(Note: this originally published on Dr. Spencer’s blog on April 25th, and I asked if I could reproduce it here. While I know some readers might argue the finer points of some items in the list, I think it is important to keep sight of these. – Anthony)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.
I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong. I get that. But some of the alternative explanations I’m seeing border on the ludicrous.
So, here’s my Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments. I’m sure there are more, and maybe I missed a couple important ones. Oh well.
My obvious goal here is not to change minds that are already made up, which is impossible (by definition), but to reach 1,000+ (mostly nasty) comments in response to this post. So, help me out here!
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.
2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.
3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS. No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average) emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state. See more here. Also important is the fact that the rate at which a CO2 molecule absorbs IR is mostly independent of temperature, but the rate at which it emits IR increases strongly with temperature. There is no requirement that a layer of air emits as much IR as it absorbs…in fact, in general, the the rates of IR emission and absorption are pretty far from equal.
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.
5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE. First, no they are not, and that’s because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter. Here’s why.
6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? More about all this here.
7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!
8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.
9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?! Is there an average temperature of your bathtub full of water? Or of a room in your house? Now, we might argue over how to do the averaging (Spatial? Mass-weighted?), but you can compute an average, and you can monitor it over time, and see if it changes. The exercise is only futile if your sampling isn’t good enough to realistically monitor changes over time. Just because we don’t know the average surface temperature of the Earth to better than, say 1 deg. C, doesn’t mean we can’t monitor changes in the average over time. We have never known exactly how many people are in the U.S., but we have useful estimates of how the number has increased in the last 50-100 years. Why is “temperature” so important? Because the thermal IR emission in response to temperature is what stabilizes the climate system….the hotter things get, the more energy is lost to outer space.
10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isn’t going to change the conclusions we make about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.
I’m sure I could come up with a longer list than this, but these were the main issues that came to mind.
So why am I trying to stir up a hornets nest (again)? Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility.
NOTE: Because of the large number of negative comments this post will generate, please excuse me if I don’t respond to every one. Or even very many of them. But if I see a new point being made I haven’t addressed before, I’ll be more likely to respond.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:52 am
———————————–
“Thus if you can provide me with a link to any measurements on the thickness of the water-like layer on the ice/air boundary at -40°C and if possible (but not necessary) how much CO2 dissolves in that layer, I am very interested.”
Ferdinand,
I have no better links than Richard on the surface effect on ice. The point I was making is that the effect exists above -40C and that just because surface air temperature is below that, the temperature below surface in translucent ice or compacting snow cannot be assumed to be the same.
Hiding under translucent quartz provides protection from UV but also extreme temperature for Antarctic lichens –
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/Antarcticcyanobacteria/2010/12/30/hypolithic-communities-in-antarctic-dry-valleys.
I would suggest an empirical experiment. Using a -50 scientific refrigerator place a “snow” sample under a UV/SW source that simulates Antarctic sunlight. Use thermocouples to measure temperature at various depths in the ice. You should be able to achieve higher temperatures below the air cooled surface.
A question I would have is whether you or others have ever artificially created a snow pack with multiple layers with differing gas mixtures then compressed it into solid ice then checked diffusion?
Tim Folkerts says:
May 6, 2014 at 9:59 am
——————————-
“Also, real solar ponds typically have temperatures similar to the temperatures of the surrounding surfaces — the 80-90 C temperatures only exist well below the surface.”
Once again this is only true of convection constrained ponds not evaporation constrained ponds.
“ “Water is not a near blackbody or anywhere close. “
You can’t just make up your own facts. The IR emissivity of water is quite close to 1.”
No, I am not making up my own facts. You cannot use IR emissivity alone for calculating equilibrium temperatures for selective coatings. The engineering of selective coatings is well understood by those designing spacecraft thermal control, just not climastrologists. Further the emissivity of water is not ~1. That is just the number used to calibrate IR thermometers for volumes of water in situ.
Take 20 micron and 1000 micron sheets of matt black aluminium. They will appear to have the same emissivity. Take 20 micron and 1000 micron layers of water and the 20 micron layer will appear to have a far lower emissivity for a given temperature.
Have a look at this simple diagram of an evaporation constrained solar pond –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
Why don’t engineers make layer 2 matt black? It would reflect less SW. It could contain more UV stabilisers in the plastic. Why doesn’t it work as well as layer 3 being black? When you can answer that, you will understand 😉
“Thus CO2 is REDUCING the IR to space by something on the order of 25 W/m^2.”
