From the Roger Pielke Sr. has been saying this for years department comes this paper where Dr. Richard Betts of the UK Met Office is a co-author. h/t/ to Betts Twitter feed today. It is published in Climate Dynamics. Unfortunately, it has a $40 price tag, since it is part of Springer publications, so I can’t offer much more than the abstract. It does look interesting though, even though it is not observationally based, but model based. However, despite that limitation, when the climate modelers start looking at things other than CO2, that can only be a good thing.
Other efforts include this database from the Université de Lausanne that shows just how much has changed over the last nearly three millenniums: (1000BC to 1850 AD)
Clearly, it is a global scale forcing when viewed at this scale.
The money quote from the new paper is this:
Our results suggest that land-use changes over the past century may represent a more important driver of historical climate change then [sic] previously recognised and an underappreciated source of uncertainty in global forcings and temperature trends over the historical period.
Effective radiative forcing from historical land use change
The effective radiative forcing (ERF) from the biogeophysical effects of historical land use change is quantified using the atmospheric component of the Met Office Hadley Centre Earth System model HadGEM2-ES. The global ERF at 2005 relative to 1860 (1700) is −0.4 (−0.5) Wm−2, making it the fourth most important anthropogenic driver of climate change over the historical period (1860–2005) in this model and larger than most other published values. The land use ERF is found to be dominated by increases in the land surface albedo, particularly in North America and Eurasia, and occurs most strongly in the northern hemisphere winter and spring when the effect of unmasking underlying snow, as well as increasing the amount of snow, is at its largest. Increased bare soil fraction enhances the seasonal cycle of atmospheric dust and further enhances the ERF. Clouds are shown to substantially mask the radiative effect of changes in the underlying surface albedo. Coupled atmosphere–ocean simulations forced only with time-varying historical land use change shows substantial global cooling (dT = −0.35 K by 2005) and the climate resistance (ERF/dT = 1.2 Wm−2 K−1) is consistent with the response of the model to increases in CO2 alone. The regional variation in land surface temperature change, in both fixed-SST and coupled atmosphere–ocean simulations, is found to be well correlated with the spatial pattern of the forced change in surface albedo. The forcing-response concept is found to work well for historical land use forcing—at least in our model and when the forcing is quantified by ERF. Our results suggest that land-use changes over the past century may represent a more important driver of historical climate change then previously recognised and an underappreciated source of uncertainty in global forcings and temperature trends over the historical period.
Andrews, T., Betts, R.A., Booth, B.B.B. et al. Clim Dyn (2016). doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3280-7
Note: At the suggestion of Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. The title was updated to say “the global climate heat budget” instead of just “global warming”.
I had to go back and look to be sure, but I remembered Pielke Sr.’s position being that Land Use/Land Cover Change was a positive feedback, clouding the issue of the degree warming via CO2. From his paper,”JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229, 2007 He sees a +1.5°C/decade change in the rate of warming from LU/LCC from a base of +.08°C/decade trend.
They give it to you in small bytes. First they overestimate what the effect is. It’s why we can cut IPCC’s ECS in half at least. Thought experiment: do you believe these guys, tasked with finding humans are killing the planet, would UNDERESTIMATE the warming? QED! Once we are accustomed to cultivation estimate, then they can double down steadfastly on their overblown CO2 theoretical parameters and, explain away 20yr pauses and other nuisances. They know the aerosols ‘adjustment’ just wasn’t convincing. They argued fiercely for an infinitessmal natural variation effect to deep six the LIA and the MWP and then had to use it and the dreaded quiet sun to bolster their failing chisled-in-granite CO2 control knob. The ECS estimate that makes the most sense has the side effect of making CO2 of smaller importance. This new one gives them -0.4C more to play to shore up the tired tattered theory. Let’s not get into warming induced negative feedbacks to sully the waters.
The bottom line and I have to keep saying it is the climate of today is not unique and falls within climate variation as provided by the historical climate record even going back as little as 8000 years.
Do you think the American West was green in the 1850 or 1750 AD like the above graphic purports to show.
