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
David A says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am
———————————-
David,
I have answered almost all of your questions using empirical experiments up-thread –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1533969
It’s very simple. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.
Without radiative gases, our oceans and atmosphere would super-heat.
There is no net radiative green house effect on this planet. AGW is a physical impossibility.
The ”GREENHOUSE EFFECT” is NOT a fact but a poorly labeled theory. It fails important laws of physics, that of thermodynamics, It is IMPOSSIBLE for heat from a cool area to increase the temperature of a warm area, it is also questionable as to whether radiated LIR can be adsorbed by CO2 for this effect to work since that spectral ensemble is not within the adsorption spectra of CO2 or water vapour. Water vapour will adsorb microwave energy but those are not within the spectral ensemble we are talking about.
There are two sources of heat for our atmosphere, one is the sun the second is atmospheric adiabatic compression, which results in the ALR or lapse rate. There are no other heat inputs. The atmosphere cools the surface by restricting total insolation and other so called drivers cause negative feedback. There is not a shortage of solar heating, as claimed by the IPCC, since their model is a non-rotating planet with 24/7 sunlight and 167W?m2 at the surface. Actual measured zenith energy is 1000W/m2. The GHE is not needed.
Garett Phillips:
However, Dr. Glickstein’s argument is fallacious, for it relies upon the existence of the climate sensitivity but as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable the climate sensitivity does not exist as a scientific concept. Glickstein fInesses this weakness through the claim that the climate sensitIvity is defined on the change in the temperature but this claim is untrue.
Gareth Phillips says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:13 am
“..the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists”
—————————————–
This is of course the last desperate hope of the warmists. That the radiative GHE will be accepted, that AGW will just be downgraded and all the global warming fellow travellers can slink off relatively unscathed to “bio-crisis” or “sustainability”
That’s not how its going to go down. Despite all the work with the “false flag” P.S.I thing, warmist efforts to scare all sceptics away from examining the radiative GHE hypothesis failed. This is the age of the Internet. Crowd psychology techniques like the Alinsky method don’t work any more.
It is not just the AGW hypothesis that is in error but the radiative GHE hypothesis that is it’s foundation.
This can be shown by repeatable 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.
This is an expensive experiment to run and “dark money” and “big oil dollars” only exist in the crazed imaginations of warmists. But it is not necessary to even run the experiment. We can just check what the situation is in the solar system. Warmist pseudo scientists claims that the oceans would freeze in the absence of radiative gases as solar radiation alone is not enough to keep them liquid. What is the “snow line” of the solar system? Even adjusting for the diurnal cycle, earth is well inside that line.
Still having a good day Gareth?
To accurately determine the true cause of climate change, it is necessary: Seriously, find the cause of the sunspot cycle and reconnection of magnetic poles SUN.
Once this is determined, the rest is easy to determine, and it is certain that these are the main indicators of the causes of climate change, but not their own agents. Tell A place where the most competent, I will give an explanation of why these cycles occur every 11 years (shift max., And min. Spots and mag. Poles of the Sun). Without it there is no solution.
Steven Mosher says, January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm:
“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.”
Curiously, not for the last 20 years, though. After the effects of the last major (stratospheric) volcanic eruption, Pinatubo, had waned. Meanwhile the total atmospheric content of CO2 increased by 11%.
Some GHG ‘fingerprint’, don’t you agree …?
I assume that the greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in the laboratory. But the climate system is not a laboratory, where many variables are held constant in order to make meaningful measurements.
Whether the greenhouse effect does work in the climate system is another matter altogether. As far as I’m aware there is not a single historical example of a change in CO2 being followed by a corresponding change in temperature, as predicted by AGW.
The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows the temperature, and not the other way around. In this century CO2 has increased by around 10% but there has been zero warming.
So: to anyone who believes changes in CO2 can drive the climate system, please give an example of historical data that shows a change in CO2 being followed by a corresponding change in temperature. The data would have to show that the CO2 changed first in order to prove that CO2 was the cause.
If no such data can be found then the greenhouse effect in the climate system is completely unproven.
Chris
Friends:
At January 13, 2014 at 3:03 am Terry Oldberg attempts to refute the above article by Glickstein when he writes.
As usual, Oldberg makes an assertion which demonstrates he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He confuses equilibrium climate sensitivity as being the same as effective climate sensitivity and transient climate response.
