Guest essay by Ed Hoskins
Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.
IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].
 |
The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv up to 1000ppmv and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:
§ Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain photosynthesis in plants and thus the viability of all life on earth.
§ A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.
§ Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding ~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.
§ CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.
Both sceptics and the IPCC publish alternate views of the reducing effect on temperature of the importance of CO2 concentration. These alternates are equivalent proportionally but vary in the degree of warming attributable to CO2.
The IPCC have published views of the total effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas up to ~1200ppmv, they range in temperature from +6.3°C to +14.5°C, shown below:
There are other views presented both by sceptical scientists and CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre. What these different analysis show the is the amount of future warming that might be attributed to additional atmospheric CO2 in excess of the current level of ~400ppmv. Looking to the future in excess of 400ppmv, wide variation exists between the different warming estimates up to 1000ppmv, see below.
A comparison between these estimates are set out below in the context of the ~33°C total Greenhouse Effect.
This graphic shows in orange the remaining temperature effect of CO2 up to 1000ppmv that could be affected by worldwide global decarbonisation policies according to each of these alternative analyses.
Some of the IPCC data sets shows very large proportions of the temperature effect attributable solely to extra CO2. The concomitant effect of those higher levels of warming from atmospheric CO2 is that the proportion of the total ~33°C then attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is displaced so as to be unrealistically low at 72% or 54%.
It has to be questioned whether it is plausible that CO2, a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at the level of ~400ppmv, 0.04% up to 0.10% achieves such radical control of Global temperature, when compared to the substantial and powerful Greenhouse Effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere?
There are the clearly divergent views of the amount of warming that can result from additional CO2 in future, but even in a worst case scenario whatever change that may happen can only ever have a marginal future effect on global temperature.
Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~13% of the future warming potential of CO2 up to the currently unthinkably high level of 1000ppmv.
So increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can not now inevitably lead directly to much more warming and certainly not to a catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.
Importantly as the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions can only be so minor, there is no possibility of ever attaining the much vaunted political target of less than +2.0°C by the control of CO2 emissions[3].
Global Warming advocates always assert that all increases in the concentration of CO2 are solely man-made. This is not necessarily so, as the biosphere and slightly warming oceans will also outgas CO2. In any event at ~3% of the total[4] Man-made CO2 at its maximum is only a minor part of the CO2 transport within the atmosphere. The recent IPCC report now admits that currently increasing CO2 levels are probably only ~50% man-made.
On the other hand it is likely that any current global warming, if continuing and increased CO2 is:
§ largely a natural process
§ within normal limits
§ probably beneficial up to about a further 2.0°C+ [5].
It could be not be influenced by any remedial decarbonisation action, however drastic, taken by a minority of nations.
In a rational, non-political world, that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.
If it is so:
· concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be mostly discounted.
· it is not essential to disrupt the economy of the Western world to no purpose.
· the cost to the European economy alone is considered to be ~ £165 billion per annum till the end of the century, not including the diversion of employment and industries to elsewhere: this is deliberate economic self-harm that can be avoided: these vast resources could be spent for much more worthwhile endeavours.
· were warming happening, unless excessive, it provides a more benign climate for the biosphere and mankind.
· any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
· if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.
De-carbonisation outcomes
To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative table below shows the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.
The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv to 1000 ppmv.
The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.
However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.
These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be either immaterial or more likely even beneficial. The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable.
These extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:
§ the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
§ the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
§ the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
§ normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
§ normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
§ that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
§ that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.
As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the miniscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.
The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[6].
Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[7]:
“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”
Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[8]:
“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”
and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[9] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[10] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[11].
