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.
Konrad says:
February 20, 2014 at 12:23 am
Phil. says:
February 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm
————————————–
I’m sorry, you are still wrong and dbstealey is still right. All matter above 0K emits electromagnetic radiation.
Really, in which case what is the emission spectrum of Argon gas at room temperature?
Phil,
The link I took my reply from was specifically asked about noble gases, and the answer to your question, is it’s a BB spectrum.
Phil. is re-framing the argument by referring to what others wrote. That loses the argument. Phil. is probably used to that.
Thanks to MiCro and Konrad for pointing out that everything radiates [it’s even senseless to say “below 0º” because it can be logically argued that at or below absolute zero, matter cannot exist].
Well….
Quantum gas goes below absolute zero
😀
Mi Cro says:
February 20, 2014 at 7:07 am
Phil,
The link I took my reply from was specifically asked about noble gases, and the answer to your question, is it’s a BB spectrum.
Hardly an authoritative source , but although the question was asked it wasn’t answered! It’s certainly not a BB spectrum.
LOL, you didn’t even look at the other link did you? You might want to check the name of the author before you declare it non-authoritative!
The question was about thermal radiation of noble gases, and Argon is a noble gas last I checked. They provided a rather detailed explanation of how it works, as opposed to your “you’re wrong”. You even ignored my real examples! I’m hurt!
But, I tell you what I’ll take Albert Einstein’s word over some anonymous guy named Phil on the internet 🙂
dbstealey says:
February 20, 2014 at 8:11 am
Phil. is re-framing the argument by referring to what others wrote. That loses the argument. Phil. is probably used to that.
As usual trying to cover up for your mistake, as is clear from the quotes the discussion was always about IR or BB radiation. Then you came in and left out that qualifier and now try to claim it wasn’t there in the original posts! Usual prevarication by you, just admit it you’re wrong (as usual).
Thanks to MiCro and Konrad for pointing out that everything radiates [it’s even senseless to say “below 0º” because it can be logically argued that at or below absolute zero, matter cannot exist].
Just because the same two guys continue to say it without being able to find support doesn’t mean much. MiCro linked to a Q&A site which didn’t answer the question about Ar anyway! Konrad still hasn’t responded.
MiCro,
Thanks for that fascinating article on quantum gas. I read it all, but I still do not think that absolute zero [or lower] can be reached, any more than one can move at less than zero speed. But I could very well be wrong.
==============================
Phil. says:
“Hardly an authoritative source… Just because the same two guys continue to say it without being able to find support…”
Funny! Phil. says that Albert Einstein is not an authoritative source! That’s what happens in acedemia: people get cornered into supporting a wrong conclusion, and then they hold that position come hell or high water.
The difference between Phil. and the rest of us is that we admit that we could be wrong. But not Phil. He’s an academic, and therefore [in his own mind] he can never be wrong! heh☺
But Phil. is wrong. All matter above absolute zero radiates.
Mi Cro says:
February 20, 2014 at 10:08 am
“Hardly an authoritative source , but although the question was asked it wasn’t answered! It’s certainly not a BB spectrum.”
LOL, you didn’t even look at the other link did you? You might want to check the name of the author before you declare it non-authoritative!
That link wasn’t in your post that I was responding to. The post that included it was posted before my post concerning Argon, I didn’t see it until I went back to look for it, perhaps it was delayed in moderation? It doesn’t make any difference since it is Einstein’s derivation of Planck’s formula and says nothing about the room temperature thermal emission of Argon! The derivation starts with the following assumption: “Let us assume that the molecule is capable of a transition from state n into state m with absorption of radiation energy; that, similarly, the transition from state m to state n is possible, with emission of the same radiative energy.” Can you justify that for room temperature Argon? If I put Ar into the cell of an FTIR spectrometer I don’t see an absorption spectrum as would be required.
The question was about thermal radiation of noble gases, and Argon is a noble gas last I checked. They provided a rather detailed explanation of how it works, as opposed to your “you’re wrong”. You even ignored my real examples! I’m hurt!
