From the “settled science” department comes this new revision of Earth’s entire radiation budget. Many WUWT readers can recall seeing this radiation budget graphic from Kenneth Trenberth in 2009:
![erb[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/erb1.jpg)
That figure in a slightly different form also appeared in the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1 report with different numbers:
![faq-1-1-figure-1-l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/faq-1-1-figure-1-l1.png)
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-1-1-figure-1-l.png
Note that in Trenberth’s 2009 paper, the energy from “back radiation” (from GHG action) value went up from 324 w/square meter cited by the IPCC in 2007 to 333 w/square meter. The net effect of that is increased energy back to Earth’s surface, making it warmer.
It seems odd that would increase so much, so quickly in two years. Even more surprising, is that now, the value has been revised even higher, to 340.3 w/square meter, while at the same time, the “Net Absorbed” value, that extra bit of energy that we get to keep from the sun on Earth, thanks to increased GHG action, has gone DOWN.
I know, it doesn’t make much sense, read on.
Alan Siddons writes in an email:
Reviewing NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) program this week, I noticed a graphic depiction I hadn’t seen before, at
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf .
It was drafted with the assistance of Kevin Trenberth and contains some notable differences from the last effort of his that I’d seen, so I’ve inserted NASA’s new values over it.
Cooler sun than before but a warmer surface. Less albedo and air absorption. Non-radiative cooling is higher than before but surface emission is higher too. “Net absorbed” refers to radiant energy going in but not yet being radiated – a ticking time bomb.
==============================================================
Note that somehow, between 2009 and the present, it was decided (presumably based on CERES measurements) that the Net Absorbed value (which is the extra energy absorbed that would result from increased GHG’s) would go DOWN from 0.9 w/square meter to 0.6w/square meter – an decrease of one third of the 2009 value.
This isn’t a typo, since many of the other numbers have changed as well.
With all the talk of the “settled science” that is certain about increases in Greenhouse gases, it seems that with such a revision, there’s still some very unsettled revisionist work afoot to get a handle on what the “real” energy budget of the Earth is. Perhaps the recent published works on climate sensitivity, coupled with observations of “the pause” have had some affect on these numbers as well. Meanwhile, according to the Mauna Loa data, CO2 concentration has risen from 388.16ppm in November 2009 when we had the big Copenhagen COP15 meeting that was supposed to change everything, to 397.31ppm in November 2013.
So with GHG’s on the increase, their effect has been reduced by a third in the NASA planetary energy budget. That’s quite remarkable.
So was Trenberth’s 2009 energy budget wrong, running too hot? It sure seems so. This is what NASA writes about that diagram:
The energy budget diagram on the front shows our best understanding of energy flows into and away from the Earth. It is based on the work of many scientists over more than 100 years, with the most recent measurements from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES; http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov) satellite instrument providing high accuracy data of the radiation components (reflected solar and emitted infrared radiation fluxes).
This energy balance determines the climate of the Earth. Our understanding of these energy flows will continue to evolve as scientists obtain a longer and longer record using new and better instruments (http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov).
Source: http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/
It seems to be a clear case of observations trumping Trenberth.
So with the retained energy (the net absorbed figure) resulting from GHG’s like CO2 dropping by one third since 2009, can we now call off some of the most alarming aspects of global warming theory?
Related posts:
CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity
==============================================================
UPDATE:
Alan Siddons writes in with some further research. Commenter John West also noted this in comments. Siddons writes:
Well, let me tell you what I found while tracking down that IPCC illustration. I did find it on an IPCC document, Regional Changes of Climate and some basic concepts , but it looked shabby there too, so I surmised that it was a careless copy-paste of somebody else’s work, not a product of the IPCC itself. On that basis I searched for “radiation budget” or “energy budget” and added the illustration’s particular figures to my search demand.
Bingo. The illustration actually came from a May 2013 American Institute of Physics paper, A new diagram of the global energy balance , by Martin Wild, et al.
Here’s a small version for your records.
Other notes by Wild, Decadal changes in surface radiative fluxes – overview and update , yield some insight into his perspective — for instance, this panel,
which seems to indicate that less sunlight creates more compensatory back-radiation but a weaker terrestrial emission, while more sunlight “unmasks” the greenhouse effect. Wild’s conclusions are also notable.
- Still considerable uncertainties in global mean radiation budget at the surface.
- Models still tend to overestimate downward solar and underestimate downward thermal radiation
- Strong decadal changes observed in both surface solar and thermal fluxes.
