Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the bureaucratic agency which appropriated the role of arbiter of things climatic, has advanced a theory for the lack of warming since the turn of the century, viz:
The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming trend.
So I thought I’d look at the CERES dataset, and see what it has to say. I started with the surface temperature question. CERES contains a calculated surface dataset that covers twelve years. But in the process, I got surprised by the results of a calculation that for some reason I’d never done before. You know how the IPCC says that if the CO2 doubles, the earth will warm up by 3°C? Here was the question that somehow I’d never asked myself … how many watts/m2 will the surface downwelling radiation (longwave + shortwave) have to increase by, if the surface temperature rises by 3°C?
Now, you’d think that you could just use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to figure out how many more upwelling watts would be represented by a global surface temperature rise of 3°C. Even that number was a surprise to me … 16.8 watts per square metre.
Figure 1. Blue line shows the anomaly in total downwelling surface radiation, longwave plus shortwave, in the CERES dataset, March 2000 to September 2012. Red line shows the trend in the downwelling radiation, which is 0.01 W/m2 per decade. Gray area shows the 95% confidence interval of the trend. Black line shows the expected effect of the increase in CO2 over the period, calculated at 21 W/m2 per doubling. CO2 data are from NOAA. Trend of the expected CO2 change in total downwelling surface radiation is 1.6 W/m2 per decade. CO2 data from NOAA.
But as they say on TV, wait, there’s more. The problem is, the surface loses energy in three ways—as radiation, as sensible heat, and as the latent heat of evapotranspiration. The energy loss from the surface by radiation (per CERES) is ~ 400 watts per square metre (W/m2), and the loss by sensible and latent heat is ~ 100 W/m2, or a quarter of the radiation loss.
Now, the sensible and latent heat loss is a parasitic loss, which means a loss in a heat engine that costs efficiency. And as any engineer can testify, parasitic losses are proportional to temperature, and as the operating temperatures rise, parasitic losses rise faster and faster. In addition, the 100 W/m2 is the global average, but these losses are disproportionately centered at the hot end of the system. At that end, they are rising as some power factor of the increasing temperature.
But let’s be real generous, and ignore all that. For the purpose of this analysis, we’ll swallow the whopper that a 3° temperature rise wouldn’t drive evaporation through the roof, and we’ll assume that the parasitic sensible and latent heat losses from the surface stay at a quarter of the radiation losses.
This means, of course, that instead of the increase of 16.8 W/m2 in downwelling radiation that we calculated above, we need 25% more downwelling radiation to account for the parasitic losses from the surface. (As I said, the true percentage of parasitic losses would be more than that, likely much more, but we’ll use a quarter for purposes of conservative estimation.)
And what that means is that if the IPCC claim of three degrees of global warming per doubling of CO2 is true, when the top-of-atmosphere radiation goes up by a doubling of CO2, an additional TOA 3.7 watts per metre squared, the surface downwelling radiation needs to go up by no less than 21 W/m2 per doubling. And although I was surprised by the size of the number, to me was very good news, because it meant that if it were there, it should be large enough to be quite visible in the CERES data. So I took a look … and Figure 1 above shows what I found.
The red line shows the trend over the ~ 13 years of the record … which is 0.01 W/m2 per decade, statistically no different from zero.
The black line, on the other hand, is the change in downwelling radiation expected from the change in CO2 from 2000 to 2012, calculated at 21 W/m2 per doubling of CO2. As you might imagine because of its steady increase, there is little difference between the CO2 data and the CO2 trendline, so I’ve left it off. For the same reason, there is virtually no error in the trend in downwelling radiation expected from CO2. The result is an expected increase in downwelling surface radiation of no less than 1.6 ± 0.007 W/m2 per decade. Over the period of the CERES data, it totals almost 2 W/m2, which in terms of the precision of the individual CERES datasets should certainly be visible.
So … does Figure 1 falsify the CO2 hypothesis? Not yet, we’ve got a ways to go, but it is an interesting finding. First, we need to look at the two explanations postulated by the good folks at the IPCC that I quoted at the head of the post—volcanoes and solar variations. And the amount that we are looking to explain is a missing increase of 1.6 W/m2 per decade.
Their first explanation was solar. Since the downwelling surface radiation has not increased as expected, perhaps there’s been a decrease in the incoming TOA solar radiation. This would offset a warming from CO2. Here’s that data:
Figure 2. Trend in TOA Solar Radiation, 2000-2012. Red line shows trend, a decrease of – 0.15 W/m2 per decade.
