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
TB says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“I can no way believe that the near non existent CO2 can heat up the rest of the atmosphere which out numbers it 2500 to 1.”
Can insulation warm the rest of your house? What is the ratio of the weight of the insulation to the weight of your house?
Cheers, 🙂
The problem the alarmists have is they make many predictions of the water vapour feedback, but none of these predictions have bore the fruit of higher observed temperatures. So as of now I am skeptical of their models, as should anyone that respects the scientific method.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am
——————————————
“I agree it is a pity that the true “Disbelievers” have come out in force in responses to this thread. Many of them seem beyond reason. Even those who show the ability to reason in their postings seem to be determined not to believe.”
Dr. Glickstein,
Yes many of those opposing the radiative greenhouse effect are not doing so with much scientific basis. But not all.
Some are saying that the net effect of the atmosphere on the surface is surface cooling and the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is atmospheric cooling. They are right, and this can be shown by empirical experiment.
First to what’s wrong with the radiative GHE hypothesis. You have been applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field. You have been trying to solve equilibrium equations that use average solar energy and ignore time. It is not just our atmosphere that is a moving fluid in a gravity field, but our oceans as well. The can only cool at the surface, but are heated at depth by SW. Speed of conduction and convection become significant factors.
The calculations of believers in a net radiative GHE show that if our oceans could exist without an atmosphere, they would freeze over due to lack of DWLWIR and planetary surface Tav would be -18C. This figure is provably incorrect.
This simple(but expensive) experiment can simulate what would happen to ocean temperatures without an atmosphere (assuming they did not boil into space. It prevents conductive and evaporative cooling of a water sample heated by intermittent SW while eliminating DWLWIR.
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
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.
But we don’t actually need to run the experiment. NASA has already done the work for us. There is a “Snow Line” in the solar system. It is at 3 AU. Inside this line ice exposed to the sun melts and sublimates. Even accounting for the intermittent diurnal cycle, planet earth is well inside this line. The claim that the oceans would freeze in the absence of DWLWIR is clearly false.
Sir George Simpson warned Calledar in 1938 about the folly of applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field. His warning is still valid.
Dr. Glickstein,
The figure you are looking for is not -18C, it is likely closer to 52C.
rogerknights says:
January 12, 2014 at 11:08 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Don’t tell me Global Warming is real and don’t tell me it’s marginal. Global Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.
Wasn’t that true only for the US?
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.
But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?”
Wasn’t that true only for the US? No it wasn’t, look at this old secured NH temp Graph:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/another-thanks-to-dave-burton/
“But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?”
Who cares, the fact that temps decrease despite CO2 levels rising tells me the alarmists are wrong.
ANTROPOGENIC CO2 emissions are NOT CAUSING A DANGEROUS, RUN AWAY IRREVERSIBLE HEATING OF THE EART’S ATMOPHERE which was what they claimed.
End of story, case closed. Period.
Joe Bastardi inhis latest video forecast “completely sick and tired about the Global Warming hubris on the blogs”:
Graph showing the warmest temps in the 30’s around 8.40 in the video:
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-january-11-2014#
Currently all available un-corrupted empirical evidence is on the side of those that claim the net effect of radiative gasses is atmospheric cooling. Those Dr. Glickstein refers to as “Disbelievers”.
– Every climate model based on the radiative GHE assumption has failed.
-There is no correlation between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature in the modern satellite record.
– Atmospheric temperature change leads CO2 change in ice core records.
– Empirical experiment shows that LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
– There is no predicted tropospheric hot spot.
– Empirical experiment shows cooling at altitude causes lower average temperatures in a tall gas columns.
– The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3 AU.
– The ice exposed by the Pheonix lander on Mars heated and sublimated despite weak solar SW and diurnal cycle.
– There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.
– 90% of the energy absorbed by the land, oceans and atmosphere is emitted to space by radiative gases in the atmosphere.
– Clear evidence that Believers had to resort to falsifying proxy and surface station records.
And on the global warming believer side? SB equations mis-applied to moving fluids in a gravity field. Oh, and shrieking. Lots of shrieking.
I’d say the “disbelievers” are wining hands down.
Ulric Lyons says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
“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.”
Some of that 33°C has to be accounted for by massive thermal reservoir of the oceans, as well as poleward heat transport.
—————————————————————————————————————-
I believe in future we will found out that the energy in the oceans represents most of the 33c greenhouse effect and current thinking is wrong.The massive thermal conveyor from the tropics to the poles is not even included in the greenhouse effect, only water vapor in the atmosphere plus the other known greenhouse gases. Without the oceans absolutely massive amounts of energy would be lost to space with little energy movement from the tropics to the poles. The planet would be far colder than now even if the atmosphere could maintain its current composition with this scenario.
