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.
Nick Stokes:
Your post at August 13, 2014 at 3:54 pm selectively quotes from my post at August 13, 2014 at 7:51 am
It says
Yes, and that is why I wrote but you chose to ignore and not quote
However, that could be overcome by experimental design.
The point of my illustration was that two bodies at different temperatures which are thermally connected do not ALWAYS experience cooling of the hotter body and warming of the colder body.
An illustration needs to be appropriate for its intended recipient. The ice/water illustration is appropriate for someone with the limited knowledge displayed by Kristian. It would not have been appropriate for me to have provided an illustration such as the black hole described by Joe Born at August 13, 2014 at 2:00 am.
Your pedantic point can be refuted in that context by amending the case to being:
when the hotter body cools to 0°C when the ice/water mixture stabilises to 0°C so there is no eventual warming and – at best – the cooler body only experiences temporary warming which exists only in theory because it is too small to be measured.
Richard
I’ve always wondered if the IR content of solar radiation makes much of a contribution towards saturation of CO2 absorption bands.
Trick:
At August 13, 2014 at 12:48 pm you wrote saying to me
NO! You are wrong! And your belief is a denial of basic scientific principles.
I do not need to detail your errors because rgbatduke has already done it in a series of excellent posts to this thread. At August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm he writes saying to you
I commend all that post to you and its addendum. This link will take you straight to it.
Richard
richardscourtney says: August 14, 2014 at 1:33 am
“Your pedantic point can be refuted in that context by amending the case to being:
when the hotter body cools to 0°C when the ice/water mixture stabilises to 0°C so there is no eventual warming and – at best – the cooler body only experiences temporary warming which exists only in theory because it is too small to be measured.”
No, it’s not a pedantic point. I have dealt a lot with heat flow over the years, and I think Trick’s original point was right. If you put two bodies of different (uniform) temperatures together, the warm one will cool and the cool will warm. One can devise ways in which the change in sensible heat could be made small, but not zero.
When you bring two bodies together, there is a temperature discontinuity. That is, a very steep gradient, and an initial very large flux. That early part has a similarity solution. Heat will rapidly pass from one body to the other.
Then a melting front progresses. You can make it complex by stirring, but it is a Stefan problem. Heat flux with a temperature gradient is an essential part.
I thought your original objection was pedantic. But my response was, it doesn’t work.
Nick Stokes:
re your post at August 14, 2014 at 2:31 am.
If it makes you happy to think you were right then do, but your point was wrong.
As I said,
I spell out one simple example.
The ice at 0°C could be a few atoms thickness coating the inside of a container at 0°C enclosing water at 0°C.
The thermal transfer would be from a small amount of warmer water in which the container is immersed. The intial transfer of heat from the container wall would be to the surface layer of ice molecules and entropy would power it not temperature difference. That initial thermal transfer would result in melting not temperature rise.
But all of this pedantic interaction is pointless. As I said to you,
So, if it makes you happy to think you were right then do.
Richard
Curt says, August 13, 2014 at 11:24 pm:
“Every time I think you cannot get more confused, you manage to amaze me.”
*Sigh* That’s because you’re incapable of grasping what I’m telling you.
I should hardly bother to write this response, but here goes.
You have a weird approach to reality. This is not a radiative problem at all, Curt. That’s what’s wrong with the energy balance that ‘Climate ScienceTM’ sets up for Earth’s surface?
It’s a convective problem.
You and the establishment pretend that this is a radiative balance problem for the surface. It’s not. A heated surface surrounded by a fluid in a gravity field can NEVER (do you hear? NEVER!) achieve a pure radiative equilibrium with its heat source. Why? Because it will always preferably lose energy by conductive>convective heat transfer to the fluid. As long as the fluid’s there and the heat is coming in to the surface from its heat source, this will be the case.
You are absolutely blind to this fact, it seems.
The pretend surface radiative equilibrium that the Great Green Climate Brigade has devised for us is nothing but a chimera.
This is how the real world works, Curt. Read it carefully:
#1) The Sun heats the surface. It transfers energy as heat to the surface by radiation. The transfer is 165 W/m^2 on average.
#2) The surface absorbs the radiative heat flux from the Sun, its internal energy increases and it warms as a result.
#3) The surface in turn rids itself of the absorbed energy and transfers it to the surface air layer above (and space). It does so by evaporation, conduction and radiation. At dynamic equilibrium (steady state), the mean energy shed equals the mean energy absorbed: 165 W/m^2. This is split like this (global average): evaporation 88 W/m^2, conduction 24 W/m^2, radiation 52-53 W/m^2 (of which 32-33 go to the atmosphere and 20 directly to space). (From Stephens et al. 2012.)