Not a chance. It was a dry desert-like grassland with not a tree in sight.
It might have been green for a month in May or June, but the rest of the year it was brown (high albedo) or white (high albedo snow in the winter).
It looked like this for 11 months of the year. Cloud-free albedo of 40%, cloud covered albedo of 50%. Today, with all the trees planted by humans and the trees protected by wildfire by humans and the green crops planted by humans, it is more like 35% albedo on average.
http://www.ducksters.com/science/ecosystems/prairie.jpg
Climate science can make up any numbers they want to because that is what the whole institution is based. No actual measurements, just made-up numbers fed into a climate model.
Exactly Bill many of these studies on the climate are meaningless. I call these studies trying to micro manage the climate to try to make it fit their false points and predictions. All baseless all ignoring past climatic history.
Hi Bill.
It seems to me that the dark green indicates a high percentage of natural vegetation.
Not its colour, type or density.
Greenland is colored white because of its percentage of natural vegetation? C’mon, we know what this is all based on.
The climate models are based on human land-use being negative. No estimates are built-in for urban heat island affecting thermometer readings. Prairies are greener than they used to be ( except in the climate modles). Sahara is greener than it used to be (except in the climate models). Greenland has more soot-cover than it used to have (except in …). Climate models assume cloud fraction declines as it gets warmer but also declines as it gets cooler. What?
Do the climate models assume the overall albedo has gone up or gone down? Ever seen a number quoted anywhere? What was the Earth’s albedo is the ice ages? (You might be surprised to hear it was hardly any different in the climate model simulations – 1.0 percentage point higher).
Spend some time reviewing this topic – albedo – and one becomes jaded in no time at all.
read the legend.
Weren’t the grasslands of the MidWest significantly taller back in the day?
Here for example…http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/wildamerica/grasslands/graslandoutline.html
====================================================================================
“The tall grass prairie gets its name from the upright bluestems (Andropogon spp. shown left ) that reach heights of 6 feet or more by late summer.”
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Eastern locomotives burned wood. Coal was used in the West because of lack of trees.
Bill I’ll is, Ditto Canadian prairies and a dozen more arid regions in Africa, S. America, Australia…
“I am not an idiot, I just play along to get $40 a copy.”
How are they correlating the spatial error between the land use values and the climate values?
The little yellow dots over Australia are absurd, both for 1000BC and 1850
It appears Tasmania was settled and Melbourne was de-settled.
random thoughts…
1. What actually defines or determines ‘climate’? If you or I walk into a previously unvisited place, how do we describe it to someone who has never been there?
Would that description be valid or meaningful if it did not describe, directly or indirectly, what water is doing in that place?
2. Everyone imagines they know all about water simply because its everywhere – impacts my Point 1
But do they understand what a unique substance it is, how its in a league of its own both thermodynamically and mechanically. There aren’t even any substances in the 2 leagues below it. Totally special. We see that confusion especially when alarmists talk about high temp causing high humidity, In your shower-room maybe, but out in the real world they are mutually exclusive because there’s only one energy source, it cannot warm you up and evaporate water. either or.
3. Then everyone imagines they know all about feedback, and anyone who comes along raving about positive feedback in the climate system is quite beyond hope.
Even the simplest feedback system, 2 resistors around an op-amp is a pig to comprehend, just what does cause what. Classic chicken and egg. Then all feedback systems have 2 inputs, inverting and non-inverting and they can have below unity gain, above unity or =unity. See alarmists confuse above-unity non-inverting gain as positive feedback. no its not.
4. Still with feedback and the op-amp analogy, what defines an actual feedback and what is simply an offset or bias? With the op-amp, instead of tying the + input to ground, tie it to some other voltage and the output is centred on that new voltage. It doesn’t change the gain or frequency response. Is it inconceivable that CO2 is simply a bias or offset in a feedback system and not a run-away change in the gain of the system?
5. Back to water. It sticks to itself. It is fantastically sticky stuff. Do folks actually appreciate that? To my eye it seems the opposite is the case, folks think water is slippery stuff.
