Guest essay by Donald C. Morton
Herzberg Program in Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada
ABSTRACT
The Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September 2013 continues the pattern of previous ones raising alarm about a warming earth due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This paper identifies six problems with this conclusion – the mismatch of the model predictions with the temperature observations, the assumption of positive feedback, possible solar effects, the use of a global temperature, chaos in climate, and the rejection of any skepticism.
THIS IS AN ASTROPHYSICIST’S VIEW OF CURRENT CLIMATOLOGY. I WELCOME CRITICAL COMMENTS.
1. INTRODUCTION
Many climatologists have been telling us that the environment of the earth is in serious danger of overheating caused by the human generation of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is mainly to blame, but methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and certain chlorofluorocarbons also contribute.
“As expected, the main message is still the same: the evidence is very clear that the world is warming, and that human activities are the main cause. Natural changes and fluctuations do occur but they are relatively small.” – John Shepard in the United Kingdom, 2013 Sep 27 for the Royal Society.
“We can no longer ignore the facts: Global warming is unequivocal, it is caused by us and its consequences will be profound. But that doesn’t mean we can’t solve it.” -Andrew Weaver in Canada, 2013 Sep 28 in the Globe and Mail.
“We know without a doubt that gases we are adding to the air have caused a planetary energy imbalance and global warming, already 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. This warming is driving an increase in extreme weather from heat waves to droughts and wild fires and stronger storms . . .” – James Hansen in United States, 2013 Dec 6 CNN broadcast.
Are these views valid? In the past eminent scientists have been wrong. Lord Kelvin, unaware of nuclear fusion, concluded that the sun’s gravitational energy could keep it shining at its present brightness for only 107 years. Sir Arthur Eddington correctly suggested a nuclear source for the sun, but rejected Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar’s theory of degenerate matter to explain white dwarfs. In 1983 Chandrasekhar received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his insight.
My own expertise is in physics and astrophysics with experience in radiative transfer, not climatology, but looking at the discipline from outside I see some serious problems. I presume most climate scientists are aware of these inconsistencies, but they remain in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including the 5th one released on 2013 Sep 27. Politicians and government officials guiding public policy consult these reports and treat them as reliable.
2. THEORY, MODELS AND OBSERVATIONS
A necessary test of any theory or model is how well it predicts new experiments or observations not used in its development. It is not sufficient just to represent the data used to produce the theory or model, particularly in the case of climate models where many physical processes too complicated to code explicitly are represented by adjustable parameters. As John von Neumann once stated “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” Four parameters will not produce all the details of an elephant, but the principle is clear. The models must have independent checks.
Fig. 1. Global Average Temperature Anomaly (°C) upper, and CO2 concentration (ppm) lower graphs from http://www.climate.gov/maps-data by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The extension of the CO2 data to earlier years is from the ice core data of the Antarctic Law Dome ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt.
The upper plot in Fig. 1 shows how global temperatures have varied since 1880 with a decrease to 1910, a rise until 1945, a plateau to 1977, a rise of about 0.6 ºC until 1998 and then essentially constant for the next 16 years. Meanwhile, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has steadily increased. Fig. 2 from the 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) shows that the observed temperatures follow the lower envelope of the predictions of the climate models.
Fig. 2. Model Predictions and Temperature Observations from IPCC Report 2013. RCP 4.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5) labels a set of models for a modest rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases corresponding to an increase of 4.5 Wm–2 (1.3%) in total solar irradiance.
Already in 2009 climatologists worried about the change in slope of the temperature curve. At that time Knight et al. (2009) asked the rhetorical question “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?” Their response was “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Now some climate scientists are saying that 16 years is too short a time to assess a change in climate, but then the rise from 1978 to 1998, which was attributed to anthropogenic CO2, also could be spurious. Other researchers are actively looking into phenomena omitted from the models to explain the discrepancy. These include
1) a strong natural South Pacific El Nino warming event in 1998 so the plateau did not begin until 2001,
2) an overestimate of the greenhouse effect in some models,
3) inadequate inclusion of clouds and other aerosols in the models, and
4) a deep ocean reservoir for the missing heat.
Extra warming due to the 1978 El Nino seems plausible, but there have been others that could have caused some of the earlier warming and there are also cooling La Nina events. All proposed causes of the plateau must have their effects on the warming also incorporated into the models to make predictions that then can be tested during the following decade or two of temperature evolution.
3. THE FEEDBACK PARAMETER
There is no controversy about the basic physics that adding CO2 to our atmosphere absorbs solar energy resulting in a little extra warming on top of the dominant effect of water vapor. The CO2 spectral absorption is saturated so is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. The estimated effect accounts for only about half the temperature rise of 0.8 ºC since the Industrial Revolution. Without justification the model makers ignored possible natural causes and assumed the rise was caused primarily by anthropogenic CO2 with reflections by clouds and other aerosols approximately cancelling absorption by the other gases noted above. Consequently they postulated a positive feedback due to hotter air holding more water vapor, which increased the absorption of radiation and the backwarming. The computer simulations represented this process and many other effects by adjustable parameters chosen to match the observations. As stated on p. 9-9 of IPCC2013, “The complexity of each process representation is constrained by observations, computational resources, and current knowledge.” Models that did not show a temperature rise would have been omitted from any ensemble so the observed rise effectively determined the feedback parameter.