#4a) The surface energy transferred to the surface air as heat through conduction and radiation, is quickly absorbed, warms the air as a result, expanding it, making it less dense. Almost all of the (289K) surface radiation either goes directly to space via the atmospheric window or is absorbed near the surface by water vapour, a little bit also by CO2.
#4b) The surface energy transferred to the surface air as ‘latent heat’ through evaporation, makes the air lighter and buoyant by the injection of H2O molecules.
#5) 4a+b automatically and naturally initiates convective uplift. In other words, the original surface energy is brought up and away from the surface air layer, into the atmosphere at large, by the process of convection – the bulk movement of air. This is, in simple terms, how energy is transported through a fluid: Heating (energy in) at the bottom > energy moving with the fluid from bottom to top > cooling (energy out) at the top.
#6) Climbing up through the tropospheric column towards the tropopause, the surface-heated air warms the surrounding air by doing work on it (expanding into it). At the same time, the ‘latent heat of vaporisation’ held inside the WV is progressively released as it condenses upon cooling. In fact, the main tropospheric ‘warmer’ is water vapour condensing, moving upwards by way of convection:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/HeatamprainJRA-25_zpsda38e24a.png
#7) Finally the surface energy is radiated to space from all levels of the troposphere, from wherever it finds a line out, mostly (naturally) from the upper levels. The main (almost exclusive) ‘cooler’? H2O in all its forms and all its glory:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
#8) The absorptivity of the air + the natural mechanism of buoyant/convective uplift upon warming (relative to surroundings) precludes ‘back radiation’ from ever having a noticeable influence back down towards the surface. The radiation is ‘forced’ to leak upward towards space, because that’s the way the convective conveyor belt moves. This is a fine-tuned machinery designed for the Earth to be able to rid itself of as much energy as it gets in.
#9) The tropospheric temperature gradient (the environmental lapse rate) is maintained globally fluctuating around the ideal adiabatic lapse rate by the tight interaction between solar surface heating and the direct convective/evaporative response. There is nothing internal thermal radiation can do to upset this large-scale balancing act. The closest thing would be if it weren’t able to cool (radiatively) from the top.
So you see, Curt, the 52-53 W/m^2 (or your 63) is the amount of energy that goes out from the surface by radiation to begin with. No more, no less. That’s radiation’s contribution to the surface energy balance between IN (from the Sun) and OUT (to the atmosphere/space). That’s all the energy it has at its disposal. Nothing of this energy returns to the surface. It is absorbed by the surface air, brought up by convection and emitted at altitude to space. Just like the conductive heat and the latent heat. That’s the way the energy from the Sun moves through the Earth system.
If the atmosphere were transparent to IR, the 52-53 W/m^2 would simply go straight through to space in its entirety. The lapse rate wouldn’t become any steeper making the surface any colder. Conduction>convection would still bring surface energy into the troposphere, warming it. In fact, the opposite would happen. With a radiatively inactive atmosphere, the Earth system could not adequately shed its absorbed energy to space. And it would heat up. No radiatively active gases, no stability.
The radiatively active gases (the so-called ‘GHGs’) do not enable the atmosphere to warm from the surface. It is warmed through convection. They enable it to cool to space. Because this can only happen through radiation.
Bye.
Kristian:
I write to again remind you that you have not answered my question. I iterate the matter for your benefit because I am trying to help you to start to understand the scientific issues of which you display such great ignorance and misunderstanding.
I remind that I first asked you to clarify the matter in my post at August 12, 2014 at 10:13 am which is here.
It said
Richard
Kristian says, August 14, 2014 at 3:44 am:
“A heated surface surrounded by a fluid in a gravity field can NEVER (do you hear? NEVER!) achieve a pure radiative equilibrium with its heat source. Why? Because it will always preferably lose energy by conductive>convective heat transfer to the fluid. As long as the fluid’s there and the heat is coming in to the surface from its heat source, this will be the case.”
A red hot piece of metal lying somewhere in the open on Earth can of course be approximated as a ‘pure radiator’. Conductive/convective loss can be ignored. At its surface. But this is of course not what I’m talking about. Such a piece of metal is not directly coupled to the atmosphere the way the surface of the Earth is. It can never raise its temperature, establishing a steady temp gradient up through it in the process. And it’s very hot indeed. Not -18C. I assume people will appreciate the difference. But yes, to be completely precise, the “NEVER” in the previous comment does come with this caveat.
richardscourtney says, August 14, 2014 at 3:58 am:
“Kristian:
I write to again remind you that you have not answered my question. I iterate the matter for your benefit because I am trying to help you to start to unders …”
No, Richard. Sorry, but I’m not interested in having this conversation with you. You accuse me of inventing physics for some obscure ideological reason when the physics I promote is something you can find presented and explained in any textbook on thermodynamics. Just open one and you’ll see.