So, back to describing out new/alien environment, we are bound to refer to the plants there, dead or alive. And plants are made of glucose (primary product of photosynthesis) and glucose is mostly water, 6 carbon atoms and 6 water molecules. it may become cellulose or lignin but is still mostly water whether its in living plant or a long dead one buried in the dirt and totally unrecognisable as a plant anymore. Still= water and that water attracts and sticks to more water when ever more water comes within range. And how big is that range – is it Angstroms or hundreds of miles?
6. Finally land use and farming. Busying oneself with plants = busying with water = busying with how we would describe climate. And how much has the world’s population grown since 1850. Those people are obviously alive, they are eating something to sustain themselves and that something comes from farmers messing with water = messing with climate………
Long ago skeptics used to read papers, ask for data, and dig down into the details.
Now, they just read abstracts and make judgments..
who else did that? Ah ya, Cook in his consensus study.
“Long ago skeptics used to read papers, ask for data, and dig down into the details.”
And long ago scientists used to do science.
Now they Mannipulate data using AlGoreithms and sell second-hand databases to True Believers, a bit like priests in the fifteenth century used to sell Indulgences…
Such is life…
1850 humans used 4% of the land surface. Today 40%. Cities alone use 4%. Explains why surface thermometers are reading so much higher than ocean and satellite.
Well, it is a crowded field in climate scare science. There is always the potential for Captain Obvious papers to meet the pub quota.
This is nothing new. Dr John B Gorman knew it in 1845.
https://ia801701.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/35/items/62710490R.nlm.nih.gov/62710490R_jp2.zip&file=62710490R_jp2/62710490R_0521.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0
Our results suggest that land-use changes over the past century may represent a more important driver of historical climate change then [sic] previously recognised and an underappreciated source of uncertainty in global forcings and temperature trends over the historical period.
___________________________________________
Steps of escalation –
from – save the future of the children
to – save the future from the children
___________________________________________
pure coincidence – germany right now develops some kind of ‘rating list’ for [ preferred young ] ‘refugees’ – as other ‘migrate countries’ already have.
We’re trying to save our Chesapeake Bay.
Why Climate Disruption? And Global? No way!
It’s all about land use,
And water and refuse.
The Ice Age and Warm Period, they went away. https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/29/save-the-chesapeake-bay-a-limerick/
Steven Mosher August 8, 2016 at 8:03 pm
I have more than half a brain, and I looked. I couldn’t find it. So, you’ve proven that you are smarter than me.
And now, having proven that .. .are you going to provide a link, or are you going to be a drive-by jerk?
And more to the point, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST PROVIDE A LINK TO START WITH? Why make anyone have to go and find it themselves?
You are among the original “no data, no code, no science” guy. It is one of the strongest things to your credit …and you are now acting just as badly as those that you have excoriated in the past for hiding data. Instead of providing a link, you are the one now hiding the data. From the evidence, you’ve done this so you can use it as an excuse to taunt and boast of your superiority … sorry, my friend, but sometimes you go tragically off the rails in your attempts to establish your own value.
Which is crazy, because those of us who read past the surface and ignore your taunts do value your ideas and thoughts. In my book you are a very smart guy. However … you are making it unnecessarily hard to appreciate or even notice that …
Sadly,
w.
sadly you haven’t read the comments because i posted a link TWICE.
your google-fu is just weak and you’re whining like a baby.
gnomish August 9, 2016 at 5:07 pm
Thanks for that, gnomish, but what on earth does that have to do with Mosh, the king of “no data, no science”, not posting a link to data, despite boasting about how he can find one? Clearly you’re not following the conversation.
w.
Oh, yeah, gnomish. I just tried your link.
Five times.
Each time, it gave me what I’ve always gotten from Sci-Hub:
Ever since Sci-Hub came on the scene, I’ve tried about two dozen times to get through … and I’ve never succeeded. Not once.No idea why, but I’ve given up on it. But I figured that now it must be working, since you obviously got through.
Nothing. Times five.