This last point seems to imply that changes to the Radiation Budget are not merely a result of improved measurements but reflect rather sudden changes in our thermal environment.
================================================================
This leads me to wonder, why did NASA choose the values from Wild et al as opposed to Trenberth from the National Center For Atmosphereic Research?
Gail, no argument from me – compared to water CO2 is a non starter
Frans Franken says:
January 18, 2014 at 5:53 am
Remember also that these gigatonnes of water need to be raised to about 3 km before that Potential energy is converted to kinetic in the rain, the additional factor is small but significant compared to the 0.6W imbalance. You also need to account for latent heat of solidification when snow and ice melt and the specific heat of water since the average temp is 15 deg C not zero (Ie 4.2 x 1000 x 15) or 63kJ per kg
Trick, you got no manners. Do you happen to know the mass defect of the fusion reaction in the Sun? I do, I have posted on it here. Try to be kind, we are all friends…
bobl says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:00 am
Only processes that exchange heat between the surface and the atmosphere must be considered on this interface. Convection, temperature/phase change of water and other processes taking place within the atmosphere don’t exchange heat with the surface (radiation excluded). Most heat is exchanged when water changes phase while leaving c.q. returning to the surface: evaporation (liquid to vapor), sublimation (ice to vapor) resp. snow or hail falling in water and melting, or rain falling on ice and freezing. Only the latter process transports heat from the precipitation to the surface; the first three go in the other direction, extracting heat from the surface. My guess is snow or hail melting in surface water is the most significant process after evaporation. This however would happen to only a fraction of total precipitation, and the specific heat of ice(/snow) melting amounts only 15% of evaporation specific heat. As such this cannot account for the gap between the calculation based on evaporation only (68 W/m2) and the cartoons (78 – 86.4 W/m2).
It looks to me like “the team” is using these unknowns as closing variables which follow from predetermination of the desired imbalance value of 0.6 (/0.9) W/m2.
Note that the gap between the fairly certain evaporation heat flow and the values in the cartoons has varied as much as 84% (from 78 – 68 = 10 w/m2 to 86.4 – 68 = 18.4 W/m2). Similarly the value of the thermal/sensible heat has varied from up 41% to down again 23% (17-24-18.4 W/m2). They can’t have a clue what’s going on in this area, yet still they want to claim some degree of certainly about an imbalance between surface and atmosphere of less than one percent.
richardscourtney says, January 18, 2014 at 2:36 am:
“My post you have answered refuted a mistaken assertion that radiative effects don’t increase global average surface temperature (GAST). It pointed out that the person making the assertion had provided an example which demonstrated the opposite of his assertion. And what I said is true. You have replied by attempting to discuss irrelevant details related to that example, and I am not willing to engage in such an ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion.”
And my post you have answered refuted a mistaken assertion that radiative effects do increase global average surface temperature (GAST). It seems you haven’t taken in what I pointed out to you.
“Importantly, it seems you think I accept energy budget determinations because you confuse that issue with what I said about the example. I do NOT agree any such determinations of average energy flows in and through the climate system because they only represent the assumptions of their compilers: this is stated in my above post at (…)”
Huh?! There is nothing at all in my reply to you that deals with the energy budget diagram considerations of this post. I specifically directed my answer at what you claimed to be a perfect example of how the radiative GHE works, when a cloud cover during the night makes the cooling of the surface slow down. That is very true. But during the day, the opposite is true. The cloud cover makes the warming of the surface slow down. So the net of these ‘radiative’ effects is not warming of the surface.
In what way is this irrelevant to your implication that such radiative effects would in the end increase GAST?
But it is interesting discussing why and how clouds (and water vapour) reduce surface cooling … when it’s actually cooling.
“Note that the water causes cooling during the day and warming during the night.”
The fact that the presence of water in a climate system both acutely decreases the diurnal temperature swing, while slightly lowering the mean ground level air temperature is a ubiquitous observation and we know that the climate scare is not about there will be a catastrophic narrowing of the diurnal temperature swing. It is therefore a mystery as to why many scientists continue to assert that water vapor is a powerful GHG that raises the mean temperature.
” . . . water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. [20C]” American Chemical Society
“Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.” NASA
“As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere.” NOAA
“More water vapor – which is itself a greenhouse gas – amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. This is what scientists call a ‘positive feedback.’” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
“The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming.” American Geophysical Union
Perhaps someday theory will yield to that which is observed to happen in the actual atmosphere? Only time will tell.