Now that the temperature has stopped increasing we see that this parameter is not valid. It even could be negative. CO2 absorption without the presumed feedback will still happen but its effect will not be alarming. The modest warming possibly could be a net benefit with increased crop production and fewer deaths due to cold weather.
4. THE SUN
The total solar irradiance, the flux integrated over all wavelengths, is a basic input to all climate models. Fortunately our sun is a stable star with minimal change in this output. Since the beginning of satellite measures of the whole spectrum in 1978 the variation has been about 0.1% over the 11-year activity cycle with occasional excursions up to 0.3%. The associated change in tropospheric temperature is about 0.1 ºC.
Larger variations could explain historical warm and cold intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period (approx. 950 – 1250) and the Little Ice Age (approx. 1430 – 1850) but remain as speculations. The sun is a ball of gas in hydrostatic equilibrium. Any reduction in the nuclear energy source initially would be compensated by a gravitational contraction on a time scale of a few minutes. Complicating this basic picture are the variable magnetic field and the mass motions that generate it. Li et al. (2003) included these effects in a simple model and found luminosity variations of 0.1%, consistent with the measurements.
However, the sun can influence the earth in many other ways that the IPCC Report does not consider, in part because the mechanisms are not well understood. The ultraviolet irradiance changes much more with solar activity, ~ 10% at 200 nm in the band that forms ozone in the stratosphere and between 5% and 2% in the ozone absorption bands between 240 and 320 nm according to DeLand & Cebula (2012). Their graphs also show that these fluxes during the most recent solar minimum were lower than the previous two reducing the formation of ozone in the stratosphere and its absorption of the near UV spectrum. How this absorption can couple into the lower atmosphere is under current investigation, e. g. Haigh et al. (2010).
Fig. 3 – Monthly averages of the 10.7 cm solar radio flux measured by the National Research Council of Canada and adjusted to the mean earth-sun distance. A solar flux unit = 104 Jansky = 10-22 Wm-2 Hz-1. The maximum just past is unusually weak and the preceding minimum exceptionally broad. Graph courtesy of Dr. Ken Tapping of NRC.
Decreasing solar activity also lowers the strength of the heliosphere magnetic shield permitting more galactic cosmic rays to reach the earth. Experiments by Kirkby et al. (2011) and Svensmark et al. (2013) have shown that these cosmic rays can seed the formation of clouds, which then reflect more sunlight and reduce the temperature, though the magnitude of the effect remains uncertain. Morton (2014) has described how the abundances cosmogenic isotopes 10Be and 14C in ice cores and tree rings indicate past solar activity and its anticorrelation with temperature.
Of particular interest is the recent reduction in solar activity. Fig. 3 shows the 10.7 cm solar radio flux measured by the National Research Council of Canada since 1947 (Tapping 2013) and Fig. 4 the corresponding sunspot count. Careful calibration of the radio flux permits reliable comparisons
Fig. 4. Monthly sunspot numbers for the past 60 years by the Royal Observatory of Belgium at http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/sidc_graphics.php.
over six solar cycles even when there are no sunspots. The last minimum was unusually broad and the present maximum exceptionally weak. The sun has entered a phase of low activity. Fig. 5 shows that previous times of very low activity were the Dalton Minimum from about 1800 to 1820 and the Maunder Minimum from about 1645 to 1715 when very few spots were seen. Since
these minima occurred during the Little Ice Age when glaciers were advancing in both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, it is possible that we are entering another cooling period. Without a
physical understanding of the cause of such cool periods, we cannot be more specific. Temperatures as cold as the Little Ice Age may not happen, but there must be some cooling to compensate the heating that is present from the increasing CO2 absorption.
Regrettably the IPCC reports scarcely mention these solar effects and the uncertainties they add to any prediction.
5. THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
Long-term temperature measurements at a given location provide an obvious test of climate change. Such data exist for many places for more than a hundred years and for a few places for much longer. With these data climatologists calculate the temperature anomaly – the deviation from a many-year average such as 1961 to 1990, each day of the year at the times a measurement
is recorded. Then they average over days, nights, seasons, continents and oceans to obtain the mean global temperature anomaly for each month or year as in Fig. 1. Unfortunately many parts of the world are poorly sampled and the oceans, which cover 71% of the earth’s surface, even less so. Thus many measurements must be extrapolated to include larger areas with different
climates. Corrections are needed when a site’s measurements are interrupted or terminated or a new station is established as well as for urban heat if the meteorological station is in a city and altitude if the station is significantly higher than sea level.
Fig. 5. This plot from the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency shows sunspot numbers since their first observation with telescopes in 1610. Systematic counting began soon after the discovery of the 11-year cycle in 1843. Later searching of old records provided the earlier numbers.
The IPCC Reports refer to four sources of data for the temperature anomaly from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forcasting in the United Kingdom and the Goddard Institute for Space Science and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States. For a given month they can differ by several tenths of a degree, but all show the same long-term trends of Fig. 1, a rise from 1978 to 1998 and a plateau from 1998 to the present.
These patterns continue to be a challenge for researchers to understand. Some climatologists like to put a straight line through all the data from 1978 to the present and conclude that the world is continuing to warm, just a little more slowly, but surely if these curves have any connection to reality, changes in slope mean something. Are they evidence of the chaotic nature of climate with abrupt shifts from one state to another?