So … I fear your link is less than helpful. Any assistance in how to break through to Sci-Hub would be appreciated.
w.
nothing wrong with the link
https://www.sendspace.com/file/s26okr
but here you go.
spoonfed…lol
gnomish August 10, 2016 at 12:23 am
Learn to read. I never said that there was anything wrong with your link. I said the server repeatedly dropped the connection. In any case, thanks for the data, and you might do well to lose the ‘tude … just sayin’, it don’t look good on you.
w.
yeah, i know. i’m ugly. sociopathic, abrasive and weird. nothing looks good on me.
but i kept the focus and solved the problem instantly.
my browser is opera in case you think that’s worth a try.
schwa… this is something i’m really not sure is going to be worth it -but wtf – why not?
and it’s your comment about ‘attitude’ that prompted this – so you know.
you posted a paragraph chiding mosher for not publishing a link.
he didn’t have to because i did it twice.
you asked it a disputatious way- there’s the answer.
i was the definitely part of the conversation which you were not following.
i could have said ‘yah, if you have half a brain, stop sitting on it and put it to use’ or something, right?
i mean- you invited that kind of response with your obstreperousness – but i didn’t.
if you can’t work sci hub- then you have a bit of a problem to troubleshoot.
this silliness: “Learn to read. I never said that there was anything wrong with your link.”
is not a problem with my ability to read. nobody ever misquoted you. again- it’s your disputatious attitude that leads you to make trouble. it’s all you.
i let you know there was nothing wrong with the link. that should help you narrow down the root of the problem. if it’s not the link- it’s all on you. i can’t diagnose it any further. my info was pertinent and useful – you’re welcome – put it to use, eh?
yeah- i mocked you for not getting the file – because you were whining but it’s your problem, your fault and nobody else can help that but you- whining is not the way. arguing with people is not the way. curmudgin is not the way.
heh- i must really like you, tho- cuz i let all that go by and got you the file.
if you’d ever like me to solve your problems another time- please give up the whining and disputatious stuff and good god- if you really want me to lose the attitude- i will- but it’s your attitude i’ll shed.
or just credit me with 3 big fat indulgences so i can have a free pass when i get stupid – if i ever do. 😉
peace, bro. only fight when there’s something to win.
lol, best response ever gnomish!
[cheering on others who say “…you’re whining like a baby.” is indicative of your own quality of commentary /mod]
I tried downloading and the server dropped my connection too, the file never finished. Third attempt was a charm.
I agree with Willis though, Mosher is being unnecessarily pig-headed by, but he seems to like being that way. Ever since he went to work for BEST, he stopped being personable.
Thanks, Anthony. When Sci-Hub was announced, I was the happiest man … then I went and tried to download something. To date, I’ve made at least fifteen attempts to reach the site and I have never been successful. Not once.
And Gnomish is so poor at reading, he thinks I’m complaining about a “bad link” … it’s not the link that is bad. I just can’t get to the site. Might be due to the fact that I’m on a satellite connection, which has a latency of about 3/4 of a second, I don’t know.
But the fact remains, I’ve never been able to get through. Now if Gnomish or his fanboyz want to bust me for that, fine …
Hang on, let me try again, I’ll click on Gnomish’s link one last time … … … …
Nope. No joy. Same message, “server dropped the connection”. Go figure.
w.
Well, thinking in a real world would eliminate everything but heat and it in itself, with pressure control everything. There is no “well, if we fudge the heat content”.
The problem I have with this study is that it just covers direct radiative effects … and the problem with that approach is well expressed in the IPCC AR5:
The problem is that a change in “LU/LC”, or “Land Use /Land Cover”, has a whole range of effects on the climate. These are so varied that as the IPCC says, there is “low agreement” as to even the SIGN of the net effects, much less the actual amplitude. As the IPCC points out, these changes are not inherently radiative (although they may have knock-on radiative effects). The biggest change is expressed by my maxim that “When you cut down the trees, you cut down the clouds.” This expresses the close relationship between cloud cover and the millions of tons of water that are released annually into the atmosphere by transpiration from forests.