Carl
Carl
Yes, a point I make constantly, we know for a fact that increasing temp leads to increasing RH, which reduces the diurnal range, the average rises but the extremes reduce. Higher temp makes things more tropical. It’s why I say before the climate scientists can call catastrophe, they need to show…
How much it will warm
Where it will warm ( frankly I dont care if the middle of the antarctic goes from -50 to -48)
When it will warm ( if it warms minimums, or mainly in winter it is probably a good thing)
and That it is harmful
Untill all these things are known the billions should be spent on useful pursuits, like curing cancer, after all at least we know there’s a problem, which can’t be said for CAGW.
Frans,
Any process that extracts heat is relevant, so for example wind which drives waves which splash against the shore causing minute drags on the plannets rotation, extract heat and contribute to the imbalance. I was being a bit broader, however many of the things I mentioned are very revevant to thermal energy expended in the hydrological cycle more broadly.
Carl 12:52am: “Producing a “global average” of downwelling IR radiation obscures the reality that hotter, drier climates have a lower level of downwelling IR radiation than do cooler, more humid climates that lie along the same latitude.”
Carl – I observe a lot can be un-obscured by global avg.s in top post cartoons & cited papers even though no one place is exactly avg.
Producing the global avg. doesn’t obscure local readings, I’m not ever sure what you mean. The locals are what they are, measured by instruments. The global avg.s are what they are, measured by instruments. Give or take.
Reason is you obscure DWIR conclusions by mixing metaphors: for sure hotter, humid areas expect more DWIR vs. colder, dryer areas. Then you mix hot, dry with cooler, humid. How does that not obscure resultant DWIR comparisons? Here’s why your work obscures DWIR conclusions based on some other local numbers I dug out.
******
Near your mentioned sites, the avg. 50th percentile precipitable water (i.e. humidity) 0-300mb above Las Vegas is shown ~0.4 median and above Jackson, MS for June is about 1.25 a factor of 3x yet the annual rainfall for Las Vegas is 4.2in and for Jackson is 54inches nearly 13x.
I’ve mentioned before, deserts have low precipitation, not only because of humidity but because they are also regions of descending air. Owens Valley lee side of Sierras, Atacama Desert lee side of Andes. Look at some local numbers, see what you think.
I’ll compare Alouef in the Sahara 27N 100x less rainfall (0.3) than Madison, Wisc. 43N. The lowest avg. rel. humidity at 0700 recorded at Alouef is 29% in June, avg. min. Temp is 81F. Water vapor partial pressure computes to 10.7mb. In Madison, rel. humidity at 0700 May can be 74% , avg. min. temp is 49F. Partial pressure wv 8.4mb.
Convert the vapor pressures to densities, find concentration of wv in Madison is 20% less than in Alouef. AND the Alouef air temperature is higher. Combination of higher temperature AND computed wv density means that radiation from the atm. above Alouef is probably greater than in Madison many times. You are more likely to find “desert conditions” in Madison than Alouef. ~Bohren 1998 p.366.
Conclusion: willing to bet that atm. radiation on a clear night often is lower in Madison than in the middle of the Sahara. Once one actually computes the hot, dry vs. cool, humid numbers. Dig thru NOAA maybe that is recorded, dunno.
I dunno the world record for lowest DWIR either maybe NOAA crew does. For sure, I would look at values in cold, dry places – regions of low precipitation not necessarily high temperatures (invoking sand dunes in cloudless sky), better to invoke the arctic winter ~130 W/m^2 min. than Sahara.
Steve Case says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Gail Combs said 2:41 pm
Actually I have seen it get warmer over night but that is from hot air moving into the area from the southwest.
I knew someone would say that, I dithered on putting in a caveat stipulating a CALM muggy & overcast night, but I din’t want to make it messy.
I’m just surprised that you took that bait, and didn’t use a smiley face (-:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I was thinking more of a tongue in cheek but didn’t have a drawing.
Don’t worry about the “Moderation” I get it all the time. It seems to be completely random too.
If it takes more than an hour I ask the Moderator to go fishing.
[And the moderators always wake up, rise up and take the bait. 8<) Mod]
I just took another look at that updated cartoon. Did anyone else notice
SOLAR at TOA = 340.4 Wm2
Solar at surface = 163.3 + 22.9 = 186.2 Wm2
BACK RADIATION = 340.3Wm2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How on God’s little green earth can BACK RADIATION = SOLAR at TOA and almost TWICE the amount of solar energy at the surface?
Am I nuts or does that make zero sense?
Gail 4:32pm notices NASA avg. DWIR greater than Net solar. “… does that make zero sense?”