Essex, McKitrick and Andresen (2007) and Essex and McKitrick (2007) in their popular book have criticized the use of these mean temperature data for the earth. First temperature is an intensive thermodynamic variable relevant to a particular location in equilibrium with the measuring device. Any average with other locations or times of day or seasons has no physical meaning. Other types of averages might be more appropriate such as the second, fourth or inverse power of the absolute temperature, each of which would give a different trend with time. Furthermore it is temperature differences between two places that drive the dynamics. Climatologists have not explained what this single number for global temperature actually means. Essex and McKitrick note that it “is not a temperature. Nor is it even a proper statistic or index. It is a sequence of different statistics grafted together with ad hoc models.”
This questionable use of a global temperature along with the problems of modeling a chaotic system discussed below raise basic concerns about the validity of the test with observations in Section 2. Since climatologists and the IPCC insist on using this temperature number and the models in their predictions of global warming, it still is appropriate to hold them to comparisons with the observations they consider relevant.
6. CHAOS
Essex and McKitrick (2007) have provided a helpful introduction to this problem. Thanks to the pioneering investigations into the equations for convection and the associated turbulence by meteorologist Edward Lorenz, scientists have come to realize that many dynamical systems are fundamentally chaotic. The situation often is described as the butterfly effect because a small change in initial conditions such as the flap of a butterfly wing can have large effects in later results.
Convection and turbulence in the air are central phenomenon in determining weather and so must have their effect on climate too. The IPCC on p. 1-25 of the 2013 Report recognizes this with the statement “There are fundamental limits to just how precisely annual temperatures can be projected, because of the chaotic nature of the climate system.” but then makes predictions with confidence. Meteorologists modeling weather find that their predictions become unstable after a week or two, and they have the advantage of refining their models by comparing predictions with observations.
Why do the climate models in the IPCC reports not show these instabilities? Have they been selectively tuned to avoid them or are the chaotic physical processes not properly included? Why should we think that long-term climate predictions are possible when they are not for weather?
7. THE APPEAL TO CONSENSUS AND THE SILENCING OF SKEPTICISM
Frequently we hear that we must accept that the earth is warming at an alarming rate due to anthropogenic CO2 because 90+% climatologists believe it. However, science is not a consensus discipline. It depends on skeptics questioning every hypothesis, every theory and every model until all rational challenges are satisfied. Any endeavor that must prove itself by appealing to consensus or demeaning skeptics is not science. Why do some proponents of climate alarm dismiss critics by implying they are like Holocaust deniers? Presumably most climatologists disapprove of these unscientific tactics, but too few speak out against them.
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
At least six serious problems confront the climate predictions presented in the last IPCC Report. The models do not predict the observed temperature plateau since 1998, the models adopted a feedback parameter based on the unjustified assumption that the warming prior to 1998 was primarily caused by anthopogenic CO2, the IPCC ignored possible affects of reduced solar activity during the past decade, the temperature anomaly has no physical significance, the models attempt to predict the future of a chaotic system, and there is an appeal to consensus to establish climate science.
Temperatures could start to rise again as we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere or they could fall as suggested by the present weak solar activity. Many climatologists are trying to address the issues described here to give us a better understanding of the physical processes involved and the reliability of the predictions. One outstanding issue is the location of all the anthropogenic CO2. According to Table 6.1 in the 2013 Report, half goes into the atmosphere and a quarter into the oceans with the remaining quarter assigned to some undefined sequestering as biomass on the land.
Meanwhile what policies should a responsible citizen be advocating? We risk serious consequences from either a major change in climate or an economic recession from efforts to reduce the CO2 output. My personal view is to use this temperature plateau as a time to reassess all the relevant issues. Are there other environmental effects that are equally or more important than global warming? Are some policies like subsidizing biofuels counterproductive? Are large farms of windmills, solar cells or collecting mirrors effective investments when we are unable to store energy? How reliable is the claim that extreme weather events are more frequent because of the global warming? Is it time to admit that we do not understand climate well enough to know how to direct it?
References
DeLand, M. T., & Cebula, R. P. (2012) Solar UV variations during the decline of Cycle 23. J. Atmosph. Solar-Terrestr. Phys., 77, 225.
Essex, C., & McKitrick, R. (2007) Taken by storm: the troubled science, policy and politics of global warming, Key Porter Books. Rev. ed. Toronto, ON, Canada.
Essex, C., McKitrick, R., & Andresen, B. (2007) Does a Global temperature Exist? J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn. 32, 1.
Haigh. J. D., et al. (2010). An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate. Nature 467, 696.
IPCC (2013), Climate Change 2013: The Physicsal Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch
Li, L. H., Basu, S., Sofia, S., Robinson, F.J., Demarque, P., & Guenther, D.B. (2003). Global
parameter and helioseismic tests of solar variability models. Astrophys. J., 591, 1284.
Kirkby, J. et al. (2011). Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric
aerosol nucleation. Nature, 476, 429.
Knight, J., et al. (2009). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), Special Suppl. pp. S22, S23.
Morton, D. C. (2014). An Astronomer’s view of Climate Change. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada, 108, 27. http://arXiv.org/abs/1401.8235.