Excellent post Dr. Glickstein. For an Atmospheric Greenhouse analogy to help explain the matter to those interested in the subject, talking about the temperature difference between a very humid day and a very dry day, and the temperature difference between a cloudy day and cloudless day as felt by the person has been found to be an enlightening approach.
Chad Jessup says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Excellent post Dr. Glickstein. For an Atmospheric Greenhouse analogy to help explain the matter to those interested in the subject, talking about the temperature difference between a very humid day and a very dry day, and the temperature difference between a cloudy day and cloudless day as felt by the person has been found to be an enlightening approach.
++++++++
Hi Chad: I’m only nit picking. It’s not the temperature difference that I think you’re talking about, but that humid air at the “same” temperature as dry air has more latent energy. Dry air will gladly take the energy from moist skin so that it evaporates and cools skin through latent heat of evaporation.
Matt G says:
“Without the oceans absolutely massive amounts of energy would be lost to space with little energy movement from the tropics to the poles.”
Clouds move a lot of heat around too. In December in the UK we get an average of around 1.5 hours sunshine a day, and it is typically is warmer when it is more cloudy:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/12/Sunshine/England.gif
Yea, yeah, yeah, Global Warming is Real……
If you’re plain stupid or brain dead and neglect the incredible works some people have done to dig into this fraud like E. M. Smith did: The story of the walking and disappearing thermometers.
Watch this great Kusi Coleman Interview with E. M. Smith again, refresh your memories and stop inventing the bloody wheel over and over again.
http://www.kusi.com/story/13257664/full-unedited-interview-with-e-michael-smith#
Dr. Ira Glickstein
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.
Nonsense. The -18°C figure is from traditional science and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all – and the direct comparison is with the Moon with no atmosphere which temperaure is -23°C.
Our fluid gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen is the real thermal blanket around the Earth preventing the Earth from the extreme cold reached on the Moon, and, it is the oxygen and nitrogen which is the Earth’s first line in defence from the extreme heat reached on the Moon. As every meteorologist knows, hot air rises and cold air sinks which is how we get our winds.. Water in the water cycle is the second line of defence as with its high heat capacity it takes away heat from the surface by evaporation and returns cold by precipitation. Gases and liquids are fluids, heat transfer in fluids is by convection.
Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C
Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere but without water, think deserts: 67°C
There is no such mechanism for ‘AGW greenhouse gases raise the Earth’s temperature 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them’, because it would not be that without them.
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.
Nonsense. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter – it works on the tiny electronic transition level of photosynthesis and nerve impulses in sight.
AGW has excised the real longwave invisible heat we feel from the Sun and replaced it with this physical impossibility so that it can pretend that all downwelling longwave infrared heat energy comes from their ‘backradiation’.
We have known since Herschel that the great heat energy we feel from the Sun is the invisible infrared, since Herchel we now know with more refined measurements that shortwave infrared is not heat energy and it is the longer wavelengths of infrared that are direct beam heat from the Sun. That is why radiant heat energy is called thermal infrared, to differentiate it from the non-thermal shortwave infrared.
Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”
Heat energy is bigger and works on the bigger molecular vibrational level, not the tiny electron level of sortwaves, it is this real heat energy which vibrates matter and so raises its temperature. Visible light from the Sun cannot do this.
Put back the direct beam longwave infrared heat energy from the Sun, and then calculate how much ‘backradiation’ there is..
@Myrrh
“Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C”
actually the average surface temperature of the moon is ~197K (-76C)
see http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
So we have to explain a temperature difference of > 90K between our moon and the Earth. (and the moon reflects less solar than earth)
The infamous 255K (-18C) is just one of the many mistakes in the whole green house debacle.
We’re taling about big scale data fraud to make the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming so how is it possible that people come up with the idea that it is real???????????????????
Just asking…
http://www.kusi.com/story/13257653/full-unedited-interview-with-joe-daleo#
A) Answer #2 to Objection #2 does not really answer the question. The answer is: yes, a cooler object cannot heat a warmer one. However, the “greenhouse” theory is not inconsistent on this score, because ultimately, the heat is all coming from the Sun, which I think everyone can agree is much hotter than the surface of the Earth.