References:
[1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
[2] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/why-global-warming-alarmism-isnt-science-2.php
[3] http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/ccctolpaper.pdf
[4] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
[5] http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
[6] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html
[7] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
[8] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/
[9] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml
[10] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm
[11] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops: 3200 is the 8th doubling starting at 12.5, so if 8 doublings is the maximum achievable, 6/8 = 75% of total accumulation has already occurred if 3200 is the maximum physically achievable CO2 concentration.
matayaya: Samuel C Cogar, I haven’t heard anyone say, or mean to say, CO2 “traps” heat. My layman understanding is that upward IR heat is like ball in a pinball machine. CO2 is the bumpers.
CO2 “traps” heat in its orbital electrons: physically, the orbital sizes are such that the specific wavelengths of LWIR cause the electromagnetic oscillations to interact with the electrons and transfer energy from radiant to orbital energy. The reverse process occurs when electrons “decay” from higher energy orbits to lower energy orbits and release the energy as electromagnetic oscillations.
Me: I went into a store to buy an item. I gave the cashier $20 for the item, and he gave me $15 in change.
Kristian/AlecM: No, no, no! You’ve got it all wrong! You PAID $5 for the item! You don’t understand how to do accounting!
Standard science: The earth’s surface averages about 396 W/m2 upward radiative power flux density in the longwave infrared. The earth’s atmosphere averages about 333 W/m2 downward radiative power flux density.
Kristian/AlecM: No, no, no! You’ve got it all wrong! The heat transfer from the earth to the atmosphere at 63 W/m2! You don’t understand how to do physics!
Matthew R Marler:
At August 11, 2014 at 1:24 pm you say
No, that is an atomic effect which is trivial in the atmosphere.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) because a CO2 molecule can absorb a photon of appropriate wavelength, and the absorbed energy of the photon becomes vibrational, rotational or stretching energy of the molecule.
A CO2 molecule (O-C-O) can bend so vibrate.
An O2 molecule (O-O) has no angle to bend so cannot vibrate.
CO2 is a GHG but O2 is not.
Richard
Kristian: There is no such thing as ‘net heat’ in a thermal exchange between two objects at different temperatures. There is ‘net energy’ and this net energy is defined as the HEAT. This might seem like pure semantics, but it’s not. It is a very important distinction.
Yes on the net “energy” transfer instead of net “heat” transfer. I get sloppy sometimes and use “heat” for “energy”. That aside, what else that I wrote do you dispute?
1. That the molecules in a region have a distribution of energies, instead of all being at the mean energy?
2. That some of the molecules in that region can absorb radiation concurrently with other molecules in that region emitting them?
3. That the change in electron orbital energies transfers energy to the electromagnetic waves that are emitted?
4. That that radiant energy is conserved, and transferred to kinetic energy and orbital energy when it is absorbed?
5. That a region of molecules emitting radiation radiates in all directions, including downward toward a surface of potentially higher temperature?
6. That CO2 molecules absorb and emit radiation in the LWIR portion of the spectrum?
If you put these all together, then an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in an increase in downwelling LWIR at the surface, thus reducing the cooling rate of the surface; and some concomitant increase in the vaporization rate of surface water.
richardscourtney: CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) because a CO2 molecule can absorb a photon of appropriate wavelength, and the absorbed energy of the photon becomes vibrational, rotational or stretching energy of the molecule.
And a CO2 molecule “can absorb a photon of appropriate wavelength” why? Because the wavelengths are tuned to the electron orbits? Because the wavelengths are tuned to the C-O bond lengths? I think you are correct that it is the second. Thank you for your reminder.
The bonds are electron orbitals, but the distinction you made is still important, and I wrote the matter incorrectly.
Matthew R Marler says: August 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm
“Good books have been written that contain detailed elaborations of the equilibrium model of the Earth, even though Earth doesn’t have an equilibrium climate.”
But they at least explain their numbers and approximations. People know what they mean. And the numbers aren’t just made up.
“What did you think about my propositions that the next 3 doublings, at current rates, would take about 450 years and produce around 3C of warming?”
There is currently about 800 Gtons C in the air and we’re emitting nearly 10 Gt/year, rising rapidly. So the first doubling will be well short of 80 years. As to 3°C, that’s coming back to CS. I think you’re saying no feedbacks; I think water vapor at least is certainly a positive, at least 2x.