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M.B., & Pedersen, J.O.P. (2013). Response of cloud condensation nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation. Phys. Lett. A, 377, 2343.
Tapping, K.F. (2013). The 10.7 cm radio flux (F10.7). Space Weather, 11, 394.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If any fool wants to argue that Hansen is now an expert on Earth’s climate then they must have too much co2 on the brain. Hansen argued that dust made Venus warm in a 1960s paper. He later said that soot caused more global warming than co2. He then argued that non-co2 gases like cfcs were responsible for most of the warming up to 2000 I vaguely recollect. Hansen has been jumping from pillar to post trying very hard to leave his mark on the world, trying to be someone of historical importance. He has left his mark, it is called a skid stain in his underpants and the whole thing stinks. I am sick and tired of this BS.
I am very grateful for all the comments I have had, making this a better paper and providing suggestions for further investigations.
“””””…..Mi Cro says:
February 18, 2014 at 1:49 pm
George,
“so they would not approach black body emissivity levels.”
Would not an planets atmospheric sized collection of atm gases approximate a black body at whatever temp it is at?
No!…..”””””
Well like Phil says; only maybe “hell no”.
You have to keep in mind, that not only does particle density (from solid to liquid to gas) affect the number of molecules/atoms available to radiate collision induced radiation, but it astronomically increases the frequency at which such collisions occur, because the molecules are so much closer together in solids and liquids, so the intensity of thermal radiation from gases is much lower, than with solids. There is no such thing as a black body; but there are pseudo black bodies, that are sufficiently absorbing IN THE SPECTRUM APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR TEMPERATURE, that they look pretty black to those wavelengths.
98% of a BB radiation spectrum (vs wavelength) lies between half of the spectrum peak wavelength, and eight times the peak wavelength. So for solar like, with a 500 nm peak wavelength, 1% of the energy is shorter than 250 nm, 25% of the energy is shorter than 500 nm, and only 1% is longer than 4.0 microns. There’s very little earth surface thermal radiation below 4.0 microns, since the peak (for 288K) is at 10.1 microns. So the CO2 asymmetrical stretch mode, doesn’t get much of a workout from either the sun, or from the mean earth Temperature thermal.
As to other planets; it is not the total mass of the whole atmosphere, but how much mass is in an optical path through it, that matters as to how black or grey (or off-white) it is.
I don’t think upside down in frequency or wave numbers, so I don’t have carved on my tongue, the important numbers for a wave number or frequency based BB spectrum, so dunno what those are; I’m sure Phil knows.
Some people even [think] of BB spectra in terms of numbers of photons, which gives a whole ‘nother spectrum graph.
With a wavelength based spectrum, the Y-axis is in ….Watts per square meter PER MICRON of wavelength (shift); but with a wave number based spectrum it is….Watts per square meter PER WAVE NUMBER , so the maximum will be at a different place for those two spectra.
“””””……richardscourtney says:
February 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm
O – C – O
It can vibrate by changing the ‘angle’ between its oxygen atoms.
And also by asymmetric stretching
O – C – O
-> ->……””””””
The angle (bending mode) of CO2 is actually two identical, but indistinguishable modes.
You can think of the …O-C-O as bending up and down in the plane of the paper, or side to side perpendicular to the paper, so it does both (but how do it know).
I tend to think seat of the pants wise differently, since the CO2 really looks like …O=C=O
And then I think, in the diamond state, the four carbon bonds would be tetrahedrally disposed, which gives you two pairs, which are at right angles to each other, and that would lead me to see CO2 as actually looking like ….O=C-O where the – is a sideways look at the other bond pair. Now it looks easy; the left hand O can easily move in and out of the paper, by bending those two “springs”, while the right hand O can move up and down on the page, by bending the other pair on the right; hence the two (degenerate) identical modes.
But dag nabit; that’s wrong too. The physical chemists (I ain’t one) insist that something called sp hybridization buggers up my nice picture, so that the molecule truly is flat, just like :
O-C-O or maybe O=C=O
So no, I’m not a quantum mechanic either, so I don’t get it, but I’ll take their word for it. I did hear of sp hybridization in Physics class, but not in any way to explain the shapes of molecules.
As for Phil’s asymmetrical stretch of OC>-<O where all three atoms are moving, but their CM is stationary, so the left-right electron cloud charge gets out of symmetry, so it can radiate. It's not as clumsy as the bending mode, so it's higher frequency; I think around 4 microns where nobody cares (on earth).
Then there is symmetrical stretch mode that does this….O>-<CO so the C stays put, and the two Os go OO to O>–<O and this one really hums along since the carbon behaves like an infinite anchor, so it goes about 2.4 microns or thereabout.
Trouble is that you have two axially opposed dipoles OC and CO which tend to cancel their external fields, leaving a much lower efficiency radiating antenna, so this mode is normally considered radiatively inactive, but it can be observed. I have forgotten whether that leaves a quadrupole antenna or something else, but the two opposing dipoles are so close to each other, that their radiation patterns virtually overlap and cancel, leaving a very highly directional antenna; and you have to figure out how to kick it to get it started. Of course it is duck soup to transmit with this antenna if you are electrically driving it up on your tower; but trying to get it to "ring" by just kicking it, isn't so effective. So nyet on the CO2 symmetrical stretch mode.