In the above article, Glickstein says
Clearly, Glickstein is discussing effective climate sensitivity (n.b. NOT equilibrium climate sensitivity) because that is obtainable from observations and he says
Richard
FOOTNOTE
The IPCC AR5 Glossary
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_AnnexIII.pdf
defines equilibrium climate sensitivity, effective climate sensitivity and transient climate response as follows.
Gareth Phillips wrote –
” The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!” I get a similar feeling, the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists.”
The last time I saw a mistake like allowing a thread like this appear was the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ so indeed it is a good day for the people who unfortunately not only control the education system but imagine they can control the planet’s temperature !.
Can’t see this website recover,shame really,but that is the way these things go.
Sorry Ira, but your step 6 is nonsense. Take the tyre from your bike and connect it via a very small tube with a soccer ball. To make the model a bit resembling, wrap the tyre around the soccer ball. Make many microscopic small holes in the tyre and pump air into the ball. Measure the pressure. If you stop some holes in the tyre next, you will observe higher pressures in both ball and tyre with the same pumping effort. This already explains the GHG effect as the accumulation of energy by output restriction (your step 5). For the same reason a river becomes wider when you put a dam into it. It has nothing to do with back flow.
The surface of the earth cannot be heated by its own waist radiation. We would need an additional pump, e.g. ignite nuclear fusion in the atmosphere. Your step 6, in which the earth is warmed by back radiation, is so basically flawed that we can explain it to our children.
There is no greenhouse effect. Climate is obviously a convection system. If there was a greenhouse effect there would be no life on this planet.
Regarding richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am
=========================================
Richard, I am able to follow your well stated posts. Please read my post here….David A says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am
My questions are questions, and I am not trying to be clever, I am asking sans any ulterior motive except to improve my understanding.
Sorry but the basic is wrong:
“1 Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up the Atmosphere”
No. A significant part of incoming radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere by the atmosphere
” 2 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,”
No some is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way out.
” 3 The remaining two-thirds of the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,”
No only half is absorbed by the surface, the remaining is absorbed by the atmosphere.
” 4 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,”
No, most of surface net cooling is done by evaporation,
“5 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,.
No Green house gases block heat transfer from the earth surface that casue the temperature to rise on the surface. The atmosphere is cooled by GHG:s towards space. The atmosphere is mainly heated by evaporation and thermal heat transfer and cooled by radiation to space by GHG at a high and cool altitude due to it very efficient blocking capacity at lower altitudes.
” 6 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.”
GHG:s absorb and emitt energy but without a temperature gradient is heat transfer blocked by GHG. That is why net transfer by radiation is very limited between surface and atmosphere. The limited temperature difference reduce possible heat transfer by radiation. A good example is clouds which stop heat transfer by radiation very efficent.
“7 In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)”
No, those are the main sources of surface cooling. Very efficent by the way.
Source: Trenberths heat balance here http://www.agci.org/classroom/images/trenberth_energy.png
Result: CO2 make a even lesser contribution to atmosphere and surface heatbalance than Ira state.
Konrad’s experiment are interesting but I do not follow them well. I am looking here,.. David A says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am at some very direct questions which I think are both cogent and informative.
Dr. Ira Glickstein, I agree with [johnmarshall says: January 13, 2014 at 3:02 am]:
“The ”GREENHOUSE EFFECT” is NOT a fact but a poorly labeled theory.”
and with [Konrad says: January 13, 2014 at 3:24 am]
“This is of course the last desperate hope of the warmists.”
The GHG effect is a misnomer – there is no “greenhouse” because Earth is open to outer space at the upper levels of the atmosphere. Further, what happens in near-Earth space as a result of solar activity has not been touched on by anyone on this thread in spite of its primary vital significance.
Finally, I’m in agreement with [Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says: January 13, 2014 at 5:44 am]:
“There is no greenhouse effect. Climate is obviously a convection system. If there was a greenhouse effect there would be no life on this planet.”
Dr. Glickstein – nice try – but no cigar! Don’t go back to the drawing board. It’s over. If you don’t think it’s over and if you think the GHG effect theory is still worth reviving – good luck with that. I think most of the people with common sense in this world are over it by now. Have a nice day 😉
Chris Wright says: “The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows the temperature, and not the other way around. In this century CO2 has increased by around 10% but there has been zero warming.”
The fact Global Warmers claimed evidence for their man-made CO2 causality assertion (changes in CO2 forces changes in temperature) was not only wrong, but in fact opposite (changes in CO2 follows changes in temperature), was a monumental mistake. In any normal, rational scientific debate, this fundamental monumental mistake alone would have been enough to have terminated the Global Warming claim. Along with summarily dismissing any scientist, alarmist, or politician who continued to make claims of Anthroplogical Global Warming.