So the IPCC is right about the solar. And from having to explain 1.6 W/m2, we’ve explained 0.15 W/m2 of it which leaves 1.45 W/m2 of missing warming.
Next, volcanoes. The IPCC says that the effect of volcanoes over the period was to cut down the amount of sunshine hitting the surface, reducing the total downwelling radiation.
The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions …
Here are the anomalies in that regard:
Figure 3. Action of volcanoes in reducing surface solar radiation. This measures the anomaly in downwelling solar at the surface minus the anomaly in downwelling solar at the TOA. The trend in the transmission is a warming of +0.34 W/m2 per decade.
Bad news for the IPCC hypothesis. Rather than volcanoes counteracting the expected warming and decreasing the atmospheric transmission of sunshine over the period of record, we had a trend of increasing amounts of sunlight making it to the surface. The trend of this increase was 0.34 W/m2 per decade. Kinda blows holes in their theory about volcanoes, but all we can do is follow the data …
And as a result, instead of having to explain a missing warming of 1.6 – 0.15 = 1.45 W/m2 per decade, we now have to add the 0.34 W/m2 to the missing warming, and that gets us up to 1.8 W/m2 in missing warming. So rather than explaining things, overall the IPCC explanation just makes things worse …
Anyhow, that’s how it goes to date. If the IPCC theory about 3°C surface warming from a doubling of CO2 is true, we need to either a) come up with something else in the CERES data to explain the missing CO2 warming of 1.6 W/m2 per decade, b) back off on the IPCC climate sensitivity by a factor of about ten … or my perennial favorite, toss out the idea of “climate sensitivity” entirely and recognize that at equilibrium, temperature isn’t a simple function of TOA forcings because the climate system has emergent phenomena which respond and react to counteract the TOA changes.
The big problem that I see for the hypothesis that GHGs rule the temperature is that over the period of the CERES data, we should have seen a shift of almost two watts in the downwelling total radiation … but I find no such thing in the dataset. So I throw this question out to the climate science community at large.
Where in the CERES data is the missing warming? There is no trend (0.01 W/m2 per decade) in the surface downwelling radiation. The IPCC says that over the period, CO2 should have increased the downwelling surface radiation by ~ 2 W/m2. SO … if the IPCC hypothesis is correct, what is countering the expected increase of ~ 2 W/m2 in the downwelling surface radiation due to the increase in CO2 over the 2000-2012 time period?
Solar explains perhaps 10% of it, but the volcanoes push it the other way … so why can’t I find the two watts per square metre of expected CO2 warming in the CERES dataset?
w.
NOTES
USUAL REQUEST: If you disagree with something that I or someone else said, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. Then, and only then, let us know what you disagree with. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words.
DATA AND CODE: I’ve put the data and code used to produce the graphs and calculations online. There are three code files: CERES Setup.R, CERES Functions.R, and the code for this post, CO2 and CERES.R. In addition, there are two datafiles, one for the CERES TOA files, and the other for the CERES surface files, entitled CERES 13 year (230 Mbytes), and CERES 13 year surface (112 Mbytes). I think that the data is turnkey, just pull up the CO
All of them need to be in the same folder, because the CO2 and CERES.R file calls the setup file, which loads the data files and the function file. If you’ve downloaded the CERES 13 year file, it is unchanged, no need to reload. Open the CERES Setup.R file to see the names of all of the datafiles loaded, and open the CERES Functions.R file for functions and constants.
And as Steven Mosher recommended to me, use RStudio as your portal into R, much the best I’ve found.
CERES Data: The top-of atmosphere CERES data is measured by the satellites. On the other hand, the CERES surface data is calculated from the TOA CERES data, plus data from the MODIS and GOES satellites. The calculated surface data is energy balanced, meaning that the surface flows sum up to the TOA flows.
I’ve run my own version of ground truthing on the CERES surface data by comparing it to the surface temperature data I was using previously. Differences were small overall, and both sets shows the same small details and fluctuations.
Is this how I’d like to do the analysis? Not at all. I’d rather that everything were measured … but this is the best we have, and the various climate scientists involved have used all of the available observational data from a variety of satellites to determine the various values, and have ground truthed the surface data in a variety of ways. So until we have better data, the CERES datasets are the closest we have to actual measurements … and as near as I can tell they show no sign of the claimed 2 W/m2 increase in downwelling radiation that we are assured is going on over the period of record.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike M says:
January 14, 2014 at 7:43 am
————————————-
Mike you ask for a “Sword of Damocles”. Willis might all this an “elevator speech”
Here it is –
“Our oceans could be as hot as 80C if they were not cooled by the atmosphere. The only effective cooling method for the atmosphere is radiative gases. Radiative gases therefore cool our planet. Global warming is physically impossible.”