No, it may be reducing IR to space in the 15 micron band, but not OLR in total. OLR has increased with increasing temperatures and flat-lined with current temps. (although there is significant uncertainty in TOA balance calcs)
““You have admitted that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.”
No, I never said that.”
Just what was this? –
“Everyone one acknowledges that heat flows up from the oceans to the atmosphere, so the atmosphere does certainly “cool” the oceans.” – Tim Folkerts
“The IR gases certainly cool the TOP of the atmosphere. But that is inefficient, so the surface has to warm to make up for this poor cooling from the atmosphere.”
Inefficient?! Radiative gases are emitting to space more than double the net flux of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere!
Climastrologists didn’t think the oceans needed the atmosphere to cool them because they used blackbody calcs on a selective surface. But the primary cooling method for our oceans is evaporation because as a selective surface they can be heated far higher by incident UV/SW than blackbody calcs indicate. Without a radiatively cooled atmosphere to cool the oceans they will superheat.
This is becoming an endless morass ….
KONRAD: “You have admitted that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.”
TIM: No, I never said that.”
KONRAD: Just what was this? –
“Everyone one acknowledges that heat flows up from the oceans to the atmosphere, so the atmosphere does certainly “cool” the oceans.” – Tim Folkerts
SIGH.
The full quote says: “Everyone one acknowledges that heat flows up from the oceans to the atmosphere, so the atmosphere does certainly “cool” the oceans. The question (as related to the greenhouse effect) is “Would the oceans cool FASTER if we could remove could magically turn off the IR properties of the atmosphere (or remove the atmosphere but keep the current albedo)”. ”
In context, the NET effect of the atmosphere (which contains GHGs) is less cooling than if the atmosphere was IR-transparent. You can’t just take one sentence out of a paragraph!
TIM: the 80-90 C temperatures only exist well below the surface.”
KONRAD: Once again this is only true of convection constrained ponds not evaporation constrained ponds.
The ‘surface’ is always the topmost surface — the one radiating out toward space and/or the atmosphere. The design you show has an air gap (ie insulation) covered by a glass sheet (ie IR radiator). The ‘radiating surface’ is the top of the glass in this case, NOT the water surface. The interior can certainly be warmer — which is exactly the greenhouse effect!
For example, if there was no atmosphere above the structure you showed, and if there were 240 W/m^2 of incoming solar, the top of the glass would have to be 255 K (assuming the glass was a BB for IR, and assuming minimal losses through the insulation). The bottom of the glass can and would be warmer. The water surface can and would be warmer yet. All of this is in accordance with standard physics and “greenhouse effect physics”.
Since the ocean has no ‘glass sheet’ over it, the surface of the water itself is radiating, so the surface of the water must have temperatures that agree with conservation of energy.
“Take 20 micron and 1000 micron layers of water … ”
When you start discussing solar ponds or oceans that are 20 microns think, then I’ll start worrying about such details. But you are discussing water that is meters deep and that is plenty thick to absorb IR.
” You cannot use IR emissivity alone for calculating equilibrium temperatures for selective coatings. “
Well … yeah … equilibrium temperature always involves both absorption and emission. This is true for any surface, not just “selective surfaces”. And water is not a ‘selective surface’.
“No, it may be reducing IR to space in the 15 micron band, but not OLR in total. “
BINGO! Give that man a cigar! The emission in the 15 um band is reduced by CO2, so the emissions in the OTHER wavelength bands must increase so that the OLR in total balance the incoming solar radiation! In particular, the emissions directly from the surface must increase = the surface must warm. Remove the CO2 and emissions in the 15 um band INCREASE, and emissions from the ground must decrease = the surface must cool.
That one sentence of yours sums up the Greenhouse Effect quite perfectly.
Konrad: You ask, “Why don’t engineers make layer 2 matt black?”
Because when there is a dark cover over a body of water, it only heats the top layer. It happens to my pool every day if I don’t run the recirculating pump while the sun is high. The top few centimeters are hot, below substantially cooler.
It’s much more effective to heat the entire body of water to absorb the solar radiation at the bottom and let natural convection distribute the energy through out. The same reason you want to heat a room from the bottom.
Curt says:
May 6, 2014 at 9:14 pm
——————————
Curt,
swimming pool covers are indeed one of the areas where the selective surface effect is utilised.