A GHG molecule changes its energy state by gaining rotational or vibrational energy when it absorbs a photon. Consider a CO2 molecule
C – O – C
It can vibrate by changing the ‘angle’ between its carbon atoms.
Now consider an N2 molecule
N – N
It has no ‘angle’ to vibrate and is not a GHG.
*****
So we know how much energy it takes to “change the angle” and at what frequency it happens and on the flip side when the “angle changes back” we know how much energy is released and at what frequency then right?
Henceforth a calc is out there the sums up the whole process, right? (And shows that something that is 0.04% of a c.v. can do this at a rate to sustain the temp of a c.v as it cools, – sweet!
Show me the numbers!
“””””…..Box of Rocks says:
February 18, 2014 at 4:46 pm
A GHG molecule changes its energy state by gaining rotational or vibrational energy when it absorbs a photon. Consider a CO2 molecule
C – O – C
It can vibrate by changing the ‘angle’ between its carbon atoms.
Now consider an N2 molecule
N – N
It has no ‘angle’ to vibrate and is not a GHG…….”””””
Well N-N looks like a dumbbell, so it actually can do NN just like CO2 symmetrical stretch, but like the CO2 it’s a really lousy antenna so hard to kick; in this case very hard.
So the dumbbell can rotate in three axes , one spinning on the axle – and the other two rotating at right angles to that axle The latter two, have pretty big moments of inertia, so they can only rotate slowly, so they are active at radio frequencies, and not at IR. The thermal earth doesn’t emit diddley at radio frequencies; it’s way down in the mud; literally.
Cam_S says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:14 am
Thanks for posting that reply by Mr. Weaver. In the response he states;
“Let’s see what I actually said in the article: “Weaver doesn’t think it’s appropriate for an MLA to endorse or advocate for a specific project.”
Then goes on stage with Neil Young to advocate for a specific project. 🙂
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
“””””…..Konrad says:
February 18, 2014 at 12:28 am
george e. smith says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm
“So now I see why the sun can actually warm the earth’s surface way above 288 K; maybe even to 333K in tropical deserts”
—————————————
Getting close 😉
Want to see those precious Stefan-Boltzmann equations fail?…..”””””
I’m not getting your point Konrad. I believe I just explained in my post that the sun radiates the earth at about 1,000 W/m^2, not 250, so you repeated that for what reason ?
And I wasn’t able to decipher your description of the two acrylic blocks, to see how that was. One has an acrylic top and the other a black top, and then you paint both those with clear coat ?
So one of the blocks has both solar spectrum, and black back surface LWIR radiations passing through the acrylic, and the other has no solar spectrum radiation passing through it.
So if acrylic absorbs any of the solar spectrum significantly (it does), then the block that has solar energy going into it would get hotter due to that absorption.
Have you tried the experiment with a highly reflective mirror surface on it, so now you will have almost no solar absorption in one block and a double pass solar absorption in the other, and that second one should get hotter too, even without any LWIR to speak of.
And I’m not too concerned for the health of the Stefan -Boltzmann law, since it is a hypothetical law for an object (black body) that cannot possibly even exist, so nobody has ever seen black body radiation; just a shadow of it.
Planck’s BB radiation law does NOT escape the so called “ultra-violet catastrophe” of the Raleigh-Jeans law, like everybody thinks, because a real BB absorbs ALL EM radiant energy from zero to infinite frequency (sans end points) or wavelength if you prefer, and since Planck said the photon energy is h,(nu), if (nu) is infinite, so is the photon energy.
But Planck’s spectral law also says, you don’t actually get a hell of a lot of infinite frequency photons anyway. Maybe once every big bang.
Planck’s photons are not really energy quantized like Bohr photons, since Planck in no way restricted the frequency or wavelength of the photon. All possible photon frequencies from zero to infinity are allowed, so any and all photon energies are allowed; you just can’t have half a photon.
Konrad says:
“No one who challenges me wins. Those are the rules. Questions?”
I have a question! Who is the referee? ☺
george e. smith says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm
…………Now the chart also shows TSI from the sun as 342 W/m^2, which is lower that the 390 W/m^2 surface LWIR BB emittance, which is the absolute maximum possible radiant emittance for a body at 288 K or thereabouts. So clearly the sun cannot possibly warm the earth up even to 288 K, with only 342 W/m^2 .
Ah!, I think I see a snag in here. Watts per meter squared, is not a measure of RADIATION ; it is a measure of POWER areal density; a RATE OF ENERGY PASSAGE / arrival / usage / wastage / whatever. !!
Well you see, the actual incident power areal density at TOA is actually 1366 W/m^2, and maybe 1,000 W/m^2 at the earth surface in say air mass 1.5 conditions. It is NOT 342 W/m^2.
So now I see why the sun can actually warm the earth’s surface way above 288 K; maybe even to 333K in tropical deserts……….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
George, Thank you for that information. Trenberth’s 342 W/m^2 always bothered the heck out of me but I don’t have the physics background to figure out why.
Gail:
What you want to look at is the column below called “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface”.
Those are radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon.
I’m going to duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day. Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents. Let me know if you want a different day or different hour.
At noon, on the equator on the equinox, is not every other hour of the day at the the rest of the latitudes on the rest of the days of the year.
This is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE solar radiation. Every other minute of the day, solar radiation levels will be less.