“””””…..agfosterjr says:
August 11, 2014 at 7:15 am
george e. smith says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:16 pm
“Heat is (chaotic) mechanical kinetic energy. It IS NOT electro-magnetic radiation, which is a propagating field .”
This is argument by definition. …..”””””
Suit yourself agfosterjr, I gave no formal “definition”. I simply said what “heat” (noun if you must) is, and what it is not. I don’t see why we grant the Romans the right to tell us now what “heat” or “heating” is; they had not the foggiest idea what it is. And you shouldn’t be guilty of “argument by definition.”
I’ve actually calculated how much heat you could conduct from the sun to the earth, using a (93 million miles long) rod made of type II-a diamond. And even if you waited a year, it would not warm a thimble full of water, up to where you could measure the Temperature rise. And in any case, the diamond close to the sun, would evaporate, and break the connection; not to mention that type II-a diamond, only has its super high thermal conductivity, at 100 K temperatures.
Dunno, what “electro-magnetic energy” and “specific heat” definitions have to do with anything.
But I make it a point to never stand between someone, and a cliff they are determined to jump off.
So I’ll hold your coat; but keep on going.
g
george e. smith says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm
You most certainly did give a formal definition: radiant energy is not heat. This is tantamount to saying the sun is not hot. And you remain oblivious to the violence you do to the English language. Heat, to heat, heating, warm, to warm, warmth, hot, calor, caliente, etc. These words were all around before the atom and thermodynamics, and we all knew what they meant until a bunch of bossy pedants came along and told us we didn’t. If you want a word to mean something for a specific time and purpose, go ahead and provide a provisional definition. But don’t go burning dictionaries and telling us we were wrong all along. –AGF
Nick Stokes: People know what they mean.
I don’t think many people know what the “equilibrium” means in a system like the Earth that has no equilibrium. The positive water vapor feedback follows from the equilibrium assumption because it assumes that the extra 3.8W/m^2 increase persists long enough for an equilibrium to occur in the water column. If instead you look at the non-equilibrium case of day/night temperature differences and seasonal differences, and the hydrological cycle (with clouds) the case for a positive water vapor feedback disappears, because the 3.8W/m^2 does provide enough energy both to vaporize the water and raise surface temperature.
The equilibrium model is tractable, but its relationship to reality is unclear.
But I did ask for your opinion, and I thank you for it..
Matthew R Marler, “equilibrium” to me can refers to the top-of-atmosphere measurement of energy coming in and energy going out. Right now there is more energy coming in than going out; i.e., disequilibrium. That energy churns around in countless ways once it is inside the system, but it is the top-of-atmosphere measurement that is our primary equilibrium concern.
I’m actually encouraged that many of the posters here DO understand the difference between EM radiation and “heat” (noun). Both are forms of “energy”, so is electricity. So is mass (per Einstein).
And the can be interconverted; but here’s the rub.
“Heat” has a special handicap as a repository of MECHANICAL ENERGY.
When you whack your thumb with a hammer; every single molecule in your hammer, is travelling towards your thumb, in essentially the same direction; they all operate in concert. That’s why it hurts so much.
Don’t hit your thumb with a hammer; HEAT IT instead.
In the case of “heat energy”, which I have said is mechanical energy (like your hammer), the damn molecules can’t agree among themselves, which way to go. So they don’t co-operate in squishing your thumb.
“Heat energy” is the garbage dump of mechanical energy.
The sun can heat (verb) the earth; BUT we get NO “heat” (noun) from the sun.
We make it ALL here on earth, by wasting most of the good Cadillac style (maybe Mercedes) electro-magnetic radiant energy (photons) that we DO get from the sun.
But we don’t waste ALL of it.
Much of it, is turned into grass or wood, or phytoplankton, or oil and coal,instead of heat,
Gee whizz, these days, we can even turn some of it (EMR) into electricity, by means of PV cells.