This is where the thermo. discipline of control volumes (cv) helps. One term cv is balanced at TOA the other term cv is balanced at surface. Solar a function of sun & distance, DWIR functions of atm. temp. and emissivity.
I can’t think of a reason the solar needs to be more or less than DWIR. Science apparently knows the solar value closer than the DWIR as shown in the Stephen’s et. al. 2012 cartoon.
Top post was updated with Wild. et. al. If you don’t like NASA you won’t like Wild even less. With that posting, I have come to see the plethora of these cartoons being sprung on the world. Geez. Only one world but many time periods, instruments, guesses, residuals, et. al.
Kind of have to pick your flavor, the one I prefer is Stephens et. al. 2012 covering 2000-2010 due the +/- shown; 2nd best for me is TFK2009 March 2000 to May 2004 (top post 1st cartoon). Their guesses are well discussed and can ~observe natural changes. Loeb has no cartoon, you really need to read it.
I prefer Wild the least since the time period is cited as “…climate conditions at the turn of the millennium”. And “..(EBAF) data set for the period 2001–2010.” So the time period(s) seem very muddled in that report; same as they are muddled in the NASA report.
Kristian:
I am replying to your post at January 18, 2014 at 10:44 am which begins by saying
Nonsense!
Your post I am answering attempts to change the claim to being NET radiative effects do not raise temperature.
That is NOT what was claimed, NOT what it was asserted the illustration showed, and NOT what I refuted.
The assertion I addressed is and was wrong.
Take your sophistry elsewhere.
I said, “I am not willing to engage in such an ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion”, and I am still not willing to engage in such nonsense.
The GAST of the Earth would be lower without radiative effects. That does not – of itself – indicate that small increase to those radiative effects from their present levels would increase GAST. Live with it
Richard
Gail Combs says:
January 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm
I just took another look at that updated cartoon. Did anyone else notice
SOLAR at TOA = 340.4 Wm2
Solar at surface = 163.3 + 22.9 = 186.2 Wm2
BACK RADIATION = 340.3Wm2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How on God’s little green earth can BACK RADIATION = SOLAR at TOA and almost TWICE the amount of solar energy at the surface?
Am I nuts or does that make zero sense?
It makes perfect sense unless you think that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent to IR!
Back radiation is total, aphysical crap. The climate physicists’ total emissivity for CO2 minus the ‘secular’ emissivity at 10 u yields a negative remainder. Small wonder airbrushing required.
=Another fanatic, blind believer in the scriptures showing clearly up at WUWT.
Reading the various contributions, I think that my studies since 2012 will be of interest to many people following this thread.
I have developed a model for the one-way heat propagation by radiation in the atmosphere.
In a paper of December 2012 I have validated the model with the results of K&T type diagrams.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf
In a paper of April 2013 I have given the same model for one-way for heat propagation by radiation, with a finite element formulation.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Finite_Element.pdf
These models without the back-radiation and thereby huge absorption give coherent results.
In a paper of December 2013 the one-way model is compared to the two-way model of Schwarzschild from back in 1905.
Similar equations result, but the two-way FEM model is to be preferred since there is no back-radiation and thereby huge absorption.
A MATLAB listing is included.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Planckabsorption.pdf
It turns out that the heat evacuation from the surface to outerspace is mainly due to convection from the lower layers of the atmosphere.
The evacuation from the higher levels to outer space is of course by radiation.
Dr. JWR
your statement
“…. since there is no back radiation…”
allready disqualifies your results.
You seem to ignore like many others, and you seem to be fanatically religiously immune to critical experimental and empirical evidence, and thus hardly worthy of being taken serious.
Being rather aquainted to science and to quite simple operational and instrumental reality for critical control, I could easily show that principle of “back ratiation” yesterday in my workshop, by an incandescant lamp, a precise digital amperemeter, a piece of aluminium foil, and a stabilized power supply.
Beat that!
And we have it further in our old stove of cast iron, where we have to insulate and keep it in order inside with fireproof and somewhat porous clay, in order to keep the right heat and glow and “back radiation” inside the stove in the combustion- chamber,……..
……… for proper efficient combustion of firewood, with clear hot air over the chimney
=Practical science and physics you see,…
You find the same principle of “back radiation” or reactions going both ways when they seemingly go only one way, in a waste lot of very common systems, where there is thermo- molecular diffusion and / or electromagnetic radiation of heat, light , electricity involved…..
….and in common chemical reactions on atomic and molecular level.
So,with that typical kind of argument, you do attack and fight reality on a further broad scale that you are probably not aware of for strange reasons.