Note” the differences possible from NASA’s “joke” of a yearly average TSI rather than the daily TOA values.
Note: on any other day of the year, the declination correction for axial polar tilt will start affecting night and length of day radiation levels..
Regardless, on your “perfectly clear day” on the equinox on the equator, here is the rest of the world’s latitudes. Attenuation factor = 0.85 – adequate for a very clear low humidity polar sky with no clouds, air masses from NOAA and Bason.
Day-of-Year=> 267 1361 <=TSI-this-Year (Average Radiation) Today=> 23-Sep 1353 <=TOA Today (Actual Radiation) Theoretical Clear Day, 0.85 Att. Coef. (Artic, Low Humidity) Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct SEA SEA Air Rad Rad. Rad. Cos Ocean Rad. Rad. Rad. Rad. Lat_W Hour HRA Radian Degree Mass Attenu. Perp. Hori. (SZA) Albedo Ocean Ocean Ice Ice Factor Surf Surf Absorb Refl Absorb Refl 80 12.0 0.0000 0.1721 9.9 5.658 0.399 540 92 0.171 0.343 61 32 19 74 70 12.0 0.0000 0.3467 19.9 2.922 0.622 842 286 0.340 0.143 245 41 57 229 67.5 12.0 0.0000 0.3903 22.4 2.614 0.654 885 337 0.380 0.121 296 41 68 269 60 12.0 0.0000 0.5212 29.9 2.003 0.722 977 487 0.498 0.078 448 38 98 389 50 12.0 0.0000 0.6957 39.9 1.558 0.776 1051 673 0.641 0.048 641 33 135 538 40 12.0 0.0000 0.8703 49.9 1.307 0.809 1094 837 0.765 0.033 809 28 168 669 30 12.0 0.0000 1.0448 59.9 1.156 0.829 1121 970 0.865 0.027 944 26 195 775 23.5 12.0 0.0000 1.1582 66.4 1.091 0.838 1133 1038 0.916 0.025 1012 26 208 830 20 12.0 0.0000 1.2193 69.9 1.065 0.841 1138 1069 0.939 0.025 1042 26 214 854 10 12.0 0.0000 1.3939 79.9 1.016 0.848 1147 1129 0.984 0.025 1101 28 227 903 0 12.0 0.0000 1.5684 89.9 1.000 0.850 1150 1150 1.000 0.025 1121 29 231 920 -10 12.0 0.0000 1.3987 80.1 1.015 0.848 1147 1131 0.985 0.025 1102 28 227 904 -20 12.0 0.0000 1.2241 70.1 1.063 0.841 1139 1071 0.941 0.025 1044 26 215 856 -23.5 12.0 0.0000 1.1630 66.6 1.089 0.838 1134 1041 0.918 0.025 1015 26 209 832 -30 12.0 0.0000 1.0496 60.1 1.152 0.829 1122 973 0.867 0.026 947 26 195 778 -45 12.0 0.0000 0.7878 45.1 1.409 0.795 1076 763 0.709 0.039 733 30 153 610 -60 12.0 0.0000 0.5260 30.1 1.986 0.724 980 492 0.502 0.077 454 38 99 393 -67.5 12.0 0.0000 0.3951 22.6 2.584 0.657 889 342 0.385 0.119 301 41 69 274 -70 12.0 0.0000 0.3515 20.1 2.884 0.626 847 292 0.344 0.141 250 41 58 233 -80 12.0 0.0000 0.1769 10.1 5.516 0.408 552 97 0.176 0.333 65 32 19 78dbstealey says:
February 18, 2014 at 1:57 pm
“Konrad says:
“Without radiative gases… [ … ] This alone would be sufficient for much of our atmosphere to be lost to space.”
Are you serious? Doesn’t gravity have some effect on the atmosphere?”
——————————————————————————–
Yes I am serious. Gravity does have some effect on the atmosphere, however if radiative cooling of the atmosphere was prevented, strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would stall and the atmosphere would heat dramatically. The temperature profile of the atmosphere would trend isothermal except for a near surface layer over land. This atmospheric heating would cause expansion of the atmosphere. While gravity should keep a dramatically expanded atmosphere in place, there is solar wind to contend with as the protection of the geomagnetic field decreases with altitude.
In their very limited consideration of the temperature profile of a non-radiative atmosphere climate scientists made a number of critical mistakes. First they assume that the “surface” would have an average temperature of -18C in the absence of radiative gases. This would only be close to correct for a desert. This is an ocean planet and LWIR plays no role in heating the oceans. Empirical experiment shows that intermittent SW heating at depth is sufficient to heat our oceans.
Second they assumed that the temperature of such an atmosphere would be set by surface Tav. This is also incorrect. The simplest empirical experiment shows that for gas atmosphere in a gravity field, surface Tmax would drive the average temperature of the atmosphere.
Third they assumed the lapse rate would remain in the absence of radiative gases. This is also incorrect. Radiative cooling at altitude allows subsidence of air masses, without this strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation stalls. It is this circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere that pneumatically generates the current lapse rate. (Dr. Spencer seems to be one of the few who got this right)
Essentially without radiative gases our atmosphere would still heat, but it would have no effective cooling mechanism.
george e. smith says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:42 pm
“I’m not getting your point Konrad. I believe I just explained in my post that the sun radiates the earth at about 1,000 W/m^2, not 250, so you repeated that for what reason ?”