In the link that I said was not authoritative they gave several answers to the first question (which was not about a noble gas, and none of them was Einstein). The question about noble gases was not answered! The original questioner recognized the issue of an noble gas at room temperature which is why he posed the question, no one answered him. I’ve already told you why your statement that: “All elements and molecules radiate in ir based on their temperature.” is wrong.
But, I tell you what I’ll take Albert Einstein’s word over some anonymous guy named Phil on the internet 🙂
As you should where relevant, such as the derivation of Planck’s formula, however that’s not relevant to what we’re discussing!
It was. The original question:
The first answers:
Please note that Einstein’s A and B coefficient papers referenced as containing the answer.
Second, the link mentions Einstein’s paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation. Which if you read the page marked as pg 64 you find this about 3/4 the way down:
So Einstein’s postulating that for any molecule their kinetic energy will match the Planck radiation field of the same temperature as described by Maxwell. ie your mystical Argon.
Following this is this:
and this
Which is the same explanation Einstein gives.
Oh, and Argon is included in the list of Noble gases, so the answer to a question on noble gases would apply to Argon as well.
Just in case you weren’t sure.
dbstealey says:
February 20, 2014 at 10:46 am
Phil. says:
“Hardly an authoritative source… Just because the same two guys continue to say it without being able to find support…”
Funny! Phil. says that Albert Einstein is not an authoritative source! That’s what happens in acedemia: people get cornered into supporting a wrong conclusion, and then they hold that position come hell or high water.
Really, that appears to be your position here, you made a mistake and refuse to admit your error (as usual). I didn’t refer to the Einstein paper at all, but since he wasn’t addressing the question it hardly matters.
The difference between Phil. and the rest of us is that we admit that we could be wrong.
When did you last admit to an error?
But not Phil. He’s an academic, and therefore [in his own mind] he can never be wrong! heh☺
But Phil. is wrong. All matter above absolute zero radiates.
Answer my question about room temperature Argon then, strange that a major atmospheric component such as Argon doesn’t have a spectrum in the Hitran database if what you say is correct!
“””””……Gail Combs says:
February 18, 2014 at 7:10 pm
george e. smith says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm …..”””””
Gail, The 342 W/m^2 number is not any mystery, but it is a fallacy promulgated by standard “climate science.
The basic assumption, is that the earth is a perfect black body absorber (assume albedo = zero for now) and it is also infinitely thermally conductive.
So the earth presents a circular disc of area pi.r^2 to intercept solar energy at TSI = 1366 W/m^2. (zero albedo)
That totally absorbed energy is instantly conducted through the whole earth and heats the earth uniformly to some isothermal Temperature. As a result, the whole earth radiates uniformly. being a perfect black body, and what do you know; it has a total spherical surface area of 4pi.r^2; exactly 4 times the area of the intercepting disk. so that is why they divide the 1366 by 4 to get 342 W/m^2 for the average over the whole surface.
So Trenberth’s physical model of the earth is that it receives, and transmits 342 W/m^2 at any and every point on earth, all the time, even in the Antarctic winter midnight darkness.
That is a totally ludicrous postulate.
Now you, being a farm Gal, know all about eggs, chicken / duck / whooping crane / whatever.
Everybody knows that you can’t cook an egg at the top of mount Everest, even if you let it boil for 20 minutes.
Some things just don’t happen, in cooking, if you never get anywhere near the required Temperature for the chemical reactions to occur; no matter how long you wait.
That’s why I flatly reject the hypothesis that earth’s climate is simply the long term average of the weather. NO ! it is the sum total of everything that has gone on so far, including all manner of extreme events, that do all kinds of calamities, that never happen under AVERAGE conditions.
Now the numbers above all get diminished when you factor in the actual albedo, because clouds prevent all 1366 W/m^2 from ever reacing the surface, only about 1,000 W/m^2 do .
The single most important effect on planet earth that affects our climate, is that earth rotates on its axis once in 24 hours or so.
So the earth is NEVER IN THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM. So talking about equilibrium BB Temperatures, for the earth of 255 K or 288 K , is simply nonsense; and until climatists accept that simple observable fact, their “models” will never replicate earth’s climate.