How big is the transpiration of water by forests? Well, a USDA study says:
This is equivalent to a range of .15 to .75 metres of transpiration per year
This is most useful, because we know that it takes about 76 W/m2 over the course of a year to evaporate a metre of water. This means that for the USDA data, 0.15 to 0.75 metres of transpiration reflects a surface cooling of 0.15 to 0.75 metres annual evaporation* 76 W/m2 surface cooling per metre of annual evaporation equals 11 to 57 W/m2 …
Dang … now, that is a serious forcing … and that’s just the latent energy evaporative cooling part of the equation. As I said above, “If you cut down the trees, you cut down the clouds”. The trees are putting a half-metre or so of transpired water into the air per year, and more water means more clouds … and this, in turn, leads to further cooling through increased albedo reducing incoming energy.
We’re not done yet. From a Russian study:
Of course, the increase of the total water yield means more water on the surface, which cools the surface by way of both direct and evaporative cooling.
Finally, not only do the clouds increase with increased transpiration, but rainfall goes up as well. This again cools the surface in a variety of ways.
Call me skeptical, but I doubt the HadGEM-ES systems emulates any of this with any degree of fidelity to the real world … there’s a good analysis of the CMIP5 results for this question here, which says (emphasis mine):
I’m sorry, but if you can only dig out a supposedly “statistically significant” effect when you look only at areas with more than 10% change, and even then it’s in only three out of six models, and those three are trivially small, and let’s get real, they don’t even agree in sign … well, color me unimpressed.
TL;DR version? Looking at just the radiative changes resulting from land-use changes is futile, because there are far too many other changes resulting from land-use variations to make such a single-variable analysis useful in any sense.
w.
And I just want to throw this into the fire:
Earth surface holds a mean temperaturen of 288K. The laws of nature is clearly saying that there has to be a minimum input of 390W/m² to reach that temperature. Since earth is only heated on 1/2 surface that gives a minimum of 780W/m² on irradiated surface.
There is only 1 source of energy. The sun.
Conclusion: earth surface gets 780W/m² of heat from the sun. At least. According to laws of nature.
Ghe says earth surface breaks the laws of nature and has a higher temperature than it is supposed to have according to the known laws of nature about fluxdensity.
If an open system gets a feed of only 240W/m², nothing in that system will emot above 240W/m² unless work is performed.
It is ridicolous to claim that icecold air increase fluxdensity in an open system in direct contact with a 3K heat sink in the vacuum of space. There is no physics in heat transfer that supports such a disgusting theory.
The right approach is: 390W/780W is needed for 288K. There is one, only one, heat source, the sun. THEREFORE, the surface gets a minimum of 780W/m² on the irradiated hemisphere. Because there is no other heat and temperature is instantaneous, not something that builds up over time. If we are dealing with an open system, and we are. Earth is almost as open as a system can get.
An argument that claims that the atmosphere is heating the earth with ice-cold air, denying all formulas for heat transfer, and saying that earth surface is “hotter than it should be without the atmosphere, is an argument that claims that earth surface is not obeying laws of nature and there is a heat source other than the sun. Ice.cold.air.
I vomit.
And there it is discussed whether a couple of watts make a difference.
I vomit.
Planck, boltzmann and Einstein are turning over in their graves. Actually, they are turning over so fast and continously that we should try to connect them via an axis to a generator and get free energy. In line with ghe-theory.
realfake August 9, 2016 at 1:22 pm
realfake, you might enjoy a couple of my pieces regarding the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” …
Best regards to you,
w.
259,000 km of concrete roads – enough to go around the world six and a half times. Not to mention city streets. Plus all the G.I. sheet roofs and concrete buildings and houses. UHI galore! I bet the thermometers are sited near those roads and buildings
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/images/thnhsjpg.jpg
By the way, including all the roads in the US, it’s 6.47 million km or 161 times around the world
Dr. Strangelove August 9, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Thanks, Doc. Here’s how the numbers pencil out.
259,000 km times 3.7 m per lane, call it a four-lane average highway width, that’s on the order of 3,880 square km.