———————————————————————————————
George,
I am essentially in agreement with you. Your comment about over 1000 w/m2 verse ~240 w/m2 caught my eye as few others seem to understand what this means. I repeated it and added the empirical experiment to show what this means for the oceans.
Climate pseudo scientists have used SB equations that treat the ocean as if it were heated at the surface by a constant 240 w/m2 sun. From this they derive the incorrect average temperature of -18C for the oceans and then add down welling LWIR to make up the difference between their “climate science” and reality. This of course ignores the fact that LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
The experiment shows why this is the incorrect approach. Our oceans are heated at depth by intermittent diurnal pulses of of SW radiation peaking at over 1000 w/m2. Because of the slow speed of non-radiative energy transport back to the surface, this has a cumulative effect on temperature that cannot be calculated by SB equations.
The experiment in its basic form is simply two solid blocks of clear acrylic plastic. One is painted black on its lower surface, the other the top. The additional layer of clear coat on the top of each block is to ensure equal LWIR emissivity. Both blocks now have an equal ability to intercept SW and cool by emitting LWIR.
The SB approach indicates that both blocks should reach the same equilibrium temperature when exposed to equal amounts of SW. The reality is very different. The block with the black paint at the base heats to a far higher temperature. SW enters the block and heats it from the base, with slow non-radiative conduction returning energy to the surface where it can be lost as LWIR. The block with black paint at the top intercepts SW before it can enter the block. This heats the top surface with some energy being lost swiftly as LWIR and the rest conducting slowly down into the block.
The 17C temperature differential achieved in 3 hours is a dramatic demonstration of how incredibly wrong climate pseudo scientists were in applying SB calculations to the oceans. Their crazed claims that the oceans would freeze in the absence of LWIR from the atmosphere are clearly false.
How hot could intermittent SW at 1000 w/m2 drive our oceans if there was no atmosphere to cool them? Probably something like this –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
Climate pseudo scientists claim that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans when it is actually cooling. And the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism, that being radiative gases.
dbstealey says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:58 pm
“I have a question! Who is the referee? ☺”
—————————————————-
Good question!
The general answer is reality. The more specific answer is the reality of empirical experiment. 😉
Box of Rocks says:
February 18, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“Yeah, is your picture a T-s diagram by chance?”
———————————————————–
No, the diagram posted is a essentially a fluid dynamics diagram, giving a graphical illustration of what Dr. Spencer described in 2009 –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
I have never seen a T-s diagram that accurately depicts the atmospheric processes for a radiative atmosphere, combining pole-wise energy flow (heat engine) and tropospheric convective circulation (vapour condensate heat pump to space). In the case of pole wise energy flow work is being done constantly, in the case of tropospheric convective circulation work is intermittent in exceeding the Rayleigh number for the breakaway of air masses from the surface boundary layer.
In the case of the second panel showing an atmosphere shortly after radiative ability was removed a T-s diagram would not be appropriate as the atmosphere could no longer achieve equilibrium. Atmospheric heating would become an irreversible process. Energy would be constantly entering the atmosphere, but little would be leaving.
The differences between circulation and temperature profile in a radiative and non-radiative atmosphere can be determined by CFD or a very simple empirical experiment. You can try the experiment for yourself –
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
Simply build two insulated gas columns around 1m tall with aluminium heating and cooling tubes positioned as shown. Where one thermocouple is shown it is advised to read temperature at nine places in each column to build a picture of the resultant temperature profiles.
Which column best represents a radiative atmosphere and which a non-radiative atmosphere?
Which column reaches the highest average gas temperature?
Which column exhibits full convective circulation and which does not?
Ben Wouters says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:41 am
Imo the largest problem has its origin in astrophysics: the use of the Effective temperature (Te) as base for our climate. With albedo .30 the Te for earth is 255K. For the moon (albedo .11) the Te is 270K. Yet its actual average temperature is only ~197K. (Diviner project)
So the temperature rise attributed to the GHE is not 33K, but at least 288K-197K = 91K.
You got it wrong. The 270K would be the temperature if the moon received the energy it receives from the sun UNIFORMLY along its surface, and if its temperature was constant, IN TIME AND SPACE. This is very far from being the case. The moon has a daytime which lasts 14 terrestrial days. This creates huge temperature differences between the illuminated side (day side) and the dark side (night side). This is increased even more by the fact that there is no oceans or atmosphere redistributing heat from one side to the other. The very low average temperature is a result of this distribution of it, very far from uniform. Given that outgoing radiation depends on T^4, any lack of uniformity will reduce the average temperature. Let’s say, a body at 2K emits the same energy as a body with just 1/16 of its surface at 4K and the rest at 0K, yet the average temperature of both bodies will be completely different. It will be an average of 2K for a uniform temperature distribution, and 0.25K if the distribution is not uniform.
The average temperature of the moon is much lower than it would be IF it was uniformly distributed, basically because it is NOT uniformly distributed. GHGs have nothing to do with that.
Nylo says: February 19, 2014 at 1:28 am
“You got it wrong. The 270K would be the temperature if the moon received the energy it receives from the sun UNIFORMLY along its surface”
It’s not me who got it wrong. its the guys who use the 255K Te for earth who got it wrong.