I do hate fanatic political and religious propaganda against such basic technological knowledge and insight in the lab and elsewhere in the workshops and in common and everyday life. Probably driven and paid for / expecting payment from that very ugly fanatic “republican war on science”.
Your argument was first found at a certain “Dipl Ing.” Heinz Thieme “Technischer Assesor”, (probably then with fraud Diploma from the Party) , Upstairs at the Railways in old Leipzig.
That kind of a job under that regime was rather impossible unless they were cleared and planted by the fameous “STASI”, having learnt also how to state falseness (for instance about the true causes of the railway accidents) on paper in a trustful way.
“Dipl.Ing.” Thieme has carried out the same argument, and it can be found also in English translation. He accuses that very fameous priest daughter Angela Merkel for being “Religious perhaps?” for her engagement in the Berlin Climate Initiative.
Merkel herself is Dr. Philos of Physical Chemistery from the Planc institute in the same Leipzig, and has not got her Diplomæ from the STASI.
On this side of the atlantic we are quite sceptic to high professionals at the railways of old Leipzig, and further to the chief engineer, radiologist and Master plumber of old Cernobyl.
The adiabatic convection theory of the lapse- rate is falsified by any realities like the stability of hot air balloons and of aiplanes with large wings.
Phil. says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:26 am
Gail Combs says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm
………..It makes perfect sense unless you think that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent to IR!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it does not. The are say DWIR is TWICE the amount of energy from the sun at ground level. That violates the 2nd law since they are saying GHG are some how making extra energy.
If this drawing is true then you have 15 to 30% thermal radiation transmitted. That does not include the thermal energy that get shot to the tropopause by storms, transported via winds or ocean currents to the poles….
Also most of the atmospheric IR window is obsured by H2O. That means the areas that are dry do not obscure the atmospheric IR window except in the minor CO2 bands.
Here are satelite images of water vapor link
at 500 mb (approximately 14,000 feet in altitude)
movie
They are full of B.S.
To all and everyone exept Gail Combs
Here we have the fanatic religious dogma about the 2nd law and of GHG not being able to create energy again Cfr:
“…That violates the 2nd law since they are saying GHG are some how making extra energy..”
That person Gail Combs seems not even to be aware that creating extra energy is violating the 1st law. Being obviously true to the scriptures, those blind believers to the dogmas of the scriptures state “2nd law” regardless. And their Übermensch and Master Führer probably GURU J. Postma has known how to bluff and to cheat them..
But ladies and Gentlemen, I was very clever yesterday, (how often shall I repeat it?) I do expect you all to admire me now.
I have done a tiny bit of critical experimental science for control.
I have a small 12V 10 Watt quarz- Halogen lamp on variable power supply standing on for decoration in my LABORATORIVM all the time an for several reasons. For allways to remind me of the punctual light source and of the glow- temperatures and colours for instance. And to see how long that lamp will last if I run it on a bit lower temperature and voltage.
And mounted a very precise digital Ampere- meter into the lamp lead, and could read 1.54 Ampere on the 10 A scale.
One better takes another lamp so that you have full scale and near 9 in the 1st digit , giving 1/1000 accuracy at least. Or maybe make a wheatstone bridge arrangement.
But from the curves of Tungsten filament incandescent lamps I see that you have the best Delta R/ Delta T response at about nominal voltage of the lamps.
Remember the principle of the Pirani manometer and metallic lead thermometers.
Then I made a very fine “hat” of aluminium foil and put it over the lamp. The current slowly dropped to 1.52 Ampere.
Beat that!
And took away the hat again, It went slowly back to 1.54 on the scale, quite obediently.
Thus, when the voltage was constant and the current did drop 2 /150. Less energy was drained from the power supply, but how on earth could that aluminium foil make the resistance of that tungsten metal filament increase a little bit?
Isn`t there glass in between and no physical contact?
That resistance increases when the metal becomes hotter, but what on earth can that mysterious “psi-” energy be, that heated up that filament despite of less current drain from the same Power supply voltage, and even goes on heating for eternity like a perpetuum mobile?
Because, have quite obviously invented Perpetuum Mobile Class One here and shown the very fameous Psi- energy or the “free” energy, that will cost you nothing on the electricity bill and even reduce your electricity bill if you just buy and invest in my extreemly clever principle.
I actually manage don`t I , and i do it better than Nicola Tesla now,….
or……..???????