Non-insulated evaporation covers work best for heating most pools when they are clear not opaque.
Clear covers however suffer from algae and UV degeneration problems.
The reason opaque covers don’t work as well for heating is that although they may absorb more SW, they immediately re-radiate much of the energy before it can conduct into the pool. Clear covers allow energy to heat from the bottom of the pool with the slow speed of non-radiative return allowing energy to accumulate faster.
By treating the oceans as a near blackbody, climastrologists have effectively considered the oceans black on the surface.
Tim Folkerts says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:30 pm
———————————
“This is becoming an endless morass ….”
Not for me. I have seen every way AGW defenders try to get around the issue. I posted most of Tricks efforts for your entertainment.
“In context, the NET effect of the atmosphere (which contains GHGs) is less cooling than if the atmosphere was IR-transparent.”
A non-radiative atmosphere cannot cool the oceans as it cannot cool itself. The oceans cannot offset energy accumulation at depth by surface radiation alone until surface temperatures rise well above -18C.
“Well … yeah … equilibrium temperature always involves both absorption and emission. This is true for any surface, not just “selective surfaces”. And water is not a ‘selective surface’.”
Liquid water is most assuredly a selective surface or coating. UV/SW is absorbed well below the surface. IR emission in from the top 100 microns. Internal non-radiative transports determine energy accumulation. That is pretty much the definition of a selective coating or surface.
““No, it may be reducing IR to space in the 15 micron band, but not OLR in total.”
[…]That one sentence of yours sums up the Greenhouse Effect quite perfectly.”
You still don’t understand. Just because the lower atmosphere absorbed more in the 15 micron band does not mean net surface heating. This energy is immediately transferred to the other gases in the atmosphere by conduction. All this is doing is adding to the buoyancy changes driving convective circulation, which with evaporation is the primary energy transport away form the surface.
The only way you can model radiative gases warming the lower atmosphere is to hold the speed of tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration. Given this circulation depends on radiative subsidence of air masses, this would be patently ridiculous.
Tim, the error of treating the oceans as a blackbody not a selective surface destroys the whole AGW hypothesis. Empirical experiment shows that the sun can easily drive a 200mm layer of water to 80C in under 12 hours if the water cannot evaporatively cool. Against a 3K background can you radiatively cool a 200mm layer of water from 80C to -18C in 24 hours?
Without a radiatively cooled atmosphere to cool them, our oceans superheat.
Konrad says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:10 pm
A question I would have is whether you or others have ever artificially created a snow pack with multiple layers with differing gas mixtures then compressed it into solid ice then checked diffusion?
Nature did that experiment with the help of humans. Because we emitted increasing amounts of CO2, CH4, 14C, N2O, CFC’s,… that is reflected in the different snow/firn layers top down until bubble closing depth. Air measurements for several of them are done since 1959 at the South Pole, others later. Much is explained in:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
There may be changes due to bacterial life in snow/firn during summer at coastal places, and even the cold inland cores have bacteria included (mostly around dust) which can survive the extreme cold temperatures, but that is restricted to only DNA repair. As there is little foodstuff in the ice, they use CO2 as alternative carbon source which results in N2O production. Even if all N2O present was caused by such reaction, that represents not more than 1 ppmv CO2 use. See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/13/4631.full.pdf item K.
Phil.:
Your post bat May 6, 2014 at 6:35 am attempts to justify your most recent posting of ignorant and untrue nonsense and – as usual – it fails in the attempt.
.
I pointed out that ice has a liquid layer on its surface at all temperatures down to -40°C. You disputed the fact I had pointed out, so I added a little more detail.
Your post I am answering admits
YES! That is what I said.
And I explained
Your reply says
Agreed. And the anecdote you cite demonstrates that surface snow (i.e. firn) does have the liquid surface layer.
As I said
You respond with this illogical nonsense.
The “thin” liquid layer does dissolve gases and it dissolves them preferentially. It does NOT only dissolve CO2, and it does not dissolve the gases in proportion to their atmospheric compositions. The liquid layer is thin but the internal surface area of the firn is large so the liquid volume is significant. Also, air is pumped in and out of the firn by pressure changes (i.e. weather) so is mixed, and the gas in the firn is both the trapped air and the dissolved gases. It is this combination which becomes trapped in the ice. And this combination is NOT directly indicative of the air composition when the ice sealed.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:25 am
It is this combination which becomes trapped in the ice. And this combination is NOT directly indicative of the air composition when the ice sealed.