Wind is NOT as good as PV solar cells. Whyzatt ?? Well to get wind turbine energy, you first have to make “heat energy” (noun). So you put the good stuff (EMR) into the garbage dump , to let it rot and become “heat energy” (maybe phonons), and then you start from that load of crap, to make wind.
Very bad form.
Most forms of energy can be turned into waste “heat” (noun), with almost 100% efficiency; but “heat energy” can not be turned by any process, into ANY other form of energy, with 100% conversion efficiency. Entropy things, and the Carnot efficiency, set a limit to that type of conversion.
BUT “hat energy” (noun) does have a trump card (the Joker) to play.
ONLY HEAT ENERGY (NOUN) CAN CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE. Of anything.
So why don’t we let Mother Gaia take care of turning good pristine solar EMR energy into stored chemical energy, like phytoplankton, grass, wood, coal, gas and oil (unless gravity makes those last two), and then we can all enjoy those fossil and notyetfossilized chemical energy fuels, that MG provided for us, and continues to do so.
g
rgbatduke;
A point I’ve been trying to make, with little success, by describing the atmospheric resistance to radiation as a set of resistors in series rather than a single resistor. The marginal change to the resistance near the Earth’s surface, where the resistance is the largest is much smaller than the marginal change at height, where the resistance is the smallest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
An interesting approach. Are you attributing the steadily increasing size of the resistors as you approach earth surface solely to the energy flux required by SB Law, or are you also allowing for increased water vapour which doesn’t know up from down and hence the larger concentrations closer to earth surface must resist the downward flux from above just as they resist the upward flux from below?
agfosterjr says, August 11, 2014 at 11:44 am:
“I can’t make a lick of sense out of that.”
Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Seeing that it looks as though there is a 97% consensus on the comment threads of this blog that “We shall not get that most basic of thermodynamic concepts that is ‘HEAT’. We shall rather do out utmost to confuse it as much as possible, so as to make AGW seem plausible.”
When Climate ‘Science’TM burst onto the stage with its Great Green Confusion Brigade and hijacked normal physics with its ‘back radiation heating’ story, epitomised by the K&T97 Earth energy budget diagram (and all its successors), the clear distinction between what heat is and isn’t, and what heat can do that things that aren’t can’t, successfully ended up completely jumbled in people’s minds.
What the ‘back radiation heating’ story and these diagrams are all about, after all, is to let people think that the ‘back radiation’ down from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is actually an extra, positive energy INPUT, able to raise the internal energy of the surface and thus its temperature by 33 degrees beyond a pure solar radiative equilibrium. In other words, even though it is of course never stated in plain words, the goal is to make people think that the ‘back radiation’ in itself will be able to heat the surface, meaning, people are deliberately tricked into conflating radiation (radiant emittance), like the DWLWIR and UWLWIR, with actual radiative heat transfer, like the solar flux. All arrows in the K&T type diagrams are actual heat fluxes EXCEPT those megathick DWLWIR and UWLWIR arrows. Is this pretty important distinction ever mentioned anywhere? Nope. Of course not. That’s the trick. They don’t come out and say it, that they expect the ‘back radiation’ to result in a direct thermal effect AS IF IT WERE HEAT. All they need to do is leave the two radiation arrows there just next to all the heat arrows and let the impression, the implicit notion sink in that they all represent the same thing, energy transfers equal in properties and abilities.
And people have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. And that’s why we are where we are today.
The result? No one seems to know (or care about) what the actual physical definition of heat is anymore. Even though it is still one of the most basic and most useful concepts of thermodynamics, incorporated into its very Laws, and one of the most easily sensed and experienced physical phenomena there is.
Heat is the reason you feel warm next to a fire and cold when opening the door to your freezer.