Shall we turn the very cruxive and critical question around and demand from Gail Combs & al that they declare their “Psi-” and / or “Free” energy obviously violating the 1st law of thermodynamics, that obviously can make the earth and sea surface hotter and make that lamp shine hotter and brighter despite of the fact that sunshine gets weaker and the electricity is turned down?
Trick says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm
J.Herbst 4:45: “..O and N molecules cannot absorb nor radiate…”
Yes. They can. All matter > 0K radiates and absorbs; N and O are matter in gaseous state at earth temp.s.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your statement is not correct. I checked it at several places in the web. E.g. here:
http://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/index.html
“Heating by radiation is only possible if the radiation is absorbed and not just passed through as in case of transparent materials like glass or water. Also, the main constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), let almost all of the downward solar radiation[8] pass through to the surface of the Earth and let all the upward thermal radiation from the surface pass through into space. They are neither heated by solar radiation nor by heat radiation, because they cannot absorb it. Emission and absorption of any radiation are movements (vibration, rotation) of one distinct chemical bond getting faster (and warmer) by absorption or getting slower (and colder) by emission. In general, N2 and O2 cannot absorb or emit radiation. ”
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Now we have a problem: There are remaining 100 w/m² in the atmosphere, and they can’t escape.
Neither can the 100 W/m^2 ever get in to need an escape because if earth atm gas can’t radiate in your model then neither can the gas in the sun radiate. No energy arrives then from the sun (or stars) thru outer space.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Here I don’t get you. I said nothing about the sun or the gas in the sun. BTW which gas?
I just said: If there would no Greenhouse Gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, no heat radiation from the atmosphere is possible. Which means:
Sunlight and UV from the sun can pass through the Atmosphere of O2 and N2
Heat radiation from the earth’s surface is possible, because the IR rays can pass atmosphere.
But the atmosphere, consisting of N2 and O2, heated up by surface contact, would not able to radiate heat to the space, which means overheating.
J. Herbst 5:04pm: “(Trick’s) statement “All matter > 0K radiates and absorbs” is not correct. I checked it. then clips: “.. nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), let almost all of the downward solar radiation[8] pass through…”
Pray my tags work.
Right there in your own clip, O2 and N2 absorb ! – that is the meaning of “almost all”. You just have to read carefully. All matter (in any state solid, liquid, gas, plasma) absorbs and emits integrated across the spectrum; all matter scatters a photon beam but not very much, takes a body the size of the atm. to register scattering. This is why Tyndall missed scattering in his small tube, it happens.
Your clip continues: “.. (O2, N2) are neither heated by solar radiation nor by heat radiation…”
This obviously suffers accuracy in modern science in that the calorific heat rays are no longer with us, having been discarded in the dust bin of history. It also suffers from having just written “almost all” radiation pass through; since some solar radiation didn’t pass thru it must have been absorbed and since the source was higher T, then solar radiation raised the temperature of the O2, N2 doing the absorbing along with the enthalpy and the entropy of the gas.
Here if you want to read the science, hanging out with me means getting the basic papers out, Smith & Newnham 2000:
“Near-infrared absorption cross sections and integrated absorption intensities of gas phase oxygen and nitrogen mixtures have been determined from laboratory measurements using a coolable multipass gas cell and Fourier transform spectroscopy. Spectra were recorded at instrument resolutions of 0.5 and 0.05 cm−1, between 2200–12,500 cm−1 (between 4.5 and 0.8 μm).”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901171/abstract
Then see the “drawing” Gail posted 2:43pm to get a sense why O2,N2 are important between 4.5 and 0.8 μm wavelength. O2 is shown absorbing in the terrestrial radiation bands also but N2 still emits and absorbs, scatters (attenuates a photon beam) non-zero all across the spectrum. Cite Bohren 2006 mostly and, in passing, Bohren 1998 for that modern science. Dr. Bohren is a great writer, disdains integral and differential calculus and tells a straight story before being forced into using them.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Trick says:
January 19, 2014 at 6:07 pm
J. Herbst 5:04pm: “(Trick’s) statement “All matter > 0K radiates and absorbs” is not correct. I checked it. then clips: “.. nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), let almost all of the downward solar radiation[8] pass through…”
Right there in your own clip, O2 and N2 absorb !
Also: http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mmilz/publications/hoepfner12_natural_grl.pdf
“The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2)
and nitrogen (N2)
M. Höpfner,1 M. Milz,2 S. Buehler,2 J. Orphal,1 and G. Stiller1
Received 20 February 2012; revised 23 April 2012; accepted 23 April 2012; published 24 May 2012.