That’s why I don’t get embroiled in the minutiae of hadcrud or giss or any other purported earth Temperature, because as far as I am concerned, the Temperature is somewhere between about -94 deg C (Antarctic midnight highlands) and + 60 deg. C (maybe more) in the tropical deserts.
And due to an argument by Galileo, every possible Temperature, between those extreme limits (which can both occur simultaneously), can be found somewhere.
In fact, you can join those two points of min-max extremes, by any arbitrary continuous line, and somewhere on that line, you will find every temperature between those extremes.
So playing with “anomalies” in a +/- 0.5 or +/-1.0 deg. C total range, is just silliness.
As for the “radiation” from physical materials; atoms / molecules / whatever , or the absorption of radiation by them, it is well understood, that a single ISOLATED atom / molecule, (meaning isolated from contact with other atoms / molecules) can absorb and emit EM radiation, at some wavelengths or frequencies.
Since our atom / molecule is isolated, it has NO Temperature; well no Temperature that can be distinguished from zero kelvins. Ergo, classical Physics asserts that it does not emit or absorb THERMAL RADIATION SPECTRA, which require acceleration of electric charges (varying electric currents) in some antenna structure (which may be just free space). The usual model, is a short element of a conductor, along which a time varying electric current flows. Well you don’t need the wire, if you have free electric charges, either electrons or protons.
In the case where you have a positive charge, and a negative charge separated by some non zero distance, then you have a so-called dipole.
In the classical physics model, relative motions of those separated charges, radiates EM radiation energy described by Maxwell’s equations of electro-magnetism. Now remember this is true of our isolated single atom/molecule.at zero K.
Certain frequencies of EM waves, can excite various oscillations of the charges in our system, and those frequencies depend on the possible modes of oscillation that the system has.
Now when the individual electrons within a specific atom species are involved, we get the very sharp resonances of atomic spectra. This is not particularly related to atmospheric physics of weather or climate, and involves much higher frequencies.
But what about the whole electric charge of an atom or molecule. We know there is a nucleus containing some number of protons with positive charges, and a like number of negatively charged electrons in a “cloud” quite distant from the nucleus, and sometimes spherically disposed about it.
The Proton / Electron mass ratio, is about 1836 : 1 . But in the lighter atoms, we typically have also an equal number of neutrons, in the nucleus, and the neutron / electron mass ratio is 1837. Sort of makes a neutron look like a proton plus an electron.
So the nucleus behaves like a point mass that is about 3673 times as massive as the entire electron cloud, which we can think of as being roughly a uniform spherical shell of negative charge.
We know that there is no electric field inside such a uniform charge shell. So it would seem, that the nucleus, is not even aware of the electrons around it (in this symmetrical state). So presumably, the nucleus can just wander around inside the cloud. Evidently, the electrons are aware of the nucleus, and they keep themselves more or less where they are supposed to be.
Now if two such atoms rush towards each other on a collision course, each atom will have a radial electric field due to the point nucleus and its positive charge, and superimposed on that is a similar nearly radial field of opposing sign due to the electron cloud.
At large distances, the two fields cancel, and there isn’t any field at some distance from the atom.
But as the atoms get closer, the finite size of the electron clouds starts to matter, and the electrons start to repel the other approaching cloud.
But virtually all the kinetic energy and momentum is in the 3673 times more massive nucleus, so it goes roaring on oblivious to the fact that the electron cloud repulsions, are slowing them down, so they are decelerating (and hence radiating), and the nuclei, must now move away from the center of mass of the electron cloud, so now you have +/- charge separation, and a non-zero dipole moment (charge times distance).
The electrons eventually stop (center of mass space), and then start flying apart again (at some angle. Meanwhile, the nuclei keep on going till the get only about 1/60 th of the electron cloud spacing (distorted too). This is root of 3673, and the proton repulsive field is now strong enough to slow the massive nuclei down, so they too must now radiate because of their deceleration, and finally, everybody backs up and the two atoms fly apart. Now in general, the collision is not central, so they will bounce off each other, in some random direction or other, and this uncertainty, plus the Temperature distribution of kinetic energies all conspire to produce the classical EM radiation spectrum distribution depending on the thermal collision energies.