Why do you feel warm next to a fire? Because the fire is warmer than you, therefore transferring energy to you AS HEAT. Why do you feel cold in front of the open freezer? Because you are warmer than the freezer, therefore transferring energy to it AS HEAT. Your internal energy (U) increases next to the fire, but decreases next to the freezer. Making you warmer/colder. Simply because of the different heat transfers.
Just like you cool to your freezer, the global surface of the Earth cools to the atmosphere. Because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, it transfers HEAT to it. It doesn’t get any heat back. Seems like people are in bad need of a reeducation on this.
In a thermal exchange (a heat transfer), what isn’t heat doesn’t heat. In the radiative exchange between the surface and the atmosphere, neither the DWLWIR nor the UWLWIR are heat. Therefore, none of them will cause anything to warm (or cool). ONLY the net of the two, the net energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere, the HEAT, will cause warming/cooling. Because that is the amount of energy which is actually at any one time brought from the surface to the atmosphere. The surplus, so to say. It all happens in one continuous process, after all. The reduction in surface internal energy equals the increase in atmospheric internal energy. 398 W/m^2 UP, 345 W/^2 DOWN? Doesn’t matter. They’re not heat. They’re EM radiation. Radiant emittances. Within one integrated radiation field. [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 UP is what matters. The radiative heat.
Climate ‘Science’TM has all but managed to make us forget about this basic knowledge.
Heat is defined as the energy transferred spontaneously from hot to cold as a result of the temperature difference. When it comes to radiative heat transfer, the heat is the ‘net energy’ always moving only from the hotter to the colder object. It is a unidirectional flow of energy. Just like a waterfall, like wind or an electric current. Always from high to low potential. Spontaneously.
This definition is not controversial at all. Well, here for some reason it seems extremely controversial. I’ve been called an ignorant and an idiot for daring to discuss it and its corollary.
The ‘net heat’ term comes from the First Law. The Q term is the sum of heat IN and heat OUT of a system. But the heat OUT is not going to where the heat IN is coming from. They do not directly oppose each other. ‘Heats’ never do. It’s in the definition. They are not part of the same heat transfer, but of two different ones. The central system absorbs heat (heat IN) from its heat source (hot reservoir), a hotter place. It then also emits heat (heat OUT), but to a colder place, its heat sink (cold reservoir). If the heat IN equals the heat OUT, we can say that the ‘net heat’ is zero.
The surface of the Earth gets its heat in from the Sun, a hotter place, its heat source/hot reservoir. At the same time it sheds heat out to the atmosphere, a cooler place, its heat sink/cold reservoir. These two need to balance for the temperature to remain the same. The only thing the atmosphere could ever do in this three-body situation is limit the heat OUT from the surface, meaning the energy transferred away from it per unit of time. It can limit its cooling. It can never increase its heating, that is, warm it directly. Only the Sun warms it directly. The atmosphere suppresses its cooling rate at a certain surface temperature to let the surface balance its heat IN with its heat OUT.
How?
The atmosphere has a mass. That means it has the ability to warm. And it will and does warm. Simply from being conductively > convectively coupled with the solar-heated surface. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn’t. Therefore the presence of the atmosphere will reduce the heat OUT from the surface and force it to equilibrate at a higher steady-state temperature. Simple as that.
george e. smith says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm
“The sun can heat (verb) the earth; BUT we get NO “heat” (noun) from the sun.”
See, this is prescriptive lexicography. And it’s on mighty shaky ground. Try teaching that to a first grader. And I guarantee, I’ll be siding with the first grader. But I’ll give you an ‘A’ for style. –AGF
“””””…..agfosterjr says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm
george e. smith says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm
You most certainly did give a formal definition: radiant energy is not heat. This is tantamount to saying the sun is not hot. …..”””””
Well ag, sorry to tell you; NOTHING is “tantamount” to SOMETHING ELSE.
That is why we even have language. Words have meaning, and “other” words, have “other” meaning.
“””… radiant energy is not heat. This is tantamount to saying the sun is not hot….”””