[3] Due to their symmetry, homonuclear diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 do not exhibit a static electric dipole moment, such as H2O, nor is there the possibility to induce vibrationally a dipole moment, as in the case of CO2. Thus, there are no strong infrared absorption bands due to dipole transitions as in the case of the major greenhouse gases. However, as discovered by Crawford et al. [1949], collision induced absorption leads to weak absorption features of N2 and O2 in the infrared [e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008].
[4] Due to the atmospheric concentration of atmospheric N2 (O2) that is about 2000 (550) times higher than that of CO2 and about 4.4 105 (1.2 105) times more abundant than CH4, even the weak infrared absorption of N2 (O2) can become radiatively important.”
J. Herbst 5:04pm continues: “Here I don’t get you. I said nothing about the sun or the gas in the sun. BTW which gas?”
Well, here’s your clip at 4:45pm: “No greenhouse gases in the air…”
If your thought example removes the radiative energy transfer mechanism we enjoy from all earth’s air gases, then it is also removed from all the sun’s gases too. If you want to have location inconsistent physics, then any thought experiment fails as a result. Far as we know & have observed, physics appears naturally consistent at all locations in the universe.
Myrrh 6:21pm: Thanks for that, I had been looking for just such a paper w/o success. Downloaded, interesting find.
Gail 2:43pm: “The are say DWIR is TWICE the amount of energy from the sun at ground level. That violates the 2nd law since they are saying GHG are some how making extra energy.”
Earth solid and water surface on avg. a little greater than ~288K since the thermometers hang about 1.5m AGL. Their combined emissivity measured ~0.98 so rounded to 1.0. So you have the computed and measured ~390 W/m^2 outgoing terrestrial, don’t see how you get around that. The atm. is on avg. about 250K in the dense parts so that’s 238 plus atm. absorbs 17 + 80 in those dense parts, that’s 335 right there. Give or take I do not see it is possible to call that “..full of BS” and needing GHG to create energy from nothing.
Each of the cartoons is careful to have DWIR from the cooler atm. source LESS than surface UWIR so 2nd law is observed in all of them.
Note your July precipitable water is from this link and shows the most over the Sahara and 2nd most over drought plagued Calif. Go figure. Well, I did above at 3:58pm. Similar conclusion. Also shows least precipitable water at poles.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10242
Gail Combs says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Phil. says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:26 am
Gail Combs says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm
………..It makes perfect sense unless you think that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent to IR!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it does not. The are say DWIR is TWICE the amount of energy from the sun at ground level. That violates the 2nd law since they are saying GHG are some how making extra energy.
That certainly isn’t the 2nd Law I guess you meant the first law? But it doesn’t violate that either!
Try telling some of your Chem Eng friends that recycling through a chemical reactor can’t possibly increase the throughput above the incoming flow because that would violate conservation of mass.
If this drawing is true then you have 15 to 30% thermal radiation transmitted. That does not include the thermal energy that get shot to the tropopause by storms, transported via winds or ocean currents to the poles….
That’s a low resolution cartoon which gives a misleading picture of the spectra.
Also most of the atmospheric IR window is obsured by H2O. That means the areas that are dry do not obscure the atmospheric IR window except in the minor CO2 bands.
That’s not true you’re greatly exaggerating the effect of water. the CO2 band is certainly not a minor band either.
Here are satelite images of water vapor link
at 500 mb (approximately 14,000 feet in altitude)
movie
They are full of B.S.
We know there’s water vapor in the troposphere, those images don’t tell us anything about how much the IR is obscured
Gail Combs says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Phil. says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:26 am
Gail Combs says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm
………..It makes perfect sense unless you think that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent to IR!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it does not. The are say DWIR is TWICE the amount of energy from the sun at ground level. That violates the 2nd law since they are saying GHG are some how making extra energy.
But…, that is their claim Gail, that ‘backradiation’ keeps bouncing heat back from colder to hotter until the Earth’s surface heats up oh so much more from a few ppm more of a trace gas and we get runaway global warming.
Here is where the “trick” is, they have real world measurements of downwelling longwave infrared heat and real world measurements of upwelling longwave infrared heat, however, what they don’t tell you is the downwelling longwave infrared heat being measured comes from the Sun and the upwelling heat comes from the Sun’s real heat heating the surface.
AGW claims we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun..
To hide what they have done they [have to] claim that mainly visible light from the Sun heats matter in order to pretend the real downwelling longwave infrared heat from the Sun is all from “backradiation” by their “ir imbibing greenhouse gases”, and in particular their supermolecule carbon dioxide. They have distorted the real science of properties and processes of heat and light from the Sun which, still, in traditional physics are distinctly different from each other – light from the Sun does not heat matter, what we feel as heat from the Sun is longwave infrared, we cannot feel shortwaves as heat.