Now this is just a rudimentary description of how collision induced distortion of otherwise charge symmetrical atoms / molecules leads to classical EM radiation (and absorption too ) at the individual atom / molecule level, but due to the usual distribution of collision energies, in a collection of a large number of interacting particles required, for there to be a recognizable Temperature to talk about.
No internal electron energy state considerations are required, it is simply a consequence of classical EM radiation of accelerating electric charges, during collisions.
Now this took me forever to describe and write; but that is exactly how it looks to two atoms colliding at THERMAL ENERGIES where the nuclei are never going to knock heads, and do real physical damage to each other. They have all day it seems to radiate energy during the collision, and they will do it all over again, when they encounter their next dancing partner.
This process is entirely distinct from the atomic species specific resonances, that occur in atoms or molecules, including the molecular bands of ghgs.
And two atoms / molecules in collision have no concept whatsoever, of solid / liquid / gas / whatever. Only the collision energies and the rates of such collisions, affect whether the thermal radiation intensity is large or small (emissivity). there aren’t any spectral lines or bands, as in resonance radiation processes, it is a true continuum spectrum.
George, the only thing I’d change is this:
In the presence of a field of thermal radiation, you can both change and measure the temperature (internal kinetic energy) of a single atom. You can change it because it will absorb or emit energy trying to match the field, and if you have a known field, you can detect the change in the field due due to this effect, and the addition or subtraction of kinetic energy from our single atom changes it’s temperature. Now, this also doesn’t take into account our ability to actually measure such small amounts, so I don’t know if this is actually possible or theoretically possible. This was all explained in the gobble gook I’ve been quoting from. To which I’d like to thank Phil, I learned something new today.
george e. smith,
That was an excellent description of the mechanism of EM radiation. Even I could understand it!
“””””…..Mi Cro says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:17 pm
George, the only thing I’d change is this:
Since our atom / molecule is isolated, it has NO Temperature; well no Temperature that can be distinguished from zero kelvins. Ergo, classical Physics asserts that it does not emit or absorb THERMAL RADIATION SPECTRA……”””””
Feel free to change anything you like. So just what is the kinetic energy of an isolated single atom ? What frame of reference does that KE relate to ?
Temperature is a macro thermodynamic property of large assemblages of many particles in constant collision with each other. Absent collisions, there is no meaning to temperature.
And I specifically excluded all radiations which result from changes in energy levels of individual electrons, which are a consequence of specific atomic species.
Thermal radiation pays no heed to the specific properties of any material atomic species.
Planck’s derivation of the BB radiation law, and the subsequent Bose derivation, do not identify the materials involved in any manner. It is entirely independent of material. Hey it is a complete fiction anyway, since no such thing as a black body can exist.
I’m not here to tell anyone what to believe or not. But an isolated atom / molecule that has no electric polar moment, such as dipole or more complex, can have no interaction with a general thermal spectrum EM radiation field.
GHG molecules like CO2 ; … O=C=O are perturbed from their symmetrical state because of Heisenberg’s principle. If the atoms are exactly in the prescribed positions, Heisenberg says their momenta, are unknown to a given extent, hence they will move from that symmetry to some other configuration, and that exposes a non-zero polar moment which can absorb or radiate.
Non polar atoms / molecules, can only get a non zero polar moment during collisions, and hence would not be isolated.
But I’m not an evangelist; I’m not concerned by anything people want to believe.
It’s the same Center of Mass motion of the atomic nuclei that all atoms have above absolute zero. A block of iron has a temperature, as does a block of aluminum, the nuclei are vibrating. Think about why the elements have different thermal properties. And in the example of a single atom, it’s reference frame is it’s center of mass.
Temperature is just our way of interpreting molecular kinetic energy.
This is wrong, Einstein shows that it’s wrong, go read the link I provided up thread, it’s not my idea, it’s Einstein’s. Basically the kinetic energy of any number of atoms will exchange energy with a thermal field (IR radiation) until they match the energy field.