Richard, do you have any indication that:
1. How much CO2 is dissolved in the liquid like layer at different temperatures, including at -40°C?
2. The measurements are performed at -20°C under vacuum where air/vapor are lead over a cold trap at -70°C. All of the liquid-like is continuously removed (see the vapor pressure of water at that temperature) and most of the water vapor is condensed in the cold trap. How much CO2 do you think is retained at the surface of the ice in the sample and how much at the surface of the ice in the cold trap?
A few quick comments and off to work …
“That is pretty much the definition of a selective coating or surface.”
No, the typical definition is a surface that is close to “black” (ε=1) for visible light, but close to “white” (ε =0) for IR. Such surfaces get quite warm in sunlight.
The effect you are talking about for water (and also the greenhouse effect) depends on TWO distinct surfaces – an INTERIOR surface that absorbs the solar energy and an EXTERIOR surface that emits the IR. The INTERIOR can get quite warm in such circumstances, but the EXTERIOR is still governed by conservation of energy and S-B Laws. If atmosphere were transparent to IR and an average of 240 W/m^2 of sunlight were being absorbed by the ocean, then the TOP of the ocean would have to emit 240 W/m^2 of IR once steady state was achieved. Since the water at the top is close to ε=1, the surface would have to be ~ 255 K. If the surface were ~353 K (80 C), it would radiate WAY more out than was coming in, and the surface would have to cool.
I would advise you to carefully pick the “thermodynamic system” you want to talk about. Then apply the 1st Law to that system.
(Change in energy within the system) =
(energy entering through the exterior boundary) – (energy leaving through the exterior boundary)
For example … for the solar pond, does your system include the the air layer above the water? Does it include the glass above the pond? For the GHE, are you thinking about the surface being at the top of the troposphere, or perhaps the boundary between the atmosphere above and the ground/water below?
***************************************************************
There are different reasons why the deep oceans are cool. Basically, there is no way to warm the deep waters (sunlight heats the top, but that energy tends to convect UPWARD). On the other hand, there IS a way to cool the deep oceans (cold, dense water at the poles sinks). In the ‘real world’ this means the ocean depths are cool even at the equator, despite sunlight AND backradiation trying to keep them warm.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
We discussed the carbon cycle before. What Richard Courtney says about natural sinks rings true. You assume a balance between natural CO2 emission and sinks with an overbalance of anthropogenic CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This assumption may seem plausible to you and others but it is entirely unsubstantiated. We do not know that a cessation of man-made CO2 emission would mean emission=sinks.
Ferdinand:
At May 7, 2014 at 4:40 am you ask me
I answer, I do not know and I have no need to know, but you need to know.
You claimed that ice core data is not proxy data because ice captures air so acts as a sealed container of air samples with true air composition. I have pointed out that the surface properties of ice make that assertion impossible (see here).
In this circumstance it is up to you to show that ice does act as you claim and that the known surface properties of ice are not relevant to your claim. Frankly, I think your claim is silly.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: May 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm
“… overlap with the South Pole direct measurements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg ”
Ferdinand, the real observational test is to independently repeat, every ten years or so, the ice core measurements for exactly the same years (1959 – 1980) to prove whether or not the ice core CO2 value for each of these years are now truly stabilized (and to do it ‘honestly’ without invoking time-shifts, re-calibrations etc). Has anyone published papers starting to do such measurements?
Jane
@ur momisugly theotherPhil,
“If you really believe that, would you mind drinking this water, laced with 400 ppm of arsenic? After all, how can it possibly be enough to do anything to you?”
Not knowing more, I would not be able to answer the question. What form are you giving me the arsenic? Believe it or not, you can easily survive a 400ppm dose of ‘arsenic’ without any adverse effect at all, particularly if it is a one time dose.
Dose and route make the medicine, dose and route make the poison.
Don’t drink the hot spring water 😛 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/arsenicun1.pdf.
Konrad says:
May 6, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Konrad, at this point, you are arguing against yourself. You agree with my point that a black opaque cover on a pool leads to a stratified hot layer on top of the pool. Because this layer then loses more energy to the atmosphere that it would if the solar power input were better mixed, the pool is cooler than if the solar power were absorbed at the bottom, from which point the absorbed power would be distributed better by natural convection.