AGW has by sleight of hand changed this and claims it is light from the Sun which heats matter in its memespeak “shortwave in longwave out”, which they call “Solar” as in the Trenberth cartoons.
They have taken out the real heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared – this is where Trenberth should be looking for his missing heat..
“Wikipedia:
“…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.”
Since AGW claims only “shortwave in” and says of that its shortwave infrared is only an insignificant 1% – what has it, AGW/CERES/Trenberth done with the rest of the infrared from the Sun? It pretends it comes from ‘backradiation’ …
Traditional teaching on the subject is still coming direct from NASA, contradicting the AGW/Trenberth/NASA memespeak that we get no direct heat from the Sun.
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. ”
This is standard elementary science which we have known since Herschel’s great work, his discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible infrared, and we have refined it further with better measurements than his crude moving of a glass prism by hand at the edge of a table. We know now that shortwave infrared is not hot, that it is not heat, so we do not call it thermal infrared – that is reserved for the longer waves of infrared which are the real heat energy, thermal means ‘of heat’.
AGW memespeak again tries to confuse here, it claims thermal means it comes from a hot source so it can pretend by association that “visible light is thermal therefore hot therefore able to heat matter”, because it needs to back up its “shortwave in” in order to use real world measurements of the direct thermal longwave infrared from the Sun and its heating effects for AGW’s “backradiation”.
That’s how they get the nonsense of 161 absorbed by the surface and 396 upwelling heat from it.. (more if evapotranspiration and thermals haven’t been included in that upwelling figure).
To all and everyone exept Gail Comb
We can take another example, where we shall see that Gail Comb & al simply has got a mental iron plate ahead of his possible elementary grasping of severely common reality in daily life and anywhere else in the universe. And never will resign on that armor plate.
Thus, We take an iron- rod of the common concrete reinforcement steel- type, about 10″ long and 5/16″ thick will do. With the ends A and B, and the middle M. and we start at room temperature Tr.
Then we take a good Bunsen burner and heat it up to red hot under A, and wait till eqvilibrium of all temperatures along the rod, who will all be different from Tr now.
Would you now dare to take the end B in your hands?
(iron is a remarkably poor conductor of heat, you can keep it in hand for a while red hot at the opposite end, but then you need a wet towel)
But are you really able to practically swear that temperature B is still damned equal to Tr as it was before you started heating up at A?
I hope not, but we will see that some people among us really are. Namely the “Psi-” energy people.
What about Tm in the middle? the iron is still quite dark there.
Healthy understanding will grasp quite spontaneously that Ta> Tm > Tb > Tr.
Then take another bunsen burner quite equal to the first one and heat it up to red hot also under the end B.
And discuss whether that new red hot Tb will be a bit higher than the former Ta. Yes it will of course, because end B was allready heated quite a bit up from room temperature by thermal conduction through the rod,, by falling temperature from A through M and onto B.
But what has happened at the end A now, after we have waited till eqvilibrium?. Shall we damn and put the very situation and any true description of it on INDEX LIBRORVM PROHIBITORVM like they did with Gallileis scriptures ?
Or shall we scream: “Evreka!-Psi-Halleluja- Amen” ?
Because again it seems that we have scored higher even than Nicola Tesla. We have produced the Free- and the Psi- energy at the end A, that did heat up that end a bit more than the bunsen burner right under it was able to manage. And the situation is stable and sustainable. We can actually drain that Psi- energy from that end A and sell it. Because SCRIPTVM EST that it cannot have crept up, uphill from M that has got a lower temperature, and heated up the allready red hot end A still higher a bit. Again we quite obviously have a Perpetuum Mobile Class A Cfr the scriptures and Doggggggmæ
What do you all think exept Gail Comb & al?
(because he is not able to for principal reasons)
Shall we rather simply disqualify those scriptures?
================0
In old Prussia they said about typpical upper and uniformed brass pedantery in charge at the railroads and elsewhere, that:
“Also schloss er messerscharf dass, Nichts sein kann, was nicht sein darf!”
(= seemingly arrogant Confusion of Normative and descriptive mode, or rather absence of the latter because of political prohibition.)
There has been political votum in PLENVM behind closed doors on this you see, , and those fellows follow the scriptures dogggmae instructions from that rather litterally,…..
….and quite Regardless even of red hot irons.