The area of the US, on the other hand, is 9,857,000 square km.
Which means that the roads take up about 0.04%, that’s four hundredths of one percent, of the surface area of the US.
So it’s clear that the roads are not large enough to make a significant difference in the overall average temperature.
HOWEVER … UHI is not about overall temperature, it’s about temperature near thermometers. If your thermometer is too near a road, it will definitely register microsite warming …
Regards,
w.
Thanks. I did your calculation years ago. Not in relation to UHI but to dispute the often stated claim that the Great Wall of China is the largest man-made structure. I believe the US National Highway is larger in area and volume including the foundation.
Here’s another estimate. The total cement consumed in the US since 1950 is enough to make 12.47 billion cubic meters of concrete or enough to cover 81,800 sq. km with 6 inch thick concrete
Another estimate. Including all the roads = 47,900 sq. km. Part of the 12.47 billion cubic meters of concrete went here
Willis Eschenbach
August 9, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Thanks for the reply.
In your first link about the steel greenhouse you make a point of the exact reason why earth doesn´t have a greenhouseeffect. You describe a planet with a steel shell which is exactly what is needed for any kind of reverse radiation to happen.
In heat transfer physics, the only possible way to achieve a reflection going back to the heat source, is a barrier that is a surface or have surface-like properties. A solid that heats up and radiates in both directions is what makes backradiation possible. Otherwise we would build furnaces without walls and air would be enough to keep the heat in.
Actually, we would build furnaces with a bare flame surrounded by an insulation of icecold air surrounded by the ultimate heat sink equivalent to 3K vacuum of space.
The only description of air (including co2) involved in heat transfer back to the source of heat, is where there is a barrier wall that has good insulating properties in relation to the outside temperature, which is heated to a temperature close to the heat source, by the heat source. The gas is only acting as a transport medium for heat in that case, the same thing would happen without air. Everything in the system apart from the heat source, gets heated. Nothing else than the heat source adds to temperature.
There are no other scenarios where gas is involved in heat transfer other than transfer from a surface in direction away from that surface. When two surfaces are present, opposing each other, there is transfer from both surfaces in both directions. If there is only one surface there is only transfer happening away from that surface. Espescially if the gas is cold and not combusting.
It is not like the conditions of an atmosphere in relation to a hot surface is something strange or an exception from how gases interact with heat. And it is not circumstances that is not understood or studied.
The relationship between flux from a surface into an icecold mass of gas in contact with the ultimate heat sink of space is a very simple physical relationship that is well understood and extensively examined in experimental physics and applied physics in thermodynamics. What happens when a hot surface is in contact with cold air is very well understood. The surface gets cooled, not heated.
One of the best analogys to make is this;
place a rock next to a fire to make it about a 100C(the same as irradiated surface would be without an atmosphere when it gets whipped with 1370W/m^2), put it in a bowl of water(oceans) and then blow air over it with a compressor. Does it get hotter?
Now add a couple of really big iceblocks in the water(polar ice and glaciers). Does it get hotter?
The stone will be surrounded by watervapor and air in somewhat similar amounts as the earth. Not a single one of the component in this scenario, other than the fire, will add anything to the temperature. Every single one of the components, air and water as vapor and liquid, will cool the rock.
There is NO reason that our planet has the OPPOSITE functions in ice cold air, liquid water and water vapor.
You make a point of the steel shell in relation to blankets or insulation as analogies for the atmosphere, still, you make an analogy of a steel shell to describe air and it´s relation to heat
We need no analogys for cold air. There are no questions about cold air and what it does to hot surfaces. We can all feel what it does to hot surfaces when we step outside naked a cold winterday when the sun irradiates the surface in a blue clear sky. It cools. Nothing else.
Actually, the ghe theory is contradicting the theory of general relativity made by physics-jesus himself, Einstein. (Love that guy)
Since fluxdensity is equal to E(E=W/m^2), and the atmosphere is equal to m, and c^2 is equal to the photon(speed of light with no mass), we can do this:
E=m*c^2 is E/m=c^2. I guess you can already see what happens.