Your idea that ‘atmospheric back radiation’ can and does ‘heat’/do ‘work’ on the surface is your delusion. Not mine.
Kristian:
At August 14, 2014 at 4:14 am you say to me in total
Ah. I see. You know you are spouting bollocks so you are “not interested in having this conversation”.
I “accused” you of nothing. At August 12, 2014 at 2:42 am you wrote that your reason for pretending heat does not exist is
That is a purely political statement. So, YOU said you are pretending heat does not exist for reasons of pure politics that have no relation to science. I accused you of nothing but accepted your statement of your reasoning.
I said nothing about ideology: that is an other of your untrue imaginings.
The nonsense you promote is refuted by every textbook on thermodynamics. Indeed, this was explained in detail in this thread by rgbatduke in this thread at August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm and his explanation (with addendum) can be read here.
I have no “delusion” about backradiation. I know that EM radiation can transform to heat when absorbed and radiation is emitted in all direction from within the atmosphere so about half of this emission travels down towards the Earth’s surface where it can be absorbed to become heat. That is empirical reality. Your denial of reality seems to be deliberate.
In summation, your post I am answering consists solely of a series of blatant lies attempting to justify your promoting falsehoods that you know are untrue.
Richard
I doubt if much back radiation takes place. An IR photon from the heated land that happens to be absorbed by a GHG excites the molecule producing stretching, bending and rotation. The excited molecule is likely to collide with another gas molecule before it has a chance to re-emit a photon. The collision will pass on energy as kinetic energy (speed of the molecule). If a parcel of air has its kinetic energy raised in this way it will possess a higher temperature than before. It will probably expand, doing work against adjacent parcels and also rise by convection.
@Schoedinger’s Cat:
(1) There is near zero net surface IR in the self-absorbed GHG bands, hence no GHG-absorbed IR in those bands (the 23 W/m^2 is non self-absorbed H2O bands, ~kilometres optical depth).
(2) In the Tyndall Experiment, the GHG-absorbed then gas-phase thermalised energy is balanced by equal emission from the local gas volume of the same IR energy, thermalised at the inner surface of the brass tube. If that did not happen, the absorptivity of the gas would be greater than the emissivity, not permitted by Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation for Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.
This science has slipped under Climate Alchemists’ Radar. There can be no ‘back radiation’, no Enhanced GHE. I shall leave the discussion as to why there is zero CO2-AGW for another time!
Kristian says, August 14, 2014 at 3:44 am:
“So you see, Curt, the 52-53 W/m^2 (or your 63) is the amount of energy that goes out from the surface by radiation to begin with. No more, no less. That’s radiation’s contribution to the surface energy balance between IN (from the Sun) and OUT (to the atmosphere/space). That’s all the energy it has at its disposal. Nothing of this energy returns to the surface. It is absorbed by the surface air, brought up by convection and emitted at altitude to space. Just like the conductive heat and the latent heat. That’s the way the energy from the Sun moves through the Earth system.”
The nonsense about the Earth’s surface having to radiate directly according to its temperature is based solely on a fundamentalist – and ultimately flawed – interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation: P/A = es*T^4. This equation specifically describes a situation where a black (gray) body is radiating into a perfect heat sink at 0 K. It is only applicable when the object radiating can be considered a ‘pure radiator’; either it faces no temperature at all or it is much, much hotter than its surroundings so that surrounding temperatures can be ignored (approximated as zero). In this case all we need to know is the temperature (and the emissivity) of the object radiating. Output (P/A) and temp is directly related.
Output and temp is NOT directly related when the object radiating is surrounded by temperatures fairly close to its own. Then the radiative heat transfer equation applies: P/A = es*(Th^4 – Tc^4). The energy (radiative heat) output from the radiating (hot) object in this case (like with Earth’s surface) is directly related rather to the temperature DIFFERENCE between it and its surroundings.
When, on top of this, energy loss mechanisms other than radiation are also available, the direct relation between EM emission & temp becomes even more diluted.
Mathematically, though, it’s still there. Hence the two opposing terms on the right-hand side of the radiative heat transfer equation. They do, however, not represent real (detectable) fluxes of energy, only potential fluxes, emittances, if the object(s) radiating did so into a perfect heat sink at 0 K, that is, thermally isolated from the other one.