What on earth does saying “” radiant energy is not heat.””, have anything to do with the sun ??
Last time I thought about it,
A DEFINITION tells you what SOMETHING IS ; it does not tell you what something is not.
We would use up all the trees in the world for paper, if we simply wrote down a complete list of things that RADIANT ENERGY IS NOT.
I would call that an “undefinition”, but then that would be “other words.”
But I’ll stand aside so you can keep going.
“””””…..agfosterjr says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:52 pm
george e. smith says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm
“The sun can heat (verb) the earth; BUT we get NO “heat” (noun) from the sun.”
See, this is prescriptive lexicography. And it’s on mighty shaky ground. Try teaching that to a first grader. And I guarantee, I’ll be siding with the first grader. But I’ll give you an ‘A’ for style. –AGF …..”””””
Shifting the discourse from Physics to “lexicography” on this site, is likely to get people to confuse you with Eli Rabett. He likes to use “other words” too.
g out
Kristian,
That same debate has been going on here for years. I don’t think it will be resolved today.
My 2¢: There is a small book, not much more than a hundred pages, by Atkins called the Four Laws. The book is cheap if bought used on Amazon; well worth the time and money. It explains thermodynamics from the Zeroth Law through the 3rd Law very well. It’s not a ponderous tome, or a textbook.
I have my own views on whether heat flows only one way, or whether it is a statistical situation where the net transfer is what matters. But I’ve learned that those who agree with me don’t need convincing, and those who think differently will not change their minds. So I’ll lurk on this thread.☺
matayaya: Matthew R Marler, “equilibrium” to me can refers to the top-of-atmosphere measurement of energy coming in and energy going out.
The calculations based on equilibrium assume that the the Earth surface has a uniform temperature, uniform illumination, and uniform texture. The TOA energy fluxes averaged over the year and each radial angle balance closely, but at any given time the energy flux into a region may exceed the energy flux out, which is how your neighborhood may warm in the day time and cool at night, and have greater mean temp in summer than in winter.
Sorry, Ed Hoskins,
You have managed to take a simple mathmatical concept, the logarithmic response, then convert it to an obfuscatory jumble of numbers.
The pictorial use of linear portions of CO2 concentration, like 400-500, 500-600 ppm etc., is particularly confusing.
Some fundamental concepts are not even addressed. For example, what are the measured CO2 concentrations at altitudes where the alleged GHG heating is supposed to do its work? Is top of atmosphere more germane than top of Mauna Loa or just above the surface of land or sea?
There is little place for non-physical % units such as ‘remaining CO2 effect on temperature’.
Finally, do try to avoid emotional words like ‘greeted with unmitigated joy.’
Kristian says: August 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm
“What the ‘back radiation heating’ story and these diagrams are all about, after all, is to let people think that the ‘back radiation’ down from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is actually an extra, positive energy INPUT, able to raise the internal energy of the surface and thus its temperature by 33 degrees beyond a pure solar radiative equilibrium.”
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said about nett energy fluxes etc. But we part ways there.
If you had a conductive heat path, you can only measure nett flow, unless you get down to a really microscopic scale. And you characterize the path by its thermal conductivity.
With radiative transfer, it is possible to measure flux both ways, even though there is an obligate linkage. So, with S-B in mind, people do. And the measure that replaces conductivity is the back radiation. That is how the impeding effect of CO2 is expressed. Quantitatively, it works just fine. But you could convert it to an effective conductivity if you want.
This is just radiative physics. Climate scientists didn’t invent it.
dbstealey says, August 11, 2014 at 3:23 pm:
“Kristian,
That same debate has been going on here for years. I don’t think it will be resolved today.
(…) I’ve learned that those who agree with me don’t need convincing, and those who think differently will not change their minds.”