Since shortwave solar radiation penetrates meters, or in some cases tens of meters, but not further, at the scale of the deep ocean (but not of a pool or solar pond) there is a stratification of hotter water on the top. This is what is observed the world over. So at this scale, considering the top number of meters of the ocean as “black” (opaque) is not too bad an approximation. Of course, to get the finer effects, you must consider the mixing in the top few meters from the penetration of solar radiation.
And what you keep missing, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, is that without a radiatively active atmosphere, the ocean surface would be radiating directly to deep space and that since the atmosphere would have no sink to reject thermal power to, it would not be able to absorb thermal power from the surface on an ongoing basis.
The fact that, in our real world, the oceans can also transmit thermal power upward by conduction/convection and evaporation means that the temperature of the ocean is lower than it would be without these transfer modes. But the suppression of net radiative losses from the surface by an absorptive atmosphere is a substantially larger effect.
Tim Folkerts says:
May 7, 2014 at 6:14 am
——————————–
“No, the typical definition is a surface that is close to “black” (ε=1) for visible light, but close to “white” (ε =0) for IR. Such surfaces get quite warm in sunlight.”
Tim, I think you need more research on selective surfaces. Typically they are materials with absorption and emission frequencies that differ greatly from blackbody and also include materials that are translucent to various frequencies. Standard S-B calcs based on a single emissivity figure don’t work for these materials.
A good example is solar cell coatings. The effect I am describing is exactly what solar cell manufacture want to eliminate. Solar cells lose efficiency with higher temperatures. However clear coatings with a slow rate of non-radiative energy return to the IR radiating outer surface trap heat. Current research is into clear materials to cover solar cells that are SW transparent in the relevant frequencies, but are highly thermally conductive and good IR radiators. Ie: as far away from clear materials that act like water as they can get.
“If atmosphere were transparent to IR and an average of 240 W/m^2 of sunlight were being absorbed by the ocean, then the TOP of the ocean would have to emit 240 W/m^2 of IR once steady state was achieved. Since the water at the top is close to ε=1, the surface would have to be ~ 255 K. If the surface were ~353 K (80 C), it would radiate WAY more out than was coming in, and the surface would have to cool.”
Firstly in an evaporation constrained solar pond, the surface is always at a high temperature due to convection. Secondly you need to stop with the emissivity ~1 thing. I told you that apparent emissivity of water drops for thicknesses below 100 microns. That should have been a clue. 0.95 is what you use to calibrate an IR thermometer for water between 0-50C, NOT what you use for calculating radiative cooling. Water is not emitting IR just from the surface but from the first 100 microns. Further this means it is highly susceptible to the environmental “Hohlraum Effect”. 0.95 is for in situ measurement only.
Climastologists misuse blackbody calcs on the oceans and claim DWLWIR must be heating them by 33C. Empirical experiment proves incident LWIR has no effect on the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Tim, water at the bottom of a solar pond cannot radiatively cool, nor is it subjected to DWLWIR. 12 hours of full sun can heat 200mm from 1C to 80C. Lets say convection brings this to the surface and there is no DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling. Can radiative cooling alone cool 200mm of water from 80C not just to -18C but -98C in 24 hours? Good luck with that…
Without atmospheric cooling our oceans become a giant evaporation constrained solar pond. Let’s pretend that DWLWIR was causing 33C of the temperature they would reach. Without that pretend 33C we would still have surface temps of 47C. Still far too high for the radiative GHE hypothesis to be correct.
Curt says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:47 pm
——————————–
“Konrad, at this point, you are arguing against yourself.”
Isolate and attack, blah blah, blah. I don’t engineering awards or work exhibited in tech museums by falling for Alinsky tactics 😉
“Because this layer then loses more energy to the atmosphere that it would if the solar power input were better mixed, the pool is cooler than if the solar power were absorbed at the bottom, from which point the absorbed power would be distributed better by natural convection.”
Curt, I have run the experiment on transparent materials isolated from atmospheric cooling and only cooling by radiation. Black at the base runs far hotter that black at the top.
“And what you keep missing, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, is that without a radiatively active atmosphere, the ocean surface would be radiating directly to deep space and that since the atmosphere would have no sink to reject thermal power to, it would not be able to absorb thermal power from the surface on an ongoing basis.”
No, missing nothing. A non-radiative atmosphere would indeed have no way to effectively lose energy it acquired from the surface. It would super heat. No planets or moons in our solar system have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.
“But the suppression of net radiative losses from the surface by an absorptive atmosphere is a substantially larger effect.”