I’m not asking you to believe me, but if you think you know more about this topic than Einstein, write up some papers and win a Nobel Prize for your effort, that’s exactly what he got for writings on this.
Actually I said this wrong, it should be:
Mi Cro says:
February 21, 2014 at 6:19 am
“But an isolated atom / molecule that has no electric polar moment, such as dipole or more complex, can have no interaction with a general thermal spectrum EM radiation field.”
This is wrong, Einstein shows that it’s wrong, go read the link I provided up thread, it’s not my idea, it’s Einstein’s. Basically the kinetic energy of any number of atoms will exchange energy with a thermal field (IR radiation) until they match the energy field.
You go and read the link properly this time. As I told you without a dipole there can be no interaction with light, whether it’s permanent dipole or a collision induced dipole that George refers to (very weak). As Einstein points out in his paper (and as I posted for you) his derivation depends on the following assumption:
“Let us assume that the molecule is capable of a transition from state n into state m with absorption of radiation energy; that, similarly, the transition from state m to state n is possible, with emission of the same radiative energy.”
Without the dipole that doesn’t happen, Einstein knew this, George knows this, I know this, you and stealey didn’t, but now you do!
In developing his theory of radiation, Einstein employed a crucial new concept: stationary states, introduced in Niels Bohr’s 1913 paper on hydrogen. The idea of nonradiating states of an electron orbiting a nucleus could be described as deep nonsense, because, according to the well-established principles of electromagnetic theory, the electron would radiate intensely, emitting a broad spectrum as it crashed into the nucleus. One might argue that the time had come to set aside classical laws, but major features of Bohr’s model rested squarely on those laws. The concept of stationary states was exactly the type of truth-in-nonsense that, in Einstein’s hands, could be used to work magic.
Einstein’s theory of radiation analyzes the processes by which the energy and momentum states of a gas of atoms achieve equilibrium with a thermal radiation field. His reasoning is transparent and novel. For example, he did not take as his starting the known field for thermal radiation, given by the Planck radiation law. Instead, Einstein assumed that atoms are in thermal equilibrium and then deduced the properties of the radiation field required to maintain the equilibrium. The field turned out to be given precisely by the Planck radiation law.
From Dan Kleppner’s review of Einstein’s paper.
The 2 states that are referenced are ionization states, something all atoms have, the key to Einstein’s paper was that photons also have momentum, and can transfer some of the momentum during collisions.
What I’m confused about is how you think a hot gravity bound collection of mostly non-radiating gas can generate a Black body spectrum, if not in the same way as Einstein described?
I should have quoted this:
After typing it all in, I forgot.
Mi Cro says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am
The 2 states that are referenced are ionization states, something all atoms have, the key to Einstein’s paper was that photons also have momentum, and can transfer some of the momentum during collisions.
They can be ionization states, or electronic/vibrational/rotational, they have to be accessible to the radiation, the ionization states aren’t accessible at low temperatures for Argon (~1500 kJ/mole-1)
What I’m confused about is how you think a hot gravity bound collection of mostly non-radiating gas can generate a Black body spectrum, if not in the same way as Einstein described?
This is like pulling teeth! ‘A hot gravity bound collection of mostly non-radiating gas’ will radiate exactly as Einstein describes if it is hot enough and the gravity is high enough, room temperature Argon doesn’t qualify!
The ionization state doesn’t have to be accessible.
What about a cold gravity bound collection of gases?
Let’s see if i can make a picture that you can wrap your head around. Imagine a very very large collection of Argon gas magnetically confined to earth normal pressure, 61F in temp floating in an empty Universe. I assume you can accept this as a possible thought experiment. Would there not be a 10 u IR Thermal radiation field in the middle of this gas cloud?
No?, What if the field of 10u IR was getting beamed through the cloud of gas, and you changed it from 10u (61F) to 9u(119F), wouldn’t that cause your Argon’s temp to increase to 119F?