The proof?
The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3AU
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:09 am
“RUN THE DANG NUMBERS, Richard. If longwave can’t provide energy to the ocean as you and Konrad and others claim, there is nowhere near enough solar energy, even in the tropics, to keep the ocean from freezing.”
————————————–
You say run the […] numbers, but I say run the experiment.
The question of whether incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool received a lot of discussion in 2011
You used the accepted maths, I ran the experiment –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
The 2011 version has been refined to –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
(if you object to the fans the experiment can be conducted with thin heating wires in place of the LWIR reflector (2011) or the LWIR source water blocks (2013) )
The experiment is simple. It’s just the LWIR version of the old trick –
Q – how do you heat a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer?
A – you point the hair dryer at the side of the tub, not at the surface of the water.
LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. The reason the oceans are not frozen lies elsewhere. It relates to the difference between fluids and transparent bodies as opposed to theoretical radiative shells.
Curt says, January 14, 2014 at 3:41 pm:
“Kristian: You say that the sun provides the oceans with ~165 W/m2 power flux density on average. So far so good. But the same type of measurements that allow us to say that also show that the oceans are radiating away almost 400 W/m2 on average.”
Sigh, this ridiculous talking point again? No, Curt. The S-B equation claims it does. No sensors detect 400 W/m^2 of ‘outgoing radiative flux’ from the surface. The sensors only ever detect the heat flux going out. The instruments utilize the S-B equation to calculate a value for an hypothesized one-way outgoing radiative flux. That’s very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/pyrgeometers-untangled/
The Earth’s surface gets on average 165 W/m^2 worth of heat IN (all in the form of radiation from the Sun) and ejects 165 W/m^2 worth of heat OUT (~53 W/m^2 in the form of terrestrial thermal radiation and ~112 W/m^2 in the form of conduction/convection and evaporation). Balance. And that’s it. The surface temperature isn’t derived from any instantaneous radiative fluxes absorbed or emitted by it, Curt. It has a thermal mass. It stores up energy. Until its temperature is such that as much heat goes out as comes in per unit of time.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:46 am
Bill Illis says:
January 14, 2014 at 4:33 am
You seem to be missing the point. I looked for the “additional forcing required to raise temperatures by 3.0C” in the CERES dataset and I couldn’t find it.
So the question is not where the majority of this imaginary forcing might come from. We have not yet established that it is even happening, so speculations on its origins are way premature.
——————–
No, no, I understood what you were saying.
There is hardly anything occurring, let alone something putting us on track for plus 16.8 W/m2.
I said we should be measuring what really happens rather than relying on the assumptions. In fact, this has been my position since I got into this debate.
Kristian says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:44 pm
“Because the S-B equation deals with instantaneous radiative fluxes only. Not with thermal mass. But thermal mass is what actually allows real objects to heat.”
—————————————————————————–
Bingo!
When dealing with non-radiative energy transport within a body TIME becomes a critical factor. Instantaneous equilibrium calcs don’t work.
This is where empirical experiment or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) need to be used.
Camille Veyres:
You’re one of the few here who understands the crucial difference between radiative intensity and heat transfer. Keep all those engrossed in misguided directional algebras from straying too far from thermodynamic reality.
Kristian: I’m not talking about kitchen infrared thermometers that work like the one you linked. More sophisticated sensors evaluate the electromagnetic radiation received in each very small frequency band, giving us the spectrum information as well as the total radiative power density (integrated under the frequency curve).
Point one of those sensors down at liquid water at about 15C and you get a very nice spectrum curve with a peak right about where the Wien displacement law says it should be according to the SB equations and the whole curve about 95% as high as a theoretical blackbody would be for that temperature. In other words, a gray body with an emissivity of about 0.95, with a radiative flux density of almost 400 W/m2.
The pyrgeometers you cite generally assume properties like this, which is why they work well on most substances (but not polished metal of course), and they are far cheaper.
Curt says, January 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm:
“Kristian: I’m not talking about kitchen infrared thermometers that work like the one you linked. More sophisticated sensors evaluate the electromagnetic radiation received in each very small frequency band, giving us the spectrum information as well as the total radiative power density (integrated under the frequency curve).”
Same thing happens, Curt. Sensors only ever detect heat. Because heat is all there is. That’s the actual physical transfer of energy between two objects at different temperatures. The two one-way and oppositely directed radiative fluxes between the objects allegedly making up the ‘radiative heat flow’ between them are merely conceptual entities. Even if each of them were real physical entities, they could never be separately detected, because they would simply make up the specific radiative field continuum that constitutes the ‘net’ flux from warmer to cooler. The ‘net’ is the only physically real ‘thing’. Everything else has to be inferred and calculated based on these inferences.
There would be no need to cool sensors to the extreme if they could simply detect directly the radiation from a colder source,
Andres Valencia says:
January 14, 2014 at 8:28 am
Thanks Willis. Interesting article, please keep up the good work.
Where in the CERES data is the missing warming?
Nowhere. I don’t think CERES can measure the imaginary.
============
Ceres and Willis exclude the real – by pretending that we get no direct beam longwave infrared heat from the Sun. But, all the standard measurements done on downwelling longwave are from the Sun, and as in this example following, warnings are given about cloud cover with the suggestion that they use data from another solar measuring station:
http://daac.ornl.gov/FIFE/Datasets/Surface_Radiation/Longwave_Radiation_UNL.html
Confidence Level/Accuracy Judgment:
“On days with variable cloud conditions the data should be used with caution. The AMS incoming solar radiation data at the site or nearby site should be consulted. On clear days the measurements fall within the errors that were discussed in previous sections.”
Incoming means incoming direct from the Sun. This is called beam heat, also known as radiant heat – it is direct heat from the Sun travelling to us in thermal infrared radiation at the speed of light in straight lines. It is powerful heat from the Sun actually capable of heating land and water and us. We feel it as heat.
The use of the AGW memespeak “downwelling from the atmosphere” is to maintain their pretence that these measurements “come from backradiation”. This is science eff ar ay you dee..
What does it take to get this through to people here? We have known from Herschel’s great work that the great heat we feel from the Sun is invisible infrared- we feel it here on the Earth’s surface.
AGW says only 1% of its “shortwave in” is invisible infrared – but we cannot feel this as heat.. Neither can we feel visible from the Sun as heat.
ALL THE HEAT WE FEEL FROM THE SUN IS LONGWAVE INFRARED
That is how we know it is longwave infrared!
This is still traditional science as taught direct from NASA here, it is such elementary science knowledge that it was written for children…
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. ”
Are you really not able to grasp this? At the very least the fact that this comes from NASA demands that that you take notice of it. If you consider yourselves scientists..
Willis Eschenbach says, January 14, 2014 at 8:54 am:
“He [Konrad] actually believes that the ocean is kept from freezing solely by the ~ 160 W/m2 of downwelling solar, while it is losing ~ 400 W/m2 through radiation and sensible/latent heat loss … and that’s industrial strength foolishness.”
———————————————————
Willis,
we know the oceans won’t freeze in the absence of DWLWIR because there is a “Snow Line” in the solar system at 3 AU. Even accounting for the planets diurnal cycle earth is well inside this line.
I have shown you the experiment* that can demonstrate why –
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
I posed four questions –
1. How hot will can the water get?
2. Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
3. Or will it rise toward 80C?
4. What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?
The water will not freeze. It will heat. As empirical observation of the solar system shows, you can even start the experiment with ice instead of water. (not this version, the contraction would tear the LDPE film)
The reason the water will not freeze is primarily TIME. The water is being illuminated with an intermittent 1000 W SW source. But this does not mean that the effective heating power is only 500 W. The water is being heated below the surface. Because of the slow speed of conduction and convection, energy is not instantaneously lost. Even though the SW source is intermittent, the slow speed of energy transport within the water makes the ability of the intermittent 1000 W source closer to the power of a continuous 1000 W continuous source.
When the experiment is started it will not be in radiative equilibrium. This will take time.
If our oceans without an atmosphere (assuming no boil off into space) could heat toward 80C then the SB solution of -18C is a critical error. This would mean the NET effect of the atmosphere (and every radiative and non-radiative energy transport within it) over the oceans is cooling. And the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism. Radiative gases.
Just a fundamental confusion in their presentation:
Huh? Is it “medium confidence” or “low confidence” in radiative forcing???
I can’t see this talking about two different things, because a “trend” is the same thing as “the role of changes” – which indicates that the second passage is a redundancy, a repeat of the first, with the exception that in one the confidence level is “medium” and in the other it is “low.”
Is this written by an idiot or am I the idiot for not being able to distinguish the differences in the two assertions?
This basically comes across as gobbledegook bomfoggery.
If anyone can clarify this contradiction, I am all ears.
It is also b.s. to INCLUDE one of the trends being compared within the other trend. They need to be over two separate and non-inclusive intervals. The inclusion of the flatter, shorter one in with the longer interval makes the differences less severe, by flattening the longer. This can only be being done with full consciousness and intent in the full meaning of Mark Twain’s observation that “There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Doing it the way they did is like titling a presentation “A Comparison of Horses and Burros” and then actually discussing horses and mules, and not mentioning burros at all in the text.
Konrad:
The snow line you mention is the point at which there starts to be significant sublimation (coming toward the sun). This occurs at a temperature far, far below 0C (273K).
An experiment with average input of 500 W/m2 (or is it 1000 W/m2? The description is ambiguous) is of course going to end up with temperatures far above those found on earth, where the input is much lower.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
“Isn’t it obvious that ALL the radiation reaching the surface is from those warmest molecules and the colder molecules above them have no additional radiative/ thermal effect whatever. ?”
You are confusing radiation of energy with conduction of heat. Heat energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body, but it certainly can radiate from any one body to another regardless of the temperature save at absolute zero. Consider how lasers are used to create ultra-low temperatures. They induce radiation of photons from an ultra-cold sample into a warmer environment, continuously, resulting in an even lower sample temperature. A photon doesn’t care what the temperature of the object it strikes is. It just transfers some energy to it. Cold things don’t emit as much, that’s all.
Willis says:
“Now, emissivity is on the order of 1.0 for the surface of the planet.”
I’m not sure why this is valid given the emissivities of common materials:
http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivityb.html
Water : .67
Soil (surface): .38
Granite: .45
snow: .89
Sand: .76
Stephen Wilde says:
January 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Kristian said:
“thermal mass is what actually allows real objects to heat.”
Or just mass.
————————————————————————————–
No. Thermal mass relates to the heat capacity of the mass. A Kg of aluminum is less thermal mass than a Kg of iron.
Curt says:
January 14, 2014 at 7:24 pm
—————————————-
“The snow line you mention is the point at which there starts to be significant sublimation (coming toward the sun). This occurs at a temperature far, far below 0C (273K).”
It is correct to say ice will subliminate in vacuum below 0C, however below -20C not so much.
At 1 AU ice will absorb sunlight, and this energy will be absorbed not just at the surface but internally. Because of low conductivity, this energy will take time to make it back to the surface to be radiated as IR. This allows sunlight calculated (by SB) as too weak to melt ice able to actually melt it.
“An experiment with average input of 500 W/m2 (or is it 1000 W/m2? The description is ambiguous) is of course going to end up with temperatures far above those found on earth, where the input is much lower.”
The experiment diagram shows a 1000 W SW source switched intermittently in a 50% cycle. Using averages for energy input is one of the many mistakes made in climate “science” that results from trying to use SB equations on fluid bodies. The experiment demonstrates why not using averages is important.
Some good news –
The experiment shown is very expensive and difficult to run but I have thought of a simple and effective way to run it on the cheap. All that is needed is to fly a set up like this on a long duration radiosonde balloon –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
This image shows an insulated water container double glazed at the top with IR transparent LDPE film, the bottom layer of which is in contact with the water surface. If this bottom layer of film is replace with higher strength IR transparent silicone it could be flown on a balloon. (warm water will boil at altitude and this must be prevented). Also for checking a full 24 hour cycle a bigger sample size will be needed with convective flow restrictors in the fluid.
This will eliminate virtually all downwelling LWIR on the water sample. The sample will now be only able to be heated by SW and cooled by outgoing LWIR from the surface (and small conductive losses)
According to SB calculations it should freeze.
If it doesn’t freeze the the hypothesis of a net radiative GHE is disproved.
pyrgeometer- what a piece of junk ‘scientific’ instrumentation. It uses thermocouples in series. From KippZonen literature:
Observing the earth from outer space, a blackbody is seen
in a range of 8 to 14 μm with a temperature of 14°C and
outside this wavelength range a blackbody of -60°C.
Under clear sky conditions in a reverse direction, outer
space can be observed in the same spectral range.
What the hell does that mean?
Konrad
How does an IR transparent lid eliminate LWIR? It’s also my understanding that the sun emits more energy in LW rather than SW.
My guess is that the water will freeze at that high altitude. Much as urine from a plane. I’m not sure your experiment will prove anything except that in a cold environment water freezes. I kinda [knew] that already.
Knew
Alex says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:45 pm
————————————-
The sun does emit SWIR but very little LWIR. This is why climate scientists consider any increased direct atmospheric interception of solar IR by increased radiative gases to be minimal.
Downwelling LWIR will decrease significantly with altitude. (one reason astronomers like their telescopes on the top of mountains) That is all that is needed for the experiment to work.
As to freezing due to air temperature, the SW & LWIR transparent double glazing design can minimise this.
Lock at the thermometer in the photo. That’s reading 76.4C and that container is poorly insulated.
Do you believe a reduction in incident LWIR will reduce that?
“Thermal mass relates to the heat capacity of the mass. A Kg of aluminum is less thermal mass than a Kg of iron.”
Noted, thank you.
Crispin said:
“Heat energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body, but it certainly can radiate from any one body to another regardless of the temperature save at absolute zero.”
Yes, that is right but I was trying to say that the radiation from the colder molecules above the surface would not heat the surface to a temperature higher than the ambient temperature of the warmer molecules at the surface.
I’ll rethink the wording for future use.
Kristian says:
January 14, 2014 at 5:34 pm
“Sensors only ever detect heat. Because heat is all there is. That’s the actual physical transfer of energy between two objects at different temperatures. The two one-way and oppositely directed radiative fluxes between the objects allegedly making up the ‘radiative heat flow’ between them are merely conceptual entities.”
Wow, once again a Slayer says that all of 20th century physics is wrong. Century-old laboratory sciences such as spectroscopy are completely bogus. Why are you wasting your time here? There’s a Nobel prize to be had if you can really make your case.
Lots of radiation sensors do not detect heat. I’ve designed some myself. Many solid-state sensors convert received electromagnetic radiation into electric current. We understand how this works down to the photon level. Oops, those are “merely conceptual entities”.
The caloric theory of heat flow that you espouse was formulated by people who had no way of knowing the underlying mechanisms. You should know, but you are willfully ignorant.
Konrad.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]
Telescopes are on mountains to reduce ‘light pollution’ from urban areas and because the air is thinner and ‘cleaner’, therefore better resolution of optics.
I know wikipedia is not a great source but it will suffice in this case.
Curt says, January 14, 2014 at 11:33 pm:
“Wow, once again a Slayer says that all of 20th century physics is wrong. Century-old laboratory sciences such as spectroscopy are completely bogus. Why are you wasting your time here? There’s a Nobel prize to be had if you can really make your case.”
Hahaha! Of course, the ‘Nobel prize’ argument once again. How predictable is that?
Curt, all of 20th century physics is not wrong. The climate science interpretation of the physics is what’s wrong. Your asserted 400 W/m^2 from the Earth’s surface has to come from somewhere. It is only made possible with 340-350 W/m^2 first added to the surface from the cooler atmosphere to increase the internal energy of the surface, raising its temperature beyond what the Sun allegedly can. A transfer of energy between thermodynamic systems with such a direct result is defined as ‘heat transfer’, Curt (if we count out ‘work’). Radiation also has to obey the laws of thermodynamics, even if we do (as you boldly claim) ‘understand how this works down to the photon level.’ So where in regular physics is such a process discussed, where energy is transferred from a cooler to a warmer system to create a direct warming of the already warmer system (especially with the warmer system being the source of the energy coming back from the cooler system warming the warmer some more, after having first warmed the cooler system)? Where else than in the warped world of ‘climate physics’ is this ever hinted at as a possible outcome of ‘energy exchange’? Flagrantly breaking both the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in one go.
“Lots of radiation sensors do not detect heat. I’ve designed some myself. Many solid-state sensors convert received electromagnetic radiation into electric current.”
Why do you feel the need to redirect, Curt? We’re talking about energy spontaneously moving between two objects in thermal contact because of the temperature difference between them. Read about how interferometers work. They don’t work by sensors detecting directly radiation from sources colder than them. Again, why do we supercool the sensors if they can detect radiation directly from any source no matter at what temperature anyway …?
“We understand how this works down to the photon level. Oops, those are “merely conceptual entities”.”
Strange, because even professional quantum physicists wouldn’t claim to understand this anywhere near down to the photon level. Quantum physics is all about ‘concepts’, Curt. Even ‘the photon’ itself is a concept. But I guess you know better than us ‘wilfully ignorant’.
Do I smell ‘Nobel prizes’ for Curt in the future?