Completely wrong. Empirical experiment proves that DWLWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:10 am
——————————————–
“Nature did that experiment with the help of humans.”
Thou shalt not conduct uncontrolled experiments…
Precipitate artificial snow in a high co2 environment.
Separate two samples (sample 1 control)
Place sample 2 in compaction cylinder under porous glass plunger.
Compact slowly while simulating atmospheric pressure changes in co2 free air while illuminating through the plunger with simulated Antarctic solar radiation.
Stop compaction when sample 2 achieves bubble close off.
Separate each sample into three and test differences between CO2 concentration in types 1 & 2 using the three sampling methods.
Rinse and repeat.
“Even if all N2O present was caused by such reaction, that represents not more than 1 ppmv CO2 use.”
My lichen example was not referring to CO2, but rather higher temperatures below an insulating transparent surface subjected to Antarctic solar radiation. Some of these lichens are growing below quartz in areas where the air never gets above freezing. Below the quartz in summer solar radiation does allow liquid water to exist and the lichen to grow after winter hibernation.
Pick a system … apply conservation of energy.
Let’s start with a ‘system’ that includes the black bottom of the pond and the lowest 10% of the water in the pond.
“Tim, water at the bottom of a solar pond cannot radiatively cool, nor is it subjected to DWLWIR. …”
BINGO! This makes this water at the bottom very different from the water at the top of the pond. Yes, the water there can warm dramatically, in large party precisely because it cannot radiatively cool. Thermal radiation leaving this bottom layer and entering the next layer up is (almost exactly) balanced by radiation for the almost-as-warm layer directly above it.
The TOP layer is a very different story … it CAN radiatively cool (which you conveniently seem to forget and/or confuse with the situation at the BOTTOM of the pond).
“Can radiative cooling alone cool 200mm of water from 80C not just to -18C but -98C in 24 hours? “
Your numbers disagree with conservation of energy all over the place! Pick a system, do the calculations. Do the calculations
First of all, let’s imagine 1 m^2 of such a pond. That would be 0.2 m^3 = 200 kg. Heating this much water by 79 C would take
Q = mc(DeltaT) = (200*4200*79) = 66 MJ
Dividing by 12 hours = 43200 seconds gives just over 1500 W of power input required to heat this water. This is more powerful than the noon-time sun at the equator above the atmosphere! The BEST you could hope for is about half this — averaging maybe 750 W/m^2 during the day and heating up 0.1 m (not 0.2 m) of water this much.
Blackbody radiation from this 0.1 m^3 of water (starting at 80 C and slowly cooling) would cool this water to 20 C in 12 hr. (Plus you are assuming no energy loss during the day, ie the water surface is protected from thermal radiation lose by warm water above it. If the surface got near 80, it would start madly radiating upward, further limiting the bulk warming).
*******************************************
The SURFACE of a pond at a ‘typical’ location (240 W/m^2 average solar input) could warm to an average of ~ 255 K without any “IR radiation protection”.
The SURFACE of a pond at a ‘typical’ location could warm to ~ 288 K ‘typical IR radiation protection from the atmosphere”.
The BOTTOM can warm to ~ 353 K (ie your 80 C), but only with “very effective IR protection” provided by the warm water above it.
*******************************************
There are many more calculations that could be done (and that you should do your self). You are still ignoring thermal IR from the surface when it suits you and freely switching systems without care.
Konrad 4:23pm: “Empirical experiment proves that DWLWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.”
Not so, thou shalt not conduct imprecise, uncontrolled, unreasoned experiment; your unpublished, un-cited experimental interpretation doesn’t hold water, is not illuminated by reason. Precision, controlled, reasoned, published empirical experiment (already cited) on the open ocean sea surface shows added atm. DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the sea surface skin temperature which is illuminated by reason.
Here’s a smaller controlled, reasoned, published emissivity experiment you can do to aid you in better understanding basic atm. emissivity & radiative, conductive, convective atm. energy transfer physics.
250ml glass lab flask of tap water at 75C free to evaporatively cool in still room temp. atm. air.
Lab standard mercury bulb thermometer held at fixed place in mid-flask water.
Kitchen standard aluminum foil, much lower IR emissivity than glass.
Krylon white paint, black paint, fan, wool sweater, pail of water.