I’m quite happy to have anybody, take anything I might write, and rewrite it or remake it in their own words, and add anything, or subtract anything they like. But they should not then ascribe the result to me.
I choose my words very carefully. When not acting the goat, with all the hilarious things Anthony finds for us, I try to be very pedantic with my choice of words, on science matters. We use a lot of words that have colloquial meanings, that are quite different from their scientific or technical meanings. “Brightness” is a case in point. It is even used by particle Physics people, when talking about the particle beams in their accelerators. Misuse leads to misunderstanding.
One thing, I am not is a quantum mechanic. I know enough to stay well enough away from it. If I can’t find a rational classical description that “works well enough”, then I like to listen and learn from others. But I do have a degree that has “Radio-Physics” as one of its majors. There was a choice of three physics majors, when I did my degree; so I did all three plus two in maths. Never got to use all of it in industry; but one thing I do know is how radio antennas work. And Maxwell’s equations don’t have any size constraints on them, so the concepts work quite well enough, until you can’t ignore the quantum intrusions.
So from my viewpoint, even CO2 as an isolated molecule should not radiate, because of its symmetry. But I can see how it can get bent out of shape in molecular collisions, so excitation of the bending mode seems doable. And I suppose that the uncertainty principle ensures that it doesn’t stay symmetrical all the time, so perhaps even an isolated molecule can absorb radiation particularly in the IR.
But I don’t see how an isolated Argon or other noble gas atom can get enough of a radiating antenna, to be easily excited by other than the usual atomic spectral lines. As for “magnetically” confining one, I don’t know how that works; but never thought about it either.
The Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic theory, was supposed to send Maxwell’s electromagnetism to the old history books. What accelerating charges radiate ! Not if they are in one of the places I want them to be. I don’t believe that Bohr ever justified his assertion of stable non-radiating “orbits”, just declared it because it worked. I guess QM got rid of the problem, by getting rid of the acceleration in orbits; replaced by location probabilities instead; or something like that.
So as far as I know Maxwell still reigns, and accelerating electric charges (time varying electric currents) still radiate, and the physical constants, that define their propagation are the only ones in all of Physics, that have exact defined numerical values. ( c and mu-nought, and epsilon-nought ).
Well (g) has an exact value also, but only in the sense of defining what the words “one g acceleration” mean ; not what is earth’s gravitational acceleration.
And if anyone wants to assign a Temperature to an isolated atom in free flight in space; if it floats your boat, then go for it. I’ll stay on dry land.
Mi Cro says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:09 pm
The ionization state doesn’t have to be accessible.
Actually according to Einstein they do!
“Let us assume that the molecule is capable of a transition from state n into state m with absorption of radiation energy; that, similarly, the transition from state m to state n is possible, with emission of the same radiative energy.”
What about a cold gravity bound collection of gases?
What about it without a dipole there’d no action!
Let’s see if i can make a picture that you can wrap your head around. Imagine a very very large collection of Argon gas magnetically confined to earth normal pressure, 61F in temp floating in an empty Universe. I assume you can accept this as a possible thought experiment. Would there not be a 10 u IR Thermal radiation field in the middle of this gas cloud?
No there would not be such a field, there is no dipole under those conditions. The radiation from the surface will pass though unattenuated.
No?, What if the field of 10u IR was getting beamed through the cloud of gas, and you changed it from 10u (61F) to 9u(119F), wouldn’t that cause your Argon’s temp to increase to 119F?
No, no change at all, get it straight, no dipole – no interaction!
@Phil
“Any solid, liquid and dense (thick) gas at a temperature above absolute zero will produce a thermal spectrum. ”
From here: http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s4.htm
I still have to figure how dense the gas has to be to qualify as “dense”.
Oh, I know you’re a little slow, so I should add the second statement
“The shape of a continuous spectrum depends on only the temperature of the object NOT its chemical composition. This allows you to determine the temperature”
So, I didn’t know how density impacted thermal spectrums emitted from gases, but I was right that Argon will have a thermal spectrum at 25C, as long as it’s dense enough. The part of Einstein’s paper you quoted wasn’t a requirement, but the explanation as to how it does it.