Yeah, strange how that works … I guess I’m a fool for being an eternal optimist.
rgbatduke says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm
—————————————-
Your comment in part –
“Because there are processes that “short circuit” the radiative loss channel — notably convection and convection carrying latent heat — even this distributed, nonlinear shift in total resistance in the radiative channels is diminished in its impact by the shunt resistance”
– seems to echo the wise words of Sir George Simpson from his 1938 response to Callendar –
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”
You further state –
“In the end, it all comes down to the GCMs. Either this problem is solvable with our currently accessible computational resources, or else it is not.”
To which I would respond with a qualified “yes”, if the problem is stated as “will adding radiative gases to our atmosphere cause measurable warming or cooling?” Currently GCMs focus their CFD capability on the horizontal and parametrise too much in the vertical (computational resources are too limited for high resolution in both for long runs). If this ratio were reversed with the horizontal parametrised and CFD dedicated to the vertical, better results could be achieved.
As to whether these results would be considered “better” by those currently relying on GCMs to push their case is another question entirely 😉
george e. smith says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm
“A DEFINITION tells you what SOMETHING IS ; it does not tell you what something is not.”
==================================================================
Well let’s look at the word “define.” ‘fin’ means ‘end’ or ‘limit’ so that the word means to delimit or draw boundaries, that is indeed, to determine what it is not, or how far it goes, much like determining a flight envelope. So yes, a large part of defining a word is in telling what it does not mean, as you have done above. When asserting that the sun does not heat anything you are in fact defining the word heat as something that has nothing to do with the sun. In so doing you divorce the verb ‘heat’ from the adjective ‘hot,’ and this is something that a first grader, or 12th grade debate student or freshman logic student might have a hard time swallowing.
It is of course nonsense, reflecting uncharacteristically on your usually insightful observations. Sorry. –AGF
dbstealey: Thanks for recommending the Atkins book, “Four Laws That Drive the Universe” (Oxford University Press, 2007). You beat me to it. It is very good for a variety of levels of technical background.
There is a quote in it on the definition of heat that impressed me enough that I typed it out a while ago, so I will show it here:
“In everyday language, heat is both a noun and a verb. Heat flows; we heat. In thermodynamics heat is not an entity or even a form of energy: heat is a mode of transfer of energy. It is not a form of energy, or a fluid of some kind, or anything of any kind. Heat is the transfer of energy by virtue of a temperature difference. Heat is the name of a process, not the name of an entity.
Everyday discourse would be stultified if we were to insist on the precise use of the word heat, for it is enormously convenient to speak of heat flowing from here to there, and to speak of heating an object. The first of these everyday usages was motivated by the view that heat is an actual fluid that flows between objects at different temperatures, and this powerful imagery is embedded indelibly in our language. Indeed, there are many aspects of the migration of energy down temperature gradients that are fruitfully treated mathematically by regarding heat as the flow of a massless (“imponderable”) fluid. But that is essentially a coincidence, it is not an indicator that heat is actually a fluid any more than the spread of consumer choice in a population, which can also be treated by similar equations, is a tangible fluid.
What we should say, but it is usually too tedious actually to say it repeatedly, is that energy is transferred as heat (that is, as the result of a temperature difference). To heat, the verb, should for precision be replaced by circumlocutions such as ‘we contrive a temperature difference such that energy flows through a diathermic wall in a desired direction’. Life, though, is too short, and it is expedient, except when we want to be really precise, to adopt the casual easiness of everyday language, and we shall cross our fingers and do so, but do bear in mind how that shorthand should be interpreted.”
Kristian says
Kristian this is the point that Harry Hoffman makes in his comparison of the earths atmosphere and Venus’s atmosphere. His claim is esstially that if you compare earths atmoshepher and Venus atmosphere in areas of the same density and factor out the difference in the amount of energy received from the sun, you should get the same temperature in the atmosphere. The point being that the only factor that is relivent for temperature is the mass/density of the atmosphere and the amount of energy available coming in. The specific composition of the atmosphere in his argument is irrelevant.
I have not had time to investigate his results but they appear to be consistent with your argument and thus would be a real world example of what you are saying.