Bare flask free to evaporatively cool temp. difference to surroundings measured decrease to half starting value in about 50min.s; wrap the same flask free to evaporatively cool in the aluminum foil to change the DWLWIR bath find 78min.s. Illuminating reason is a metal such as shiny aluminum foil (10micron emissivity .036) radiates less energy per unit area than lab glass (6.5-20micron emissivity .97), both at the same temperature.
Water in the flask cooled because of energy exchange between it and its surroundings. The flask radiates to its surroundings and surroundings radiate to flask. Amount radiated by each depends on temperature and radiator’s composition.
Perform some experimental mod.s: paint the aluminum white, paint aluminum black (I predict this will reduce reflection debate), wrap some wool, add a fan aimed at the flask in all wrap conditions, dunk the flask in still water. Measure cooling rates, plot Newton’s cooling eqn., illuminate by reason & report on importance of energy transfer mode (conductive, convective, radiative).
Trick says:
May 7, 2014 at 6:26 pm
——————————–
Trick,
you have been challenged multiple times at many sites to produce a simple lab experiment showing incident LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool for others to replicate.
You have nothing.
But then you are a total waste of time. You’re the one who argued black and blue that I couldn’t drive convective circulation in a fluid column by removing energy from the column.
I’ve learnt that you would argue the moon was made of green cheese if it you thought it would support the global warming hoax.
Faced with the fact that the oceans don’t act as a black body you even when so far as to claim the blackbody calcs of the climastrologists were for the rock beneath the oceans not for the oceans themselves!!!
You clearly favour the Alinsky method over the scientific method –
“imprecise”
“uncontrolled”
“unreasoned”
“unpublished”
“un-cited”
– Well that doesn’t work on me. Go try your smear and sneer on some who cares.
Tim Folkerts says:
May 7, 2014 at 5:38 pm
——————————-
Tim,
lets do 100mm to 80C in 12 hours.
“Blackbody radiation from this 0.1 m^3 of water (starting at 80 C and slowly cooling) would cool this water to 20 C in 12 hr.”
First emissivity ~1 is wrong for water. That is for calibrating IR instruments in a sea of IR.
Second 60C of radiative cooling in 12 hours is nowhere near enough. We need to get down to -116 for a Tmean of -18C.
Tim, would you be prepared to try a simple experiment?
I call this one “how black were my oceans?”
Take 2 matt black plastic tubs and insulate their sides and base.
Fill one with tub 1 with clear water and tub 2 with water dyed so black sunlight doesn’t visibly penetrate 2mm of the liquid.
Place both in full sun for a few hours while measuring surface and base temperatures.
If measuring surface with an IR thermometer, shadow the water during quick measurement to prevent solar backscatter (yes, water does reflect some IR)
The water in each tub is free to convect and free to evaporatively cool. Results will not be as dramatic as other evaporation constrained tests, but the “selective coating” effect can still be measured.
What you should find is that initially the surface temp rises fastest in tub 2 while average temp rises fastest in tub 1. However after a short time even the surface temp in tub 1 exceeds that of tub 2. The differential will be smaller the smaller your sample. Best I have achieved with this is around 5C in small (1L) samples, however this is enough to demonstrate the effect. (if you want a more dramatic effect introduce an artificial “diurnal cycle”).
I agree with all of the criticisms except this one:
7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
This is a true statement in the long historical perspective. And that is the context this statement is always made. When Dr. Spencer then starts talking about the rice of CO2 last century he is taking the statement out of the original context and are making a straw man out of it.
“First emissivity ~1 is wrong for water.”
You will have to pardon me for believing multiple reliable sources, rather than one lone voice on the internet.
“Second 60C of radiative cooling in 12 hours is nowhere near enough. We need to get down to -116 for a Tmean of -18C.”
You still don’t seem to realize that you are comparing apples and oranges. And then you are comparing apples and bananas!
* Water at the BOTTOM of the pond — where it is well-protected from IR losses by the water (or glass or plastic sheets) above it — should and will get quite warm from a moderate input of solar power.
* Water at the TOP of the pond — where it is NOT protected from IR losses — should not and will not get quite warm from a moderate input of solar power.
Furthermore, even water at the TOP of the pond will not average -18 C because it DOES get back radiation. The top SHOULD have an average temperature near ambient (~15 C) for the same reasons that ambient temperature are near 15 C.
Comparing the water at the BOTTOM of the pond with backradiation warming the pond as a whole simply is not the same as water at the TOP of pond withoutbackradiation warming the pond as a whole.