expected to be pervasive and uniform, not the patchy pattern we see.
My doubt about there being any GHG effect of significance is waning as I read even more papers.
“Simon says:
January 12, 2014 at 9:16 pm
Incidentally, didn’t you guys in OZ just record(by some measure) your hottest year on record?”
Records that stared in 1910 apparently. The other issue with the statement is that the BoM here in Australia changed the way it calculates a national average (A completely meaningless term) and temperatures using satellite data in early 2013. And, as if by magic, in early 2014 the BoM tells us 2013 was the hottest ever. But I would not pay too much attention to the BoM, they use only ~112 thermometers, most located at airports or in cities, to calculate a national average. That’s just 1 thermometer for every ~68,500 square kilometers.
“Mike Jowsey says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm
How come there is no hotspot over the tropics? If the atmosphere is warming due to a “greenhouse effect”, the atmosphere between 8 and 12 kilometres above the tropics should be warmer – it isn’t.”
The “hot spot” is not a consequence of the “greenhouse effect”. any warming, including warming due to solar, will cause it.
If you really want to see the fingerprint of global warming due to GHGs you need to look for stratospheric cooling. Which you will find. As it stands the “hot spot” is undetectable given the uncertainties in the satilite data and observations. In other words
All warming ( say from solar or ghgs ) will lead to a a tropospheric hotspot and surface warming. GHG warming will lead also to stratospheric cooling. So the latter is the most important signal. what do observations say?
1. we see the stratospheric cooling
2. The case on tropospheric warming is still before the jury. Its uncertain.
3. we see surface warming
In short the evidence is uncertain on one consequence and the evidence confirms the theory on the other bits of evidence.
How sweet, it is like reading about epicycles because the article.like so many others, doesn’t begin with the motions of the planet in defining what global climate is and resorts to a stationary greenhouse Earth.
Reminds me of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ where both sides play the ace of spades,in this case ,a greenhouse Earth and global warming –
“The pigs and humans begin to play poker, and a fight erupts when Napoleon and Pilkington both put down the Ace of Spades at the same time. As the animals witness the pigs and humans quarreling over their poker game, they cannot distinguish between them.” Animal farm analysis
The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.
The two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610 have been identified.
The science is settled, CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/
So the temperature of the whole earth has risen 0.6C to 0.9C over 130 years. And you think we can measure less than 1degree o warming (or cooling for that matter). From our inadequate global coverage for almost 90% or this time period and with “adjusted” temperature data.
No, we can’t.
“A GREAT TIME TO PUT ALARMISTS IN THEIR PLACE
Burt Rutan: ‘This says it all and says it clear
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/#
Wasn’t that true only for the US?
But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?
“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.”
You have no more proof of that statement than IPCC has that it is “mostly” AGW. In fact probably less. You may be correct but that is just an assertion which is just as worthless as the alarmist arguments.
Just making equally unfounded statements will not bring the “enlightenment” you think you are offering.
What a complete circle jerk of a post………I feel embarrassed.