If fluxdensity (E=W/m^2) is divided by a larger mass of an atmosphere in relation to no atmosphere, and the claim is made that fluxdensity is increased when mass increases by an icecold gas-mass, then the speed of light must increase. And we know that the speed of light is constant, so that is impossible.
Therefore, the claim that an atmosphere can increase the fluxdensity is impossible. Even more so, the claim that co2 can increase fluxdensity with a change of some 100 or even 1000ppm, is ridicolous.
Every claim made in ghe-theory is described in heat-transfer physics. The litterature in heat transfer including theory AND experimental data is extensive. Way larger than climatology or meterology and ripe with data describing the relations between gasses and hot surfaces with very high accuracy. The predictive power of thermodynamics in heat transfer physics theory is almost totally perfect. Which is like the opposite of what you can say about climatology and meterology.
And every single piece of data and theory in heat transfer says the OPPOSITE of what ghe-theory say. Heat transfer theory that is applied widely in technology worldwide, is absolutely clear about that a cold gas does nothing else to a hot surface, than cooling it.
Like I wrote, if cold air in contact with the ultimate heat sink in 3K vacuum of space, would heat something up, we would build furnaces with bare flames surrounded by cold air and 3K vacuum. We don´t.
If I remember right, the definition of the absorbing properties of gases(co2 and water vapor in particualr) comes first from Hottel and his experimental data. There is NOTHING in that data that supports the theory of backradiation from a gas to the heat source in an open system with a hot surface surrounded by a cold gas in contact with a 3K vacuum. All data about radiation in two directions adding heat to a heat source, comes from experimental data where there is an enclosure with an internal heat source and well insulated walls that radiates as a surface in direction towards the source, only as a function of the source. Never ever is there an experiment made where an open system with cold air makes a heat source hotter. IOnly colder. And there are no equations that can solve the claimed heat transfer from the cold atmosphere without doing stuff that is not allowed according to Planck, Boltzmann, Stefan, Einstein and the gang of geniuses that gave us the formulas describing light, heat and the relation to matter.
On top of this we have momentum, which photons have, but that would take another long post. And also the maxwell-boltzmann distribution of excited states in matter which is the root of temperature and if one understands that, it is very clear why the cold atmosphere cannot heat a hot surface. It is not about the amount of photons going in any direction adding up to something, it is about the density of excited states in the matter radiating. A lower density of excited states in matter will NEVER add anything to temperature in matter with a higher density of higher states in excitation.
As I wrote in the last post, if a system is fed with only 240W/m^2, nothing in the system will have a fluxdensity above 240W/m^2 unless there is work performed.
The equation that gives 240W is made with TOA-fluxdensity of 1370W-albedo/4pi*r^2 and generates the OLR which is equivalent to medium T of the troposphere(roughly). Pi*r^2 is cancelled out from dividing with the sphere of incoming and outcoming raditation. That leaves 1370W-albedo/4=240W. When dividing by four we get four parts in reality, even if the answer is 1/4=240W.
That means that in reality when we divide TOA-fluxdensity by four, we get four suns heating the earth with flux of 240W each. That is a model of four ice-cold suns that don´t even shine. This is the failure of GHE-theory, because in reality we have one sun heating the surface with 240*4W/m^2. If we use the same numbers as ghe-theory, TOA-fluxdensity of 1370W/m^2-albedo, and don¨t divide by 4, we get the fluxdensity that hits the surface of irradiated hemisphere in reality. 960W/m^2. There is no energy needed from ice cold air to heat the surface to 288K in that calculation. And there are no 4 ice cold suns in an unreal model like in GHE. Aaaaah, nice, isn´t it?
It is not hard to achieve energy balance to 4pi^r^2 radiated at 240W/m^2 either. This, I believe, shows how backwards thinking GHE-theory is.
Again, thank you very much for your answer, I have nothing but respect for you. I have read many of your posts and learned a lot from them, although I disagree very much about the existense of a greenhouse effect. Now it´s bedtime here, I will have a drink of peaty scotch and go to bed. Cheers!