The only thing we ever actually detect in a thermal exchange is always the heat (going out or coming in, depending on the temperature of the surroundings relative to you/the sensor). The actual transfer of energy between the systems. The other two terms (UWLWIR and DWLWIR) need to be calculated from this and temperature readings. In the case of Earth’s surface, we first detect the heat going out and measure the temperature of the surface (assumed to have an emissivity of 1). From this we can then first calculate the surface emittance (its potential flux to 0 K) that is the UWLWIR term and from this we can finally simply subtract the detected heat and get the atmosphere emittance (its potential flux to 0 K) that is the DWLWIR term. The mathematical ‘net’ (sum) of these two terms is then P/A, the radiative heat. Circular accounting in a way, starting and ending with the same value.
This is why, in order to get a direct reading of the atmospheric radiative spectrum from ground level, we need to turn it into a heat source to our instrument sensor, making the incoming heat flux as pure as possible. To do this, we cool our sensor to very, very low temperatures.
If we could just freely detect (isolate) cool downward atmospheric radiation regardless of the coincident/coexistent presence of warm upward surface radiation within the same radiation field, then no sensor would have to be cooled to freezing temperatures like this to find it. We have to turn it into radiative ‘heat’ and make the sensor resemble its near-perfect heat sink.
rgb 3:09pm: “…delta Q is the heat — defined a variety of ways, but essentially as internal energy spontaneously transferred…”
Then it is better to teach modern science as delta Q is the internal energy spontaneously transferred…just skip over the “heat” word as it doesn’t exist in science anymore & adds confusion in science students.
There is no need to add the extraneous word “heat” which is simply a hold over from caloric theory in the last millennium.
If you propose “heat” in joules has a separate existence in nature from energy in joules then devise a test to measure heat separately from total energy say in a glass of near boiling tap water. Absent that formality “heat” does not exist. Energy exists. We already know the water molecular kinetic energy mean can be measured by a mercury thermometer which reads out in temperature (F, C or K) not joules. It is widely generally accepted and held that temperature is not heat.
Trick Q: Which contains more “heat”: 1) a near boiling glass of 12oz. tap water or 2) a Great Lake on Jan. 1?
The correct answer is critical to prove a thorough understanding of the top post title & text.
@Trick: what is the difference of total energy of a 12 oz glass of water at 70 deg C (a) at sea level and (b) at the top of Everest?
Answers on a post card please.
Kristian 6:28am: “This (S-B) equation specifically describes a situation where a black (gray) body is radiating into a perfect heat sink at 0 K.”
No, 0K sink is not needed as none exist so this would be a disaster if really req.d. Again, you are differing from Max Planck’s own words. Find and read Max Planck’s orig. paper. Planck distribution of which the S-B is the integral over any freq. interval is exactly the same whether the object in question radiates to a vacuum or is covered by an atm. Planck says so in his own words setting the stage – based on his extensive testing.
Planck distribution & S-B depend only on frequency interval and temperature & some major constants of nature. That’s it. Those are never zero in nature. Thus all matter radiates real energy at all frequencies at all temperatures at all times.
The only assumptions in Max Planck paper is the distribution applies to bodies of macro positive radii and wavelengths much larger than the diameter of the object in question, otherwise diffraction also becomes important to understand nature’s radiation field.
You will need this Planck paper reading to understand the top post.
Kristian:
You have spent a huge amount of time countering arguments I did not make, but did not respond to the arguments I did make.
Earlier you had argued that on a planet with an atmosphere transparent to LWIR, the atmosphere would absorb a mean 79 W/m^2 from solar radiation and 63 (or whatever) W/m^2 conductive/convective power from the planetary surface. You argued that this would be a steady-state condition, but provided no means for such an atmosphere to reject any power. I asked you how this could be, and I ask this again. There is no point in going further until you provide a convincing answer.
Curt says, August 14, 2014 at 7:54 am:
“Earlier you had argued that on a planet with an atmosphere transparent to LWIR, the atmosphere would absorb a mean 79 W/m^2 from solar radiation and 63 (or whatever) W/m^2 conductive/convective power from the planetary surface. You argued that this would be a steady-state condition, but provided no means for such an atmosphere to reject any power. I asked you how this could be, and I ask this again. There is no point in going further until you provide a convincing answer.”
It seems you’re incapable of not misread (or rather, misrepresent) what I say, Curt. It appears to be one of your favoured debate tactics.
Where did I say what you claim I’ve said here? Can you please provide the correct quote plus the time and place?