The moon is living proof that the sun is totally UNABLE to warm a greybody at our distance from it to that temperature. (check Holdens inequality).
A realistic greybody temperature for earth is ~150K (~300K for the dayside, 0K for the night side)
Anyone who believes that the thin atmosphere that surrounds our planet can raise that temperature ~140K is seriously wrong.
Earth is a planet consisting of molten rock, with a core of molten metal. It has a temperature!!
Using the SB formula implies the zero radiation temperature to be 0K. This is nonsense for our earth.
Ben Wouters, you still don’t get it. You are attributing all of the difference between Earth and Moon’s average temperatures (91K) to GHGs. And I have just explained that GHGs are not the only difference between Earth and Moon, nor are they even the biggest one, with respect to how average temperatures go. Most of the reason why the average temperature of the Earth is 91K hotter than that of the moon, is that the Earth’s daytime lasts 12h, and that the Earth has an atmosphere and oceans distributing heat from hot places to cold ones, both things leading to a much more uniform temperature distribution. As a result. standard temperature swings between day and night on Earth at any given place rarely exceed 20 degrees C. In the Moon, the temperature differences between day and night exceed 200 degrees C in most places! Remove GHGs and you will still have a 12h daytime as well as atmosphere and oceans making the average temperature of the Earth still way hotter than that of the Moon. GHGs provide some additional warming, that’s for sure, but definitely not 91K.
Nylo says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:54 am
GHG’s do NOT provide any additional warming. The reason the avg. temperature on earth is 91K higher than the moons is the geothermal TEMPERATURE of the earth.
The atmosphere only reduces the heat loss to space.
A planet with an avg. surface temperature of 290K (no atmosphere) radiates ~400 W/m^2 to space.
Our atmosphere reduces this to ~240 W/m^2, simple isolation at work.
Ben Wouters,
A planet with an avg. surface temperature of 290K (no atmosphere) radiates ~400 W/m^2 to space.
WRONG. It depends on how its temperature is distributed. For 400W/m^2 radiation to space, the average temperature will only be 290K if you have the same temperature along all of its surface. Create differences, and the average temperature will drop, for the same total energy output. Sorry but if you cannot get this simple concept, I will not continue with this discussion.
No need to repeat basic knowledge.
Earth is a planet with a temperature of ~275K BEFORE the sun starts adding its energy.
Of course it gets warmer in the tropics than near the poles, but the sun has to add only ~15K to earths temperature to reach our AVG. surface temperature of 290K.
Ben Wouters, do you really mean that the Earth’s average temperature would be 275K (2C) if there was no sun at all? WOW. Nuf said.
Nylo:
You make an important point when you say at February 19, 2014 at 2:16 am
Yes! I have often pointed out (including on WUWT) that ALL of the ~0.8°C in global temperature anomaly can be accounted as being a result of surface temperature changes induced by e.g. variation in energy transport by the oceans.
The reason is that radiative emission is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (T) of the emitting surface (i.e. the radiated energy flux is proportional to T^4).
The energy radiated into the Earth system (from the Sun) has to equal the energy radiated from the Earth system or there will be a radiative imbalance. If there is an imbalance then the Earth’s temperature will adjust to restore the balance.
Drop the temperature of a km^2 in the warm tropics by 1.0°C and raise the the temperature of a km^2 in the cool Arctic by 1.0°C and the Earth’s average temperature will not be changed. This is because the temperatures of the two regions change by the same amount (Tt = Ta). But it creates a radiative imbalance.
The imbalance is because the amount of energy radiated by each region does NOT change by the same amount because Tt^4 does NOT equal Ta^4. Hence, the Earth will adjust its temperature to restore radiative balance.
Simply, moving heat from one place to another across the surface of the Earth changes the radiative balance and the Earth’s temperature always adjusts to restore the radiative balance.
Richard
Nylo says: February 19, 2014 at 2:56 am
Ben Wouters, do you really mean that the Earth’s average temperature would be 275K (2C) if there was no sun at all? WOW. Nuf said.
275K is the temperature of the oceans at ~1000 meter, way below the influence of the sun.
(unless you believe that the sun can heat the oceans below the surface layer and the thermocline)
Without sun the oceans would of course cool down rapidly. Again, no need to state simple basic knowledge.
Il give a very simple example:
young earth was covered with magma oceans. Lets say surface temperature 1000K.
Heat loss to space 56704 W/m^2. Whatever the sun could deliver (TSI ~1000 W/m^2 in those days) wouldn’t make any difference at all.
Presently the temperature of the deep WATER oceans is still ~275K, and yes the sun is now able to warm the surface layer to around 290K ON AVERAGE.
All interaction between sun and ocean is restricted to the surface layer, which loses as much energy to space as the sun can provide.
Ben Wouters:
re your post at February 19, 2014 at 3:32 am.
Please read-up on the thermohaline circulation and amend you very mistaken ideas accordingly.
Richard
Check http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/woce/
None of the basins has high saline water below roughly 1000m.
Highest salinity is mostly near the surface, where evaporation is high.
Only near the poles some slightly less cold water is sinking into the deep oceans due to a small salinity difference.
So pse explain your deep ocean warming a bit more convincingly.
If you were correct, highest salinity should be in the deep oceans.