B) All things being equal,additional CO2 in the atmosphere should result in greater heat retention, raising the temperature of the surface and near-surface. But, all things are not equal. There are feedbacks which tend to oppose the heating. Distribution of any additional CO2 in the atmosphere is as important as its quantity, and the reaction of dominant water vapor is integral to the overall effect. We do not really know the overall impact of additional CO2 in the atmosphere on surface temperatures in the current climate state of the Earth, but the latest indications are that it is negligible.
C) Human CO2 production is a tiny fraction of the natural flows, and is easily brushed aside by the Earth’s regulatory systems. CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily driven by temperature dependent processes. See Salby, Murry.
D) The readily observable temperature dependence of CO2 in the atmosphere establishes on its own that sensitivity of surface temperatures to CO2 concentration must be negligible. Otherwise, there would be a positive feedback loop: temperatures go up, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures, increasing CO2, and on and on in infinite recursion. Since the Earth has not experienced a runaway temperature/CO2 cycle, it follows that surface temperatures cannot be sensitive to CO2 concentration.
Blair M says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Phil says:
“You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, CO2 is a strong absorber in the 15micron band. It has nothing to do with the detectors!..CO2 as you’ll see its absorption is multiple orders of magnitude stronger than N2 and O2. Specific heat has nothing to do with it.”
If SHC has nothing to do with it, it still begs the question: how is it that the atmosphere is warm – at all? And, what exactly is IR? IR is energy radiation felt to us as heat last time I looked, and the affect that heat energy has on a substance is the SHC – of which O2 and N2 have an average of around 1 (no units) and Co2 of 0.8, H2o vapour 2.
The heat capacity of CO2 and H2O is ~28 and that of N2 and O2 is ~21. IR is absorbed by CO2 and H2O, in the case of CO2 in the lower atmosphere that heat is predominantly transferred by collisions to the rest of the atmosphere. The N2 and O2 is not capable of emitting that energy.
If o2 and N2 have nothing to do with it, do not count, wouldn’t we either fry or freeze like in the vacuum? They’re there alright.
No one said they’re not there, or that they don’t count, they’re just not able to absorb and emit IR. The argument about heat capacity not only gets the magnitudes reversed but is completely wrong. Most of the heat is stored in the N2/O2 and the only way IR gets there is via GHGs.
Raman spectroscopy picks them up. Raman sees what IR doesn’t. Watch this and see.
Yes N2 and O2 bonds are Raman active but Raman is a very weak effect particularly when you’re illuminating with IR (the Raman cross section is inversely proportional to wavelength^4).
Ira, you need to correct your second graphic for it is very misleading. Your cascade splitters have a label saying if one unit comes in the graphics says in a box [Temperature Reads ‘≈2’] which is totally incorrect for such an example. The radiation power felt is doubled, not the temperature. It should read [Temperature Reads ‘≈1.19’], 1.19 being the fourth root of two, or [Flux Power Reads ‘≈2’], take your pick but the graphic further says the scale is measuring ‘Temperature’ so maybe you should stick to the first option.
It the same reason that of 396 power at the surface and 238 OLR leaving has a ratio of 238/396 to the fourth root giving 0.88 times an assumed 289 K surface will have an effective radiation temperature of 289 × 0.886 or ≈254 K, the difference what you keep calling the “Greenhouse” effect.
So looking at this from a different direction our atmosphere impedes 396-238 (src:TFK) or 156 W/m² when passing through ≈10330 kg of a unit column, 156/10330 being 0.0151 W/m²/kg. But an identical situation on Venus with 16600 instead of 390 at the surface and an OLR of 65.5 instead of 240 due to the high 0.90 bond albedo means its atmosphere impedes the upward surface IR at (16540-65) / 1051000 kg for the unit column mass also gives 0.0157 W/m²/kg.
Even though the 0.0151 W/m²/kg is not identical to the 0.0157 W/m²/kg of Venus you do only have a 4% difference in the LW impedance even though one is primarily a 78% N2 & 21% O2 mixture with trace gases and the other some 96% CO2 & 4% N2 mix. Maybe you could help answer why if all your are saying is accurate why is this so simple relation also true. Carrying that same analysis to the Galileo probe dropped into Jupiter’s atmosphere (90% H2 & 10% He) the temp lands smack in the middle of the raw data temperature at 22½ eq. Earth atmospheres and the NASA re-analysis of that temperature profile at the same depth/pressure, them deeming the raw data flawed due to a leaky tank near the end of the drop, this is using the same 0.0157 W/m²/kg mass impedance value. All three of these example atmospheres are both thick and warm enough to have most normal degrees of freedom free and unfrozen in all cases. Myself, I can’t explain why this relation exists yet but if you like science you have to wonder what’s up.