In fact, I know I haven’t said it, because the 63 figure is specifically NOT from conductive/convective heat transfer, but from LWIR heat transfer. And the 79 solar figure would also not be absorbed by the atmosphere if this happened to be radiatively inactive, but rather go straight down to the surface.
Why do you feel you have to ‘misunderstand’ what I say all the time to build an argument against me, Curt? It happens ALL THE TIME. Is it because you’ll rather let me spend my time sorting your misunderstandings and straw men out rather than focus on your lack of a coherent argument?
If the atmosphere absorbs say 100 W/m^2 from conductive/convective heat transfer on a daily basis from the surface, but cannot radiate any of it away to space, how do you suggest the Earth system gets rid of it?
So, does longwave radiation “flow” both ways?
Don’t argue endless Eisteinian “thought experiments” about theorectical endless vertical tubes in a perfect gas world. Measure the longwave radiation.
Place 6 thin steel plates (A, B, C, D, E, and F), each 1 meter x 1 meter x 2 mm thick, in a vacuum chamber.
At that thickness, the temperature of the farside (side 2) will be the same as the temperature of the nearside (side 1).
Each plate is 18 mm distance from its neighbors.
At those dimensions and distances, there is almost no radiation from the enclosure walls at all into plates B, C, D, nor E. It doesn’t matter what temperature the chamber is, although a low emissive chamber wall will further reduce extraneous effects in the final plate.
In a vacuum, there will be no complicating convection nor evaporation effects; the plates do not touch each other, so there is no conduction losses. All energy transmitted from Plate A to Plate E can only come from the emitted LW radiation from the next hotter plate.
Now, heat the plate A electrically on the outside (side 1) .
The heat energy from the current will increase the temperature of Plate A, side 1 and side 2. And both side 1 and side 2 of Plate A will begin radiating the heat away from both of its surfaces via LW radiation. Conventional theory holds that side 1, Plate A, will radiate back towards the chamber wall.
But Side 2 Plate A will radiate its heat energy into the side 1 Plate B, which will begin heating up side 2, Plate B.
Plate B heats up, which radiates heat from both side 1 and side 2. Side 2 Plate B radiates towards Side 11 Plate C, which then heats up Plate C. Which radiates heat energy to Plate D, etc.
Next, measure the intermediate temperatures and the final temperatures of each plate as they approach equilibrium.
RMB says, August 14, 2014 at 8:46 am:
“I’m not pushing a theory. I find that when I try to heat water through the surface the water completely rejects the heat. If I float a metal pan on the surface and apply the heat to the floating object the water accepts the heat as one would expect. Uncovered water will not accept heat covered water will. Try it for yourself. The floating object kills the surface tension.”
No, RMB. You simply move from trying to warm a static volume of water by radiative heat transfer (highly inefficient) to trying to warm it by conductive heat transfer (rather more efficient).
If its as inefficient as I.m finding whats all the fuss about.
RMB:
You have had a response from Kristian.
A debate between the two of you should be wildly entertaining so I will only watch and enjoy.
For maximum fun you may want to expand your discussion by inviting participation of the Guy who thinks the world is expanding.
Richard
I am not putting forward a theory. What I am saying is a demonstrable fact. Now try heating water through the surface and get back to me.
AlecM 7:00am: Very good, sir. Back of Postcard delta = mgh
Samuel C. Cogar: In actuality, the CO2s are like the baseball player’s gloves that temporarily ABSORB the baseball (IR) ….. which the baseball player then flings (emits) back into the “game”.
That’s not so different from “trapping and releasing”. When I release animals back to the wild, I expect most of them get eaten by predators and few survive. I don’t see how that’s worse than feeding worms and bacteria. But you right in the unquoted recommendation to use the words “absorption” and “emission”, and only use words like “trap” and “fling” with the technical terms immediately in parentheses.
HA, iffen there is “Back radiation” then there has gotta be “Front radiation” and “Sideways radiation” ……. so why is no one ‘accounting’ for them in their calculations?
Why do you say that no one is accounting for sideways and upward radiation? All the heat flow diagrams (Trenberth and Fasullo, for example) account for upward and downward radiation; sideways radiation that is not absorbed becomes upward radiation, and is accounted that way.
AlecM 6:26am: “…the same IR energy, thermalised at the inner surface of the brass tube. If that did not happen…”
This (“thermalised”) did not happen and yet Kirchoff stuff is ok. The IR photonic energy is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted when incident on a highly polished inner surface of a lab brass tube.
Understanding this leads to improved foundation for top post.
george e. smith says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:58 pm
======
It is such a joy to read your writing. Thanks for what you do. I greatly appreciate it.