But here we are still having to listen to Global Warmer’s continuous morphing gibberish. Which goes to show, claimed Global Warming has never been Scientific. Instead the Global Warming has been about keeping a group of Faux GW scientists well funded, keeping GW Alarmists in hyped headlines, and keeping GW politicians in power over populaces.
Isn’t it time we put an end to this Global Warming charade?
Shouldn’t Faux GW scientists be charged with fraud, and loose their standing?
Shouldn’t GW Alarmists be vehemently mocked at their every sighting?
Shouldn’t GW politicians have their bureaucratic tails tossed to unemployment line?
While we are at it, shouldn’t the Reboot button be pushed on E.P.A., N.O.A.A., and N.A.S.A.?
David A:
Your post at January 13, 2014 at 6:40 am says in total
None of my posts have referred to you or anything you have said. This includes my post at January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am. So, I am at a loss to understand your implication that I have or do ascribe any motive to you.
As to your post at January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am, you need a course that I cannot provide here to explain all that. However, the above article is by Ira Glickstein so I link you to two WUWT articles by him which may help.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
Please feel free to get back to me if I have misunderstood and, therefore, these links don’t provide what you want.
Richard
richardscourtney:
The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values.
By the way,as you well know, your continuing attacks on my person are illogical and illegal.
[my emphasis]
It is not a matter of ‘belief’, which has no place in science. Ira Glickstein jumps to conclusions that many find unjustified and mistaken; some have provided alternate explanations for the phenomena we do observe. But in point of fact, there is a certain ‘blind men and the elephant’ quality to the whole debate. The state of our knowledge of climate (or lack of it) was neatly summed up above by Richard S. Courtney. I repeat his post to save you the trouble of scrolling up:
It’s all about the evidence, not what we want to believe.
/Mr Lynn
That’s pretty cold for NW Washington. Definitely doesn’t stat that cold for more than a few days. And you’re saying “average” which means half the temps must have been much lower. Sorry, that’s not been my experience in the 11 years I’ve been here (and the last few have been some of the coldest in 50 years out here).
Terry Oldberg:
re your silly post at January 13, 2014 at 7:35 am.
It is not a “personal attack” to point out that you are again plain wrong, especially when I provide both quotation and link to source information which proves it.
But you say
OK. If you think that then sue me, but be aware that I will make a counter-suite for damages because I could use the money.
Richard
I liked the article, it was well written and explained a lot. I too believe water vapor is what controls the earths climate, ever since I noticed how greatly humidity affects temperatures.
As for GHG theory, not AGW theory, I find it to be the only explanation that I’ve seen that explains why the earth keeps it’s warmth. I do believe CO2 has an effect but it is very trivial and water vapor is the main control knob of climate.
Are there any other theories besides the GHG theory that explains why the Earth remains warm?
Lastly, Do we understand how the energy from the Sun accumulates over the day, morning to night and how this energy is distributed or does this not matter?
richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:16 am
========================================
Thanks Richard, and no, I knew you had not engaged my questions I just admire your ability to communicate, and so I wished to have some very BASIC questions answered; first in direction, but not quantified. In essence does the ration of energy conducted to the atmosphere increase, as the amount of GHG molecules decrease? Or, stated differently, if the heat differential between the atmosphere and the surface increases, does not increased conduction make up for some of this loss in the manner I described in very specific questions in my post… increased amount of energy flow to atmosphere via conduction, reduced escape of conducted energy to space due to reduced GHG molecules.
I was only stating the sincerity of my request to let you know I am not attempting debate, but requesting education. I will check out your links, and look forward to any basic answers to my questions.
Richard Courtney,
Your second link states..”As in the other postings in this series, only radiation effects are considered because they are the key to understanding the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”.
This ignores my question.
I do understand that fundamentally redirecting energy leaving the system, increases the residence time of said energy, while additional input, TSI” continues, thus more energy in the land, ocean, atmospheric system. (The GHE explained via David’s law; “There is only two ways to change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of some aspect of that energy.” GHG increases the residence time of LWIR radiation.
However my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules. A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation?? A question masquerading as an assertion.
I stopped reading at #6 and did a [ctrl F] on ” surface ” and came up with 146 finds. As I scrolled through most of them, I see that I am not alone in understanding that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere is not going to heat up the warmer surface, Indeed all it does is impede the cooling process some. The much hotter sun does the warming necessary to achieve a “radiation in” equals “radiation out” equilibrium.