All the arguments are about TEMPERATURE not what actually drives the climate which is HEAT. I do not care what temperature anomaly may occur it has no relevance only heat flow and change does the work so are the metrics to follow.
Unfortunately heat is a difficult metric to work out in an atmosphere that is never at thermodynamic equilibrium and is captive on a revolving planet with chaotic physics governing weather.
Dr Glickstein
Your up and down spectra and the discussion on IR absorption, re-radiation and heating including wavelength are extremely helpful. I’ve been looking for a while for a clear explanation of this.
It appears to contain feedback loops, more at some frequencies and less at others. For instance at frequencies like 7 and 15 um absorbed heat re-radiates at a range of wavelengths and can indirectly be ultimately reabsorbed back at the same wavelength – i.e. feedback. However this is not possible at 10 um, this wavelength is the exit door, photons at this wavelength go to space or the surface.
Add to these feedbacks the dissipative nature of atmospheric IR radiation exchange and it opens the possibility that the whole IR turnover and exchange system might behave in a nonlinear-chaotic manner. It would be interesting conceptually to map the Lyapunov exponent (sort of attractiveness/repulsiveness) of the phase space consisting at the simplest level of just the wavelength spectrum. At 15 um the Lyapunov exponent would be positive (repulsive) due to the export of energy away from this wavelength by absorption and reabsorption; by contrast the 10 um wavelength would have a negative Lyapunov exponent (attractive), it would act as an attractor or a “mini black hole” wavelength since no re-radiation would occur of energy emitted at this wavelength. It has been shown that when the phase space of a nonlinear system has regions with both positive and negative Lyapunov exponents then the attractor can be chaotic.
Speculating further, if the Lyapunov exponent of a chaotic-nonlinear IR exchange system as a whole was negative, this would mean that the system would exhibit robust Lyapunov stability and would be adaptively stable against perturbations of parameters, such as the amount of CO2 in the air. In other words, increasing CO2 might fail to budge the attractor and have no effect on the overall radiation balance.
In politics you follow the money, in systems like this one should follow the energy.
I have a little problem accepting that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are due mainly, or indeed to any great extent, to human activity. It’s because of a little thing called Henry’s Law, first propounded in 1803. Henry’s Law says that if you have a gas dissolved in water at a concentration x, and the same gas present in the air immediately above the water at concentration y in equilibrium with the dissolved component, then if you add a little more of that gas to the air above the air/water interface, x parts will end up in solution and only y parts will remain in the air.
The concentration of CO2 in the surface layers of the oceans is about 120 times that of the atmosphere immediately above the ocean.(oceanic concentration is approx 2000 micromoles per kg). Consequently, 99.2% of any added CO2 will end up in solution in the oceans, and only 0.8% will remain in the atmosphere. The time for this to occur will depend on horizontal and vertical mixing rates, but is unlikely to be more than a year or so for CO2 released anywhere on the planet.
The total amount of man-made CO2 released since the start of the industrial revolution is a few thousand gigatons. Since over 99% of this will have been speedily absorbed by the oceans, there simply isn’t enough to account for the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from about 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm today – not by a long shot.
I am therefore led to the conclusion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is largely due to degassing of the oceans as the planet warms up after the Little Ice Age end sometime around 1850. Comments, anyone?
TB says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Doesn’t happen like that ..
See here http://www.climate4you.com/Longyearbyen%20SolarEclipse%2020080801.htm
Your eclipse measurements seem to show the opposite of these:
http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif
“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.”
As well as the matter of heat capacity, another thing that will make a big difference to the 33ºC figure is the distribution of the dominant greenhouse agent:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-p&img=vapour.bmp
(check “No night” and click “update”)
Ben Wouters says:
January 14, 2014 at 4:45 am
@Myrrh
“Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C”
actually the average surface temperature of the moon is ~197K (-76C)
see http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
So we have to explain a temperature difference of > 90K between our moon and the Earth. (and the moon reflects less solar than earth)
.
The -23°C for the Moon’s average is one I see most often as standard – here someone who did his own search:
“Temperature Data
If you survey the web for temperature data, you’ll find dramatic variations in the numbers quoted, even among web sites that are copying each other. There’s also little consistency, even within a given web site, in which temperature scale is quoted. One of the most frequent errors is to specify the wrong temperature scale, substituting Centigrade for degrees Fahrenheit; and even more often substituting Kelvin for Centigrade.
So, after digging through that mess, I went back to half a dozen books in my study to check references found on the web, and came up with what I think are the most consistent and believable numbers for the mean, maximum, and minimum surface temperatures. The table below quotes these temperatures in Fahrenheit, Rankine, Centigrade, and Kelvin. (Rankine and Kelvin are absolute scales. At 0°R or 0°K, nothing moves.)
Mean Surface Temperature
F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213”
From: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface-temperature.html
The infamous 255K (-18C) is just one of the many mistakes in the whole green house debacle
‘Cept it isn’t a mistake.. It was a deliberate act to write out our atmosphere of fluid gas with convection as heat transfer in order to promote the ‘radiative greenhouse gas’ scenario. If trace ‘greenhouse gases and a bit of water’ which are not direct heat sources could raise the temperature of my house 33°C ..
richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am
David A:
Your post to me at January 13, 2014 at 8:29 am concludes saying
“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.”
OK. My suggested links did not meet your need. Sorry.
I provided those because – as I said – the subject is large and as introduction I thought links to writings by Ira Glickstein were the most appropriate in a thread discussing a new article by him.
You ask;
“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??”
Well. Yes, but so what? The Earth’s atmosphere does include GHGs.
=========================================================================
Dear Richard, thank you, and apologies for the delayed response. The clue to your so what? question is in this sentence of mine, which you quoted…”my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules.” So I am asserting, (with an open mind) that this quote “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”” being affirmed as correct, would mean that some of the projected 33 degrees of warming due to GHG back radiation, would be made up by increased conduction from a reduction in GHGs.
In fact, I am asserting as logical that the energy conducting to the atmosphere, would have a longer residence time, due to the fact that it could not radiate away, and continue to mainly conduct up to the cooler atmosphere. Conduction, and Convection would continue, via Coriolis
affect, night and day flux, and latitude heat differentials The thinner more elevated atmosphere would continuously absorb warmer, faster vibrating molecular energy, until they equalized. A thermometer would measure the thinner atmosphere as cooler, due to the fact that fewer would hit the same surface area, but they would have a thermodynamic equilibrium of the same energy per molecule. So the “so what?” is an affirmation that less GHG equals more conduction from the surface, and an increase in atmospheric residence time of said energy, partially making up for the 33 degree warming affect of GHGs. Stated more simply, a decrease in back radiation is, to some degree offset by an increase in back conduction.
What I can not figure out is how to quantify such a change. Not all the energy leaving the surface is radiant. Clearly Trenbeth shows this, however, even now some of the energy hitting the surface is also conducted, via warmer air contacting a cooler surface.
BTW, I use “David’s law, regarding residence time, to explain the warming affect of GHGs. Anything that increases the residence time of energy in a system is warming. The devil is in the details.
One watt of energy hits the ocean surface, accelerates evaporation and that one watt leaves the ocean, and begins to exit the system (system equals earth, ocean, atmosphere) Another watt of SW energy strikes the ocean surface and penetrates up to 200 meters.
So I see the earth’s system as a highway with one on-ramp, TSI, and one off-ramp, space, The inflow on the onramp is relatively constant over the annual cycle. The number of cars, (units of
energy) in the SYSTEM (earth, ocean, atmosphere) depends on the average speed of the cars between the on and off ramps. More cars slowing means more cars on the highway. (earth, ocean atmosphere) More cars driving faster means fewer cars on the highway.
SW cars that reflect from white clouds go very fast. Different SW clouds that dive deep in the ocean, drive very slow.
This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.
Well, as I said, it is an academic question by an interested layman. Somehow I think I could make humor out of it, lets see, “Two photons walk into a bar….?
certainly slow drivers these SW cars entering the ocean.
NASA’s view of our planet and it’s people in 2001 and how the population problem will be solved by 2025 in a presentation titled Future Strategic Issues And War War Fare.
This is the text of just one of the slides in the presentation, see link below.
Space Ship Earth
The crew are:
– plundering the ship’s supplies
– Tinkering with the temperature and life support controls
– Still looking for instruction manual
– Engaging in bloody skirmishes in every corner of the vessel
– Increasing the size of the crew by 2 million PER WEEK
P. Creola
http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/future-strategicissuesandwarfare
Watching this NASA slide show and already having read UN Agenda 21, all the Club of Rome BS available and following this blog from the early days, I think we have entirely different priorities right now and really have to address our establishment about the total lunatic trajectory they have engaged upon. The text in the slide provides a more than chilling insight in the way top NASA management regards our civilization and our relationship with the planet.
I think their world view is even worse than the view of the Nazi’s.
People who exhibit views like this belong in a mental institution.
Instead we find them in the highest offices of our governments and institutions.
Now that is a problem we have to solve.
Here’s a video discussing the NASA slide show: