From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The missing piece of the climate puzzle
In classrooms and everyday conversation, explanations of global warming hinge on the greenhouse gas effect. In short, climate depends on the balance between two different kinds of radiation: The Earth absorbs incoming visible light from the sun, called “shortwave radiation,” and emits infrared light, or “longwave radiation,” into space.
Upsetting that energy balance are rising levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), that increasingly absorb some of the outgoing longwave radiation and trap it in the atmosphere. Energy accumulates in the climate system, and warming occurs. But in a paper out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, MIT researchers show that this canonical view of global warming is only half the story.
In computer modeling of Earth’s climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.
“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming,” says lead author Aaron Donohoe, a former MIT postdoc who is now a research associate at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. “It made us think that there must be something really weird going in the models in the years after CO2 was added. We wanted to resolve the paradox that climate models show warming via enhanced shortwave radiation, not decreased longwave radiation.”
Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.
They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model. As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.
Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2. However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.
“So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but it’s the other one that’s directly driving global warming — that’s the surprising thing,”
…says Armour, who is a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
Out in the real world, aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight, and so Earth has not experienced as much warming from shortwave solar radiation as it otherwise might have. But the authors calculate that enough warming will have occurred by midcentury to switch the main driver of global warming to increased solar radiation absorption.
The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. “While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.
One way the study can be useful is in guiding what researchers look for in satellite observations of Earth’s radiation budget, as they track anthropogenic climate change in the decades to come. “I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,” Donohoe says. “We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”
The study sorts out another tricky climate-modeling issue — namely, the substantial disagreement between different models in when shortwave radiation takes over the heavy lifting in global warming. The authors demonstrate that the source of the differences lies in the way in which a model represents changes in cloud cover with global warming, another big factor in how well Earth can reflect shortwave solar energy.
###
The paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700 (open access)
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2
Significance
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.
Abstract
In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.
Note: This study was published in November 2014, but was not covered by WUWT then. Thanks to Dennis Wingo for bringing it to our attention.
… But the authors calculate that enough warming will have occurred by midcentury …
I would like to apply for a job in an industry where you can only check whether the work I have done is of any use AFTER I am dead….
The desire for that kind of life of security and ease is indeed seductive, but for some it’s as somebody here aptly put it a while back – his name on the office door felt like an epithet on his tomb.
I’m gonna have an epitaph rather than an epithet, for fear of what my heirs might choose pithily to say.
Errrr…37 years. Not enough coffee yet. Coffee probably destroys the environment, but you’ll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands to get it away from me.
Either works…
And I thought the science was settled.
Looks like it simply wasn’t understood at all.
Now, put your hand up if that is a surrise.
Auto
‘surprise’ – of course!
Sorry.
Auto
The mid-century mark is becoming increasingly important to AGW prognosticators. President Barron will have to deal with it.
That’s funny. During the 1970s the year 2000 was seen as the point at which all society on Earth collapsed….
Seems like 30 years in the future is a good time to forecast disaster…
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was 33 years ahead of its time. Generally seems like a good amount of time in advance to be science fiction.
Re Earthling2: And Blade Runner was 35 years in the future, 1982 to 2019. 30 years does seem to be a good rule of thumb doesn’t it? And, how many predictions of anything that far out have come true? I still want my jet pack dammit!
“The mid-century mark is becoming increasingly important to AGW prognosticators.”
I think you mean AGW procrastinators?
Severian,
I want my own willing and compliant replicant as portrayed by Sean Young.
The dates are chosen pretty much blithely with the only qualification being that it’s ‘just around the corner’, ‘near enough to inspire urgency, but not soon enough to debunk’.
Remember the title of that idiotic movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’?
It’s all about messaging with these guys. It gets tiring when every single word or action becomes just another way to pimp their pet issues. The language itself get perverted with spin, opportunism, and PC policing, to the point where you can’t even talk to each other anymore.
And an honest word never gets said.
Back To The Future – also 30 years…..
Orwell’s novel 1984 was published in 1949, 35 years.
I notice that their pictures show no clouds, even though NASANOAA says that earth’s cloud cover is around 60%.
And clouds keep short wave solar incoming radiation from reaching the condensed earth’s surface, where it can actually warm the earth. The earth is NOT warmed by its atmosphere.
The solid and liquid earth are hotter than the atmosphere. Clouds cool the surface they do not heat the atmosphere.
G
PS forget about moderation; my recent posts , simply refuse to post and give me a curt rejection message.
I posted one yesterday a few paragraphs long, which upon hitting the post comment button simply disappeared, never to be seen again.
But I have never seen a rejection message, except once or twice a while back that I was writing too many posts…slow down.
But they were short one to five words replies to various comments.
[On this site, there is a specific list of “key words and trigger phrases” that will dump your comment into the “to be reviewed” queue. “Denier” or “Fraud”, for example, will always require your comment to be reviewed. Approved, most often, after review, but always reviewed. Be patient, there were 2.2 million comments approved before yours came up. .mod]
@mod – 2.2 million? Now, that’s a busy day… (Sorry, I get strange late at night. Had this image of a stadium full of Shakespeare’s monkeys, all busily clicking “Approve” buttons…)
“and give me a curt rejection message”
I had that too. I think it is just a glitch in the site mechanics, or maybe exceeding a count. I find that closing the tab and opening a new one generally fixes it.
Thank you Mod.
I was not really too worried about it.
I have stuff go to moderation all the time, but usually it posts the comment with a note at top that I am sure only I can see telling me y comment is awaiting moderation.
But occasionally one does not do that. Sometimes they reappear after closing the browser, and reopening it, sometimes not.
I think sometimes it is just a glitch and the comment never made it to the WUWT server.
And…2.2 million is a lot!
“and trap it in the atmosphere” i thought it was emitted in every direction immediately.
So true.
and to think I though that increased water vapour in the atmosphere meant that more clouds formed and that those clouds then reflected short wave radiation back into space……..
Maybe these MIT people also have a hypothesis as to how increased CO2 prevents cloud formation from higher levels of water vapour ???
I don’t think that this paper is helped by the fact that the extent of artic and antarctic ice, taken together, hasn’t declined at all ……..
And the higher the relative humidity the greater the enthalpy so considerably more energy is needed to raise the air temperature.
What tangled webs we weave, LOL.
I knew this “paper” was a steaming pile when seeing the following sentences:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established.” – Ah, yes the “well established” effect that has never been empirically shown – better known as “Hypothetical BS”
“Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.” – Ah yes, except when it doesn’t. 450mya with 10 times the current CO2 concentration, which was rising to about 11 times the current CO2 concentration, the Earth’s temperature managed to plummet from a temperature far higher than today into a full-blown glaciation which lasted millions of years. But we shouldn’t be bothered by such “inconvenient” facts.
“However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).” – Ah, once again, MODELS reveal…the product of their input ASSUMPTIONS, and NOTHING more.
This “paper” is a fine illustration of what happens when “science” becomes an extrapolation of a glorified form of one’s own assumptions, without any connection to the real world. Kind of a microcosm of “climate science” generally.
Yeah, how many papers involving, say, complex orbital calculations feel the need to start out by saying, “The law of gravity is well established.” Apparently warmunists must have some sense of insecurity in their belief system.
First of all the “trapping of energy” is bogus and bad thinking scientifically.
Second, what about the fact that most of the absorbed IR radiation is re-emitted almost instantaneously? The assumption that it heats the atmosphere is wrong. In daylight the CO2 and water vapor are saturated, both absorbing and emitting such that their effect is negligible, basically a wash.
It is at night that CO2 and water vapor unilaterally convert heat to IR in the absence of insolation and actively cool the atmosphere.
Third, the article above say that water vapor absorbs shortwave radiation, which is just plain wrong.
Fourth, they do not address the fact that the upper tropical troposphere, where this heating is supposedly happening, has not been warming, but has intact been gently cooling for about 40 years.
Finally, they completely ignore the water cycle and the convection mechanism that is responsible for carrying about 85% of the solar insolation energy budget to altitude, away from Earth’s surface, where adiabatic cooling occurs and the latent heat of water vapor is realized and lost to space.
Too many holes in their typically lousy model as well as their line of thinking. Focusing only on radiation, the surface, and these “radiative gases” (not greenhouse gases, as they function in no way to trap any energy) ignores other this more powerful negative feedback heat engine that naturally ramps up when warming occurs. The oceans and solar output set the climate temperature and the water cycle keeps the Earth at the set point fairly well.
It’s the water cycle and they ignore it? Wow.
Right on the nose… well done!
Well said sir higley.
So ooo … you are suggesting that Bill Nye/Al Gore’s Bell Jar experiments are … WRONG!? Denier! Denier! Burn him! He’s a witch!
Water vapour absorbs solar near infrared, lots of it.
Water vapor absorbs strongly in the “near” IR. Near means closer to visible light, and most of this can legitimately be considered SW. More importantly, it is all incoming from the sun, because the earth radiates at temperatures cooler than this spectrum.
This is an interesting spin on the water vapor feedback. It can explain the current UAH puzzlement. Last time I checked, atmospheric water was not increasing.
Absorption of solar radiation by water vapor in clear and cloudy skies: Implications for anomalous absorption
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901153/pdf
slowed … not trapped … they are morons …
not slowed, either- and certainly not trapped-
it is redistributed globally at the speed of light.
then the water gas has it and dumps it with the rest of its load when it changes phase.
and in the end, it’s all about the sun and the planet of water.
… not slowed either — it’s all wrong.
gnomish beat me to it — must have posted at exactly the same instant.
That Solar Radiation Spectrum is potentially interesting, if there was only some particular meaning to the colors used.
accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing
+===========
in other words no GHG effect.
“in other words no GHG effect.”
No. To quote the paper:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.”
The expectation had been that GHG’s would restrict OLR, but this in the long run would be balanced by the greater radiation from warming. This paper seems to say that GHG-reduced OLR along with atmospheric absorption of SW would together balance the extra outgoing OLR from warming (which is, you guessed it, worse than we thought, in terms of warming).
As noted at the bottom the paper is now at least three years old. It hasn’t overturned everything.
The greenhouse effect is well-established
========
assertion is not proof. observation is prior. by the authors own words: “not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas “
“No. To quote the paper:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. “
So the paper is in error from the very start, just mindlessly quoting “the mantra”
Thanks for that , Nick !! Keep digging deeper , petal….. Its funny !!
“This paper seems to say…… ”
A load of fantasy and anti-science BS.
It hasn’t overturned everything
≠=========
a theory fails if any prediction fails.
all that. is require to overthrow Newton is two objects that don’t fall at the same rate in a vacuum. you don’t need to show newton to be false for all objects. just a single failure is sufficient.
simple models help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,
Explain why this isn’t an admission that this “simple model helps us understand why all our predictions keep turning out wrong”.
‘The emperor has no clothes’; you are a busted flush, Nick.
Nick
You cited
“…greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; ”
This is a poor description of what happens. It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere. No accumulating pile of IR. Increasing the concentration of CO2 or water vapour increases the ability of the atmosphere to radiate IR into space as it increases the number of radiators. While it increases the number of absorbers, the overall impact is that from space, the number of radiators ‘seen’ at the effective radiating altitude increases. The passage of a photon from anywhere to space is delayed a few microseconds, but the amount of OLR is not reduced.
I agree with higley7 that there are several fundamental flaws in this 2014 version of reality, just as there are with earlier versions.
A comparison that is not made is between the current temperature of the Earth with GHG’s and what it would be without them. The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.
With water available on the surface, the temperature might be higher than it is now, meaning the net effect of added GHG’s is cooling. Incoming SW and LW would heat the surface, the surface would heat the no-GHG air in contact with it, and the atmosphere would warm, with no way to cool radiatively. Heat would accumulate in the air, the air would heat the surface by contact at night.
With water and no CO2, we would have rain, thunderstorms, thermals, wind, a lapse rate and lots of global warming (relative to no atmosphere at all). Would adding CO2 always increase the average temperature of the troposphere already dominated by huge amounts of water vapour?
On the other hand the temperature might be a bit lower, crediting some GHG net warming. It might be a lot lower, but it will never be as low as an Earth with no atmosphere at all.
According to the chart above, there is a 350 W/sq m difference between clouds v.s. no clouds over tropical land. That is 100 times the supposed forcing of a few hundred ppm of CO2. Cloud feedbacks will dominate CO2 forcing, easily.
It’s another model, which may or may not bear any similarity to what actually happens.
Crispin. It is not the surface, it is the oceans, which hold 1000 times as much energy as the atmosphere. It is the energy in the oceans that drives global weather. CO2 is a bit player.
Crispin,
“It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere.”
No stash is needed. With more GHGs, the layer which emits to space in their wavelengths is at higher altitude. The emitting gas is colder. That reduces OLR. The colder GHG is just as good as warmer at absorbing IR. So the high GHG layer gets warmer than it was before, at that altitude, but still cooler than the former, lower, emitting altitude.
“The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.”
I don’t think that is true. The comparison is between an atmosphere with and without GHGs. If water is excluded, some assumption has to be made about albedo. That’s the basis of the 33°C difference.
Nick
,
>>“It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere.”
>…With more GHGs, the layer which emits to space in their wavelengths is at higher altitude.
The true picture of what is happening is not represented by the idea of an emitting layer. There is a continuously more open ‘window’ to space that broadens with altitude. The emitting layer idea is used as an analogy and is not useful for conceptualising what happens when the concentration of CO2 is increased without (meaningfully) expanding the volume of the atmosphere. Having more emitters in an unsaturated atmosphere means the efficiency of disposal is increased.
>The emitting gas is colder. That reduces OLR.
The OLR is never reduced. The emitting gas at high altitude is colder, that is true, and so is the space above them, however this mixes metaphors. There is no emitting layer, and it does not ‘rise’. The concept it ‘rising’ is an inappropriate extension of the metaphor. The entire atmosphere emits, and increasing the concentration of GHG’s cause it to emit more efficiently. The same applies with black carbon at night – it is very efficient at sending heat ‘north’.
>The colder GHG is just as good as warmer at absorbing IR. So the high GHG layer gets warmer than it was before, at that altitude, but still cooler than the former, lower, emitting altitude.
There is no such emitting layer. Even discussing an ‘effective emission altitude’ is misleading. If the total energy leaving the system is the constant, then increasing the concentration of emitters lowers the effective altitude because more of them send photons through ‘the window’. Even from ground level the window is open a little.
>>“The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.”
>I don’t think that is true. The comparison is between an atmosphere with and without GHGs. If water is excluded, some assumption has to be made about albedo. That’s the basis of the 33°C difference.
I know it is true, and that is why it is not discussed. The impression is given, repeatedly, that without an atmosphere and with a GHG atmosphere is the two cases to consider. Then it is claimed that the GHGs are the cause of all the difference. This is untrue. An atmosphere with water (which is a GHG but claimed to be only a feedback) and no GHG’s would be quite warm indeed. Adding GHG’s would not change the temperature much at all.
Considering an atmosphere without any GHG’s or water vapour, it quickly becomes apparent that it would be quite warm because the atmosphere would have a heating mechanism and no way to cool radiatively. Adding GHG’s to such an atmosphere, even water vapour, would cool it considerable.
This makes a lie out of the claim that the difference between a no-atmosphere Earth and a GHG + wet atmosphere is warmer because of the GHG’s alone. The additional claim is that because all the proposed 33 deg of warming is ’caused by the GHG’s’, then doubling the concentration will give some large increase in the bulk temperature. A no-GHG atmosphere that would be warmed by contact with the surface and having no way to radiatively cool itself, will not be warmed by the addition of 0.04% CO2. It will definitely not by warmed further by the addition of more CO2 because that is just adding emitters capable of cooling the atmosphere.
This is fundamental to how atmospheres and radiative cooling work. To assess the impact of an increase in CO2 concentration, it is imperative that the appropriate comparison is between an atmosphere with and without CO2, not a planet as we have now and no atmosphere at all. The latter comparison teaches is nothing at all about the impact of GHG’s because there is no baseline. No baseline, no quantifiable impact. I am surprised the IPCC has not discussed this.
I have seen amateur comments claim that the atmosphere without and GHG’s would be -33 but inevitably their references cite a no-atmosphere case like the moon, not a no-GHG atmosphere. In the early stupid days of CAGW it was maintained, even in journals, that water vapour was ‘only a feedback’ and that without GHG’s the world would be frozen. Gavin made that claim, among others. The ‘only a feedback’ story was defended vigorously. It is B.S. An earthly atmosphere with water and no other GHG’s would be nearly indistinguishable from what we have now. That being the case, adding CO2 has very little effect.
So, let’s resume this :
The cheese hole effect is well established
more cheese, more holes in the cheese
more holes in the cheese, less matter in the cheese
Hence more cheese, less matter in the cheese.
where cheese= GHG, matter = OLR hole =lower OLR
@Crispin in Waterloo
An atmosphere without any GHG (including, no GHG effect of water) would be a funny thing, and i have seen NO decent paper adressing this issue (only some obviously stupid -18°C temperature, with no serious back up)
It would still be ruled by gravitational lapse rate, hotter at the bottom than at the top, so at altitude high enough, any evaporated stuff (some otherworldly water with no GHG property, or whatever) will condensate and give it energy. But this condensed stuff will also radiate energy… negating the assumption that the surface directly radiate to space.
It would still heat in day, and cool at night.
It would still prevent the surface to lose as much energy as it would lose ithout any atmosphere
Nick,
On one hand “Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space”.
On the other hand, “While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”
For Gawd’s sake, which is it? Are there no reliable measurements of OLR? Or is there such confusion that model novelists have to say, ” … after a while, things change and it works the other way?”
What a cop out.
In the years since publication, have any authors of GCMs changed their model fundamentals to cope with the paper’s suggestions? Or is the paper just more ‘unicorn farts’ as Mosher would say. Geoff.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/everystockphoto/fspid31/34/90/75/6/aurora-nitrogen-emission-3490756-o.jpg
Geoff,
“In the years since publication, have any authors of GCMs changed their model fundamentals to cope with the paper’s suggestions?”
You should read the abstract again. This paper is reporting the results of GCM runs. The models aren’t wrong; they are saying that our ways of thinking need revision in the light of model results. Absorption within the atmosphere will be a bigger factor than reduction of outgoing OLR. That’s what the models are telling us, not what we have to tell the models.
Nature’s version of the UHI effect, i.e. albedo. Duh.
So they’ve solved all the issues with cloud cover? I doubt it.
No, but according to their models, they have.
Wow! So the models agree with Lindzen & Choi that net outgoing radiation is NOT reduced by an increased concentration of GHGs. Instead, All the warming is down to albedo?
The paper is either saying exactly that — only albedo matters — or it says nothing at all. While it seems to ignore the importance of the water vapor feedback.
My vote is “nothing at all.” The paper presents a textbook example of the reification fallacy by observing a counter-intuitive phenomenon that only exists in an abstract model and trying to attach some physical significance to it.
Now that the AGW believers have noticed that the outgoing radiation just does not go back and also does not stay the same (a thing that other researchers have already noticed when they examined the atmosphere of the Antarctic and found that increasing CO2 even helps to cool it down ) the shirt must be put on from below. Now the atmosphere suddenly absorbs more sunlight, which mechanism this is due to, but remains clerical-glorified.
Well yes but it’s definitely “settled” wildly oscillating contradictory hypotheses you know.
Speaking of albedo … all of my local building departments, CA Title-24, Greenpoint Rating, and LEED … all … insist upon “light colored” if not “white” roofs for every one of my buildings. Only thing is … that all the local Design Review Commissions BAN light colored roofing as annoying to neighbors and generally obnoxious-looking. So which is it going to be Nanny State? “Planet-saving” WHITE roofs? Or attractive buildings? I fEEl soooo guilty for each “dark” roof I Design. Ohhhhh mammmmaaa
I’ve gotten to hate white autos — especially since the US Forest Service went from a light forest green to white. I traded last February — a white for a nice bright blue.
A few years ago we had a new roof put on. We asked for the whitest shingle the company made. Still, it seems to be about that of our Moon. For the past week it has been very white. Six inches of snow tends to do that. Now this morning it is back to its former dull color.
My friends’ doctor told him that those little blue pills do not help with albedo either.
From the they have wrong but global warming theory is correct anyway department.
Unless it’s from the “the theory is correct but nobody has interpreted it correctly so far” department.
The proper terminology is “Fake but accurate” brought you to by the infamous Dan Rather whose motto was “I can’t wait til tomorrow for a story I need today.”
carl sagan got famous for doing it before dan rather did
The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation.
≠========
the hotspot predicted by models has not happened. if anything atmospheric moisture is decreasing.
That’s the one thing that keeps getting glossed over.
The models all basically admit that CO2 alone doesn’t have enough “greenhouse power” to make the amount of warming they’re predicting, so they assume that there will be a large increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, multiplying the heating effect by a factor of at least two (and three, in some models).
If there’s not a dramatic increase in water vapor worldwide, AGW theory fails on yet another level.
I guess the above will be “authorization” for the next “adjustment” to the Historical Temperature Record so that it will agree with the computer generated “temperature forecasts/models”.
“That’s the one thing that keeps getting glossed over.”
That is one thing.
Everything else real is also being glossed over, and by glossed over I mean completely ignored.
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.” — What is the relationship [Climate sensitivity factor] between CO2 converting long wave radiation in to temperature? Is it linearly related and curvilinearly related? In 1970s-80s, I presented models to estimate global solar radiation and net radiation.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Been a while lets see how good my memory is, you will need to check these numbers.
CO2 has a symmetric stretching mode at around 1388 cm-1, asymmetric stretching mode at around 2349 cm-1, and a bending mode at around 667 cm-1. Hit a CO2 molecule with the shorter wavelengths it kicks out an emission in the longer wavelength. Hit it with 15 micron it will emit the higher frequencies. On a lab bench at 275K to 325K and 1 atmosphere the effect is about 4.4% to 8.0% for the higher frequencies to lower and I think it’s about 3.5-6% for the reverse but check both of these it has been a while. The gas mixture changes things around with Nitrogen and Water helping and any chemical site will explain why.
You obviously have access to a university and you can do a simple setup to check the numbers, get a quantum dot count the photons in and the photons out converted. Or do an article search on something like “IR single photon CO2 spectroscopy” which should eliminate all the bulk studies.
Does any of that help in climate science .. nope. That is on a bench under controlled situation and you are driving one way and measuring the other. In the real world you have both interactions together and you have all the various temperature and pressures in different proportions. You basically need a top to bottom cross section of the atmosphere and integrate that conversion along the entire section to know the answer of what it does. That is where you need climate science and real answers.
Has anyone challenged or proven the assertion that a CO2 molecule, after absorbing a photon, emits it in a truly random direction? Why doesn’t the direction in bias the direction out? At all?
A good question Crispin and I think the answer lies in two physical mechanisms. Firstly that you cannot predict precisely when the IR excited molecule will re-emit. Secondly the molecules are in thermal motion so I think the photon re-emission momentum is about as random as random can be. If this were not so you could arrange for the mother of all powerful lasers.
It is random because we can’t know, from the information available, what molecule absorbed, what molecule emitted and what the spatial orientations were when absorption or emission occurred.
There is a complicated QM explaination to why the emission is random direction. However we can stay inside classical physics and give you an answer (lie) which will make sense. The emission under the classical story can only be relative to the position of the molecule. The molecule has no preference to direction so even if the emission is relative to the molecule position the distribution of emissions will be random thru all the directions.
This question always arises in classical physics people because of the stupid rutherford model of the atom and you have the nucleus in the way and an electron energy being involved. Since you have an orbital the temptation is to say that an emission might slam into the nucleus because you have turned the atom into a solid 3D thing. It’s the same problem of why don’t two electrons in the same orbital crash into each other occasionally. There is a notion of “collision” in quantum mechanics, where two objects briefly have a localized interaction but it is not really like the classical colission.
For the more advanced the true answer you need to know how localized the QM interaction is. If the wave packet representing the photon is spatially well localized, then the momentum uncertainty is large and you can say the emission is in all directions at the same time.
Experimentally you set up a quantum dot in the middle of a circle with detectors. You emit one photon and randomly select to view the photon with one detector you will see the photon flash. If you turn on all the detectors you will see the photon on exactly one detector and one detector may see it more than others. Why, well because one detector may be slightly closer or more sensitive, faster. The probability wave spreads out from the emission point and the first sensor to observe the wave it collapses at. You can no longer see the photon at the other sensors because there is only E=hv energy available and once absorbed at one point the probability of seeing it at any other point drops to zero.
For all the anti-QM crackpots I am not interested in discussing it and your comments will be ignored.
“and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.”
Except its not warming rapidly. It is barely warming at all.
The only warming in the whole satellite temperature data has come from El Nino events.
The latter of these will shortly drop back to equal to or below its starting temperature.
Between El Nino events, there has been NO WARMING.
And the scientific method is —
Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding …
Then just model it.
No verification with observations, no measurement need to be done, no validation of the computer model(s).
No, just guess a new
suppositionsuperstition and off you go.AndyG55, you made a bet with me nearly 4 years ago when you said:
“And there is good reason for this plateau, and why we are almost certainly going to start heading down hill”
That was on 4th January 2014 when the UAH 13 month rolling anomaly was about 0.15°. It’s now about 0.35°, and October was 0.65° (in non El Nino conditions).
Four years ago I said:
“I’m open to any number of years, but let’s say if that in three years global temperatures start trending downwards, I’ll revise my thinking. I sincerely hope that in the reverse case you will be open to revising yours.”
You agreed you would revise your thinking if temperatures did not go down. It has now been 4 years and the temperature has gone up steeply. Will you do what you promised and revise your thinking?
Temperatures are starting to drop.
A slight delay, but not by much. See what happens over the next few months.
Or are you going to rely on El Nino transients as well.
There is NO WARMING in the satellite data except for El Nino events
Get over it. !!
I don’t know what its like in the USA, but down here in Australia we have had the COLDEST start to November in 49 years…..
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/coldest-start-to-november-in-23-years-set-to-continue-20171104-gzf07g.html
I WANT MY SUMMER !!!
According to news, UK is also set for a very cold November,
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/875231/Snow-weather-forecast-November-coldest-winter-heavy-snow-UK-BBC-weather
And looking through some news links I found Canada is in a deep freeze as well
http://www.620ckrm.com/2017/11/09/regina-experiences-coldest-november-9-in-98-years/
Then apparently USA as well
https://www.agweb.com/article/the-us-witnessed-its-coldest-november-weather-in-38-years-ben-potter/
Heck, even HAdCRUT shows that the El Nino has already disappeared from the surface temperature.
And a solid, deep La Nino appears to be on the way.
Got your fossil fuel powered heating all ready to go ?
AndyG55, I replied to you in a thread below.
The test of observed warming will come over the next five years. The last super El Nino, 1998, showed, after an initial undershoot, what appears to be a stepwise increase in temperature. So, will the just-passed super El Nino show a step-wise increase in temperature or not? If it does not — then there will be no observed warming. If it does, the there may be a warming trend — but of a nonlinear rachet-pawl variety.
The acid test for global warming will be in 10 years, when the AMO (C) becomes negative and at the same time the PDO is still negative. Then we will see what effect CO2 has. Apart from the coming weak solar cycles.
I hope you’re right that the post 2015/16 El Niño warming will be zero, but that’s not what the satellites are currently showing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/
Dr. Spencer has made a statement on his website. Please read everything and not just the balloons of AGW.
I read most of Spencer’s blog posts. I just re-read the one about the large Oct. temp anomaly. He merely says that the UAH troposphere has diverged from the surface data, but he provides no explanation.
And any AVERAGE warming is seen in slight increases in night time temps and winter temps ( if they are accurate, which is unlikely). The Earth isn’t getting ‘warmer’ it getting milder, if anything at all. Since when did ‘mildness’ harm anything or anyone.
Well, some nut trees (like the almond in my back yard) need some hard frosts to stimulate flowering . . Hey, you asked ; )
The amounts of chilling needed to stimulate optimum flower production in nut and fruit trees is usually not a whole lot.
Which is why things like almonds can even be grown in southern California, and we can even grow peaches in Florida.
But even with no chilling, there will still be flowering, and production.
But it will not be optimum.
And if such conditions persisted over many years and wide areas…do you think these species would be capable of adaptation, or would they just toss in the towel and commit almond tree seppuku?
We are only just beginning to understand epigenetics, but it is safe to say that species that have survived on Earth for tens of millions of years have been through some serious disruptions…many of them, warm and cold, dry and wet, you name it…and they are still here.
Life adapts.
That is why it is life.
http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/Weather_Services/chilling_accumulation_models/about_chilling_units/
And then there are the stats on exactly how much vertical elevation or change in latitude is required to counter a given rise in temp.
It aint much.
AndyG55, today you say:
“Temperatures are starting to drop.
A slight delay, but not by much. See what happens over the next few months.
Or are you going to rely on El Nino transients as well.”
On January 8 this year you said:
“Start of 2017. That’s 3 years
Let’s see where the go over the few months shall we.
December 2016 was 5th December in UAH and 9th December in RSS.
Looks like I might be pretty much on track.”
On January 4 2014, you said:
“we are almost certainly going to start heading down hill.”
Can you see a pattern yet?
Poor mat, getting desperate are you.
You can see the cooling phase coming, slightly delayed.
Trying to get in a couple of meaningless jibes before it does.
Can you see the pattern!
You don’t seem to have any knowledge about what an El Nino is.
Hint, little child. Its a big release of energy from the oceans.
ie.. and ocean COOLING event.,
… and there’s been one heck a LOT of energy that been released from the oceans over the 2015/16 El Nino TRANSIENT.
More than I thought, yes, it does seem that the effect of all those strong solar cycles last century was actually larger than anticipated.
Have you seen the large El Nino starting to form ??
Got plenty of fossil fuel powered heaters?
La Nina forming…….. time to CHILL-OUT
Make sure your fossil fueled electric heaters are working properly.
Mat,
Of course…the pattern is completely obvious to anyone paying attention in the slightest:
Everything warmista alarmists have ever predicted or warned about has failed to materialize.
Every.
Thing.
No exceptions.
None.
Now…that is a pattern!
Am I misunderstanding something, or missing something? How can this theory be reconciled with the historic records showing temperature rises precede CO2 rises, and not vice versa?
Yes!
It can’t – QED. But their BS story is that once the ~800 year time lag has passed and BOTH temperature and CO2 are rising, that CO2 “contributes” to the warming. Unfortunately, their BS conveniently overlooks two GAPING holes in this “story” –
ONE, there is NO increase in the “rate” of warming, after the ~800 year time lag has passed and CO2 AND temperature are both rising.
TWO, even if one could argue (perhaps plausibly) that the scale of the graph is insufficient to show the (minuscule!) “contribution” of CO2 to the rising temperature, there is STILL one place where the supposed “contribution” of CO2 CANNOT hide. When whatever is (excuse me) REALLY causing the temperature to increase stops, what we SHOULD then see, if their BS was valid, is temperature CONTINUING TO INCREASE at a lower rate, that lower rate being the “contribution” of CO2 to the temperature rise. Instead, what we see is TEMPERATURES FALLING, WHILE CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE, and then CO2 levels falling ?AFTER the SAME ~800 year time lag has passed.
So CO2’s “contribution” is NOTHING, essentially.
Bingo!
If they want to use those Vostok graphs, they need to realise that :
1. Peak CO2 levels were NEVER able to maintain peak temperatures.
2. In fact, peak CO2 levels were ALWAYS coincident with the temperature starting to drop sharply.
>>
. . . that CO2 “contributes” to the warming. Unfortunately, their BS conveniently overlooks two GAPING holes in this “story” –
<<
They never point to the cooling sides of the graph. According to their logic the higher CO2 should be preventing temperatures from dropping–but it doesn’t. Frank Lansner covered it quite well back in a 2009 post (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/).
Jim
so what caused the little ice age. how do we know modern. warming post 1850 is simply warming due to end of lia? since climate models cannot explain the lia how can anyone be confident models can explain what happens post lia?
There seems to be no satisfactory answer, if any, to that question. Was it a decrease in solar radiation? Was it a decrease in CO2? Was it a mix? As long as there is no valid answer to that, there will be no explanation or prediction of things to come. Furthermore, models based on CO2 as driving force do not work properly, as Donohoe, Armour et al show. The seeds of doubt germinate…
“so what caused the little ice age.”
I’d settle for a solid explanation of what drive ENSO. I’m wondering if that’s not the climate clock tick.
The little ice age never happened, it was a localized event, don’t you read your Mann? There is one tree in Siberia which proved this.
Geodetic factors spawned by mantle discharges in the deep oceans of the Pacific as theorized in this blog a year ago. Can someone recall the exact article?
oscillation is the natural behavior of most systems, controled by the system eigenvalues.
Now, ENSO involves wind pattern, so obviously you need a solid wind model to understand ENSO.
And is not only the LIA, also they connot explain the MWP before. So like the romanian warming period and the follow dark ages before the MWP. None of this up and downs they understand.
I like the Romanian and Bulgar warming periods.
Javier November 13, 2017 at 7:20 am
I like the Romanian and Bulgar warming periods.
And they like you too.
And, what caused the recovery from the LIA?
The end of the LIA, obviously.
Because it’s not about science, it’s about politics and population. Models don’t have to explain anything, just keep you from seeing what the magician’s left hand is doing while he is doing his show with the right. It’s all about the dazzle in front of your eyes, while the dull in the background goes unnoticed as it steals your money, your car, your freedom, and eventually, your life.
“At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.”
I thought the atmosphere was transparent to SWR.
It didn’t work. Second try.
Dan: It seems to me, from looking at that graphic, that there is very little room for CO2 to do anything in its absorption band. Water vapor already blocks what appears to be 50% of the same wavelengths, which means that any increased CO2 can only ever block that final 50% of that narrow band, regardless of how much CO2 increases.
Mr. Schrumpf, that is what it also appears to me.
There are several different cartoons depicting what is thought to be the budget, such as this one from which you will note that it is claimed that the atmosphere absorbs 16% and clouds absorb 3% of incoming solar irradiance
Thus, the atmosphere is not transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance.
And
this cartoon is a lie: it represents a round surface, when it assume the Earth to be flat. Flat, one-side, not rotating, homogenous, no wind, close to equilibrium.
A plain lie.
And they dare paint skeptics as ‘flat Earther”. Trenberth and friends ARE the flat Earther here.
The truth is, the Earth is NOT at equilibrium.
Not in time.
It gains energy during ~half the day and lose at early morning, evening and night. It gains energy in late winter- early summer and lose energy in late summer-early winter. however, it also turns part of this day-summer extra energy into chemical energy (photosynthesis), turned back into heat during night&winter. It is closer to the sun (receive more energy) during north hemisphere winter. etc.
Not in space.
It gains energy at lower latitude, and lose at higher latitude.
This budget cartoon do not help understand, it helps planting false ideas in everyone mind.
And two-thirds of the energy absorbed by the surface comes from the atmosphere. We don’t really need much energy from the sun.
I am frequently criticising this cartoon, and I consider that it is divorced from all reality.
I was merely pointing out that it has always been part of the AGW theory that the atmosphere is only partially transparent, and not completely transparent, to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance.
PS. In addition to the points raised above, the cartoon also ignores the fact that approximately 70% of the planet’s surface is covered by water, and the oceans do not absorb solar irradiance at their surface, but rather at depth.
It has “back radiation 324” and shows all 324 absorbed by surface. Huh? No! From the upper levels, back radiation is mostly absorbed by the intervening water vapour and CO2 molecules multiple times before some of it reaches the surface. Some is re-radiated into space, some downwards and some sideways. Similarly “390 surface radiation” is captured on the way up and partly radiated back. Anyone agree?
According to this cartoon, the net energy gain from space is 168+324=492 Watts and the losses 390+78+24=492 Watts, a perfect balance. But look at the “67 Absorbed by Atmosphere” on the incoming stream. Of that total, half would be emitted as IR up and the other half down. Where is the “Absorbed by atmosphere” on the outgoing stream? Is it the “324 Back Radiation”? Can’t be. That 324 is only half of what would have to be absorbed to give that total downwards. GHG’s absorbing 648W would radiate about 324 downwards. If there is 324 down, there is 324 up. 648 W harvested out of 492 W? Call my patent lawyer!
The 67 W incoming absorbed would be shed 50% up and 50% down. To get 324 down-pointing from GHG’s there would have to be 648 outgoing, but the outgoing total is only 492, of which 24+78 are noted as not being radiative in the region of interest. How can 492 outgoing total be captured by GHG/s and 66% of it be send downwards again? It is not a mirror.
The cartoon is unrealistic so let’s look a little deeper: 492 outgoing total balancing 492 incoming cannot generate “324 absorbed by surface” exclusively from back radiation because the GHG molecules would have to capture 492*132%=648 W of outgoing radiation to do it, and there isn’t that much available. Taking the cartoon’s claim for 40 W ‘window’ as correct, it means the available energy is only 492-40 = 452. Thus the claim is that of 452 W available radiation, 143% of it is captured by GHG’s and 50% of that sent down to the surface to be absorbed.
I think a demonstration of a 43% return above unity would attract a lot of attention among the perpetual motion machine enthusiasts.
If you discount the 492 for thermals and evaporation, and from the remaining 390 radiation 40 W is lost through the window, there actually is only 350W IR radiation available, with 92.6% of it retuned to Earth? That means the GHG’s are capturing 85% more energy than is available and sending half of it back to the surface. Scotty, turn on the hyper-drive! I don’t think I can take and moooooore!
All this goes to demonstrate that, “A chart is an inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth.”
and, as pointed out lower, the surface lose MORE than the maximum energy it could possibly get if the atmosphere absorbed already all of earth emission (perfectly effective GHG case): 24+78+390=492 lost, versus a theoric maximum of 67+2×168 = 403 maximum possible to receive.
Also notice that the atmosphere somehow radiates 70% more downward that upward, 324 versus 195, and that again this 324 figure exceed the maximum of 235 in the case of a perfectly opaque to Earth radiation GHG.
This atmosphere isn’t a blanket that just prevent energy to get out, it is a Maxwell deamon heating device.
This cartoon doesn’t pass the first basic coherence check, but is is still teached everywhere. Says it all about “climate science”.
Waterloo,
Do energy levels allow the following repetitive cycle scheme?
After a burst of downwelling hits the surface and assuming it is mostly absorbed, it will heat the surface. The surface will become hotter and emit IR, some upwards.
The upgoing will be like that at the start of the cartoon, some heading up to heat the air, radiate in all directions, including a new lot of downwelling.
This cycle repeats over and over.
For simplicity, think that equal amounts of upwelling and down are produced each cycle. Upwelling goes to space, goodby. So we have a series where the participating upwelling becomes half, three quarters, seven eights etc, converging on 100%. The downwelling might as well not exist because these are rapid dissipative processes.
I have grossly simplified this scenario to set readers thinking about another cartoon diagram.
The clear sky atmosphere is. But I assume you know clouds blocks sunlight. So does dust, contrails, aerosols, etc.
Solar insolation at the equator under clear skies is around 1,150 w/m2 and not 1,361 w/m2 showing that even clear sky atmosphere absorbs considerable amounts of incoming solar irradiance.
“spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.
They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model.”
Oh…. so computer simulations and simple naive energy balance models.. after many hours of guessing and no doubt drinking merrily !!
Throwing out “guesses” ie , they had no idea what they were doing ..
….. as seems pretty obvious from their conclusion.
These seem like the sort of guys CSIRO might hire. ! Right Nick !
The whole thing reads like a desperate attempt to conjure up an excuse for why the climate models don’t mirror reality and so that the alarmists can go on pretending their work is worthy of being regarded as anything remotely scientific. I suggest Andy you just join the rest of us in quietly being contemptuous of this and keep watching real observations over corrupted model inputs and outright deception.
… and convection and conduction, and state change, and …
and when it absorbs shortwave radiation it gets warm, and when it emits longwave radiation it colds down. Last bit is also usually omitted.
why climate models generate this illogical finding
≠==========!
because the theory is wrong. that is the simplest explanation and thus the most likely to be correct.
the human mind can invent a million reasons why it is logical for computer models to be illogical. it is especially helpful if these explanations concern the distant future and thus cannot be tested.
+1
So let me get this right.
Are they saying that CO2 doesn’t absorb, then reflect long wave, or short wave radiation back down to the planet? Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, which reflects long wave radiation, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?
Something I never really got anyway. How does a CO2 molecule know what direction the earth is so as to reflect back any absorbed radiation. Surely a molecule would radiate any absorbed energy equally from its ‘circumference’? (If a molecule has such a thing).
Please forgive my ignorance.
It’s magic.
It is claimed that CO2 radiates in all directions, and thus approximately one half of the radiated photons are radiated in a direction that is downwards towards the direction of the surface. The other half is radiated in an upwards direction towards TOA from where it is radiated to the void of space.
Actually, there are several other directions for the radiation to go. A molecule would have to be very close to earth to radiate even 25% towards it, assuming equal radiation in all directions.
“Yup”, it is factual science that ……. “one half of the radiated photons” are subject to the “force of gravity” and return to the earth’s surface ………… and ……. the “other half of the radiated photons” are repelled by the “force of gravity” and go flying out into space.
Ya know, kinda like re-emitted photons from atmospheric CO2 molecules being empowered with positive (+) and negative (-) gravitational charges.
Eritas
rockyredneck
That’s kind of what I thought.
Samuel C Cogar
Thanks, that was entirely unhelpful.
All directions means what it says, ie., a full 360 degrees. The geometry of the spherical Earth and its spherical atmosphere means that it is inevitable that slightly less than 50% of the radiated photons will find their way downwards to the surface.
HotScot – November 13, 2017 at 9:52 am
AW GEEEEZE, …… HotScot, ………….
And all I’za wasa trying ta do was appease the AGW “fence-stragglers” who keep testifying to the fact that they absolutely, positively disbelieve and disagree with the “junk-science” claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming ……… while in betwixt the aforementioned testimonials …….. they tout, quote, mimic and/or plagiarize their thoughts, beliefs and agreements that increases in atmospheric CO2 is and/or has been a direct cause of increases in near-surface air temperatures.
Their belief/opinion about CAGW is like the weather, …… it changes at a moment’s notice.
OH MY OH ME, …. I really don’t think I can agree with the above statement, ……. even iffen the earth’s surface was “Biblical flat”. And the reason for that is, …… as the distance from the surface increases (altitude) …… the per se “re-emission window” for directing the CO2 emitted photons toward the surface …….. keeps decreasing exponentially.
Like a Quarterback throwing a pass, ……. the farther away the “receiver” is, ……. the smaller the “football launch window” is.
But the “BIG” question is, that no one has yet accurately calculated, …… how much is 50% of the CO2’s re-radiated photons?
As far as I’m concerned, ……… guessing and estimating just don’t get it.
“How does a CO2 molecule know what direction the earth is so as to reflect back any absorbed radiation”
Easy, molecular diodes.
Paul
Seems fair. So does it mean the CO2 molecules then direct all the absorbed long and short wave radiation directly back down to the earth’s surface?
Actually somewhat more than half are directed towards space. It’s called atmospheric refraction. radiation that is not emitted directly upwards, will be refracted towards the zenith, because the refractive index of the atmosphere decreases with altitude.
As a result of this refraction when the sun sets it is already geometrically below the horizon before its visual disk touches the horizon.
Also the GHG absorption lines are broadened by Temperature (Doppler effect) and also by collisions (density effect, so a downward directed photon will encounter a greater probability of being re-absorbed by a GHG molecule, than an upward directed photon which will encounter a lower density and temperature which narrows the GHG absorption lines, so it increases the probability of escaping upwards, and re-absorbing downwards.
So more than 50% can escape to space.
And the individual CO2 lines (thousands of them) do NOT overlap the thousands of water lines, so it is incorrect to say that water already bsorbs the radiation that CO2 can absorb.
Those spectrum cartoons smudge the real absorption lines to make it look like it is one big gap. It isn’t.
You need to look up a real measured CO2 or H2O absorption spectrum in the atmosphere. Try … ” The Infra-Red Handbook ” …, published by ERIM for the Department of Naval Research.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-90786
ISBN: 0-9603590-1-X
ANY incoming solar spectrum radiation that is scattered/reflected/absorbed/whatever in the atmosphere, is solar spectrum energy that never makes it to the deep oceans to get stored; so it is a net loss to the earth’s energy budget input.
And the LWIR emitted by the atmosphere, will more likely escape to space, than reach the ocean surface, where it will be absorbed in less than 50 microns of water surface, and cause evaporation rather than propagation to the colder depths.
G
What we are observing is ironic science, mixed with fake science. Ironic science occurs when there is a path error.
A path error is an incorrect physical assumption which is in most cases due to ignorance concerning the real physical mechanism(s).
The path error makes the scientific problems in question impossible to solve. Ironic science does not converge on the truth. It goes in circles.
The warming in the last 150 years was caused by a reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover was caused by changes in the solar cycle, as opposed to changes in atmospheric CO2.
Observations to support the above assertion is the lack of warming for the last 18 years, fact that the predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot did not occur, and the fact that there are periodic cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar cycle changes.
The above conclusions also explain why there are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa.
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/929486296531079168
This is Occam’s razor.
Until we know clouds, we will never properly understand the planet’s climate and how it is driven.
Sorry, that wasn’t clear at all
This: “Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, which reflects long wave radiation, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?”
Should read: Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, and the planet reflects long wave radiation back, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?
When the planet reflects short wave radiation it is still short wave on the way out. It only becomes long wave after after it is absorbed and then emitted at a different frequency.
Richard M
So does CO2 absorb it all and reflect it, or are their other atmospheric influences like water vapour, methane, clouds and even dust particles that contribute. I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that question.
My understanding is that Tyndall declared that water vapour was the dominant greenhouse gas and that whilst not insignificant, the effect of the other greenhouse gases was minor. Nor could his laboratory possibly include clouds, nor accurately replicate varying amounts of atmospheric particulates caused by volcano’s, fires and weather events like hurricanes and tornado’s.
Sorry to be a pain, but it seems to me there’s to many variables to boil down climate change to just one trace atmospheric gas, and only a small part of that due to mankind. It also seems to me that trying to average anything within climate science is utterly futile.
It has been warmer many times.
CO2 has been higher more than many times…it has almost always been higher, including periods were it was also warmer.
No life threatening catastrophes ever happened…instead life prospered.
And it cooled off every time, eventually.
Because natural variability is, always has been, and always will be a far larger effect.
“Out in the real world, aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight, and so Earth has not experienced as much warming from shortwave solar radiation as it otherwise might have.”
We must start to subsidise aerosols.
Absolutely reasonable. Send your proposal to the EU in Brussels, garnished with the magic key words “global warming, climate change, Al Gore says so” and you won’t have to wait long until they fork out the subsidies requested, and probably a lot more.
My application is already in the post. I have also recommended an Aerosol Conference in St Lucia.
Oh no. You also need a friend selling “aerosol anti warming device”, that could also double as energy producing device, while getting rid of an awful GHG (CH4 for instance).
I got a picture.
How much would I get for a sneeze?
So where is all the water vapor?
In the depth of the oceans?
With the heat that disappeared, at some stage they are going to reappear and then we will be doomed!
It turned into hiroshima bombs, billions of them, hiding in the ocean. We are doomed
” “I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,” Donohoe says. “We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.””
So the greenhouse effect theory is wrong.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
“The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models…..”
Of course not! To challenge the physics of the models would be blasphemy and subject the authors to a possible inquisition. Never mind that the physics of the climate models in use demands a persistent hot spot in the upper troposphere somewhere along the equatorial band and nobody has ever found it.
Concerning the graphics depictions. Are any of them accurate depictions of what one would expect from the poles?
Seems like a lot of hand waving and mumbling. I don’t buy it.
I cannot say I have read the paper but it seems to me they have discovered something that I and some of us here on wuwt already knew. The climate changes as the sun’s radiation changes over time AND as earth’s inside iron core re-aligns with that of the sun: the magnetic stirrer effect.
FYI, we all know of the following solar cycles (SC’s) :
11(Schwabe) , 22 (Hale), 88 (Gleissberg) , 210 (DeVries), 1000 (Eddy), 2400 (Bray), years, respectively.
{proven data for these cycles exist}
The changes can be seen in my data, for example, you can see the half cycle of the Gleissberg shown in my graph.
GHG’s [also] deflect SW to space,
and what the researchers should do to prove that a GH effect exists is to show us a balance sheet of each GHG as to how much OLR is trapped versus how much SW is back radiated to space, converted to some kind of energy calculation.
My data tell me that there is no man made warming so I would say the net effect of more GHG (CO2 + H2O) is zero or very close to zero and it compares to nothing with the various effects of the SC’s.
“Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing …
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!
~~~~~~~~~~~
I spend about the same time and my guess is that you and your guesses are wrong, and the climate models are no match for reality.
Still better than Mikey the Mann’s hockeyschtick, that was made up deliberately and conceived with trickery to deceive.
“However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.”
*****************
So the entire theory now hangs on a ‘darker earth absorbing more sunlight’? How much by surface area is now ‘darker’ than before and thus has reduced albedo? 2%? 1%? 0.5%? Less? (and over how many months of the year for that matter?) From there how realistic is it that such a tiny % of earths surface – in already cold areas that receive far less incoming solar than hot areas, holds the balance of power on global temperature surface warming? Sounds like yet more propping up of AGW by confected theory.
Clean air acts worked, and resulted in warming. Why can’t we just leave stuff alone?
Patrick MJD November 13, 2017 at 4:33 am
Clean air acts worked.
I think this gets overlooked and if as they say, “aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight” then we should see warming because of cleaner skies, at least in the ‘developed’ world.
CheshireRed November 13, 2017 at 4:26 am
I think the idea we can measure how things will warm just by measuring albedo is too simplistic. Forests and lakes are darker than deserts / salt lakes, but forests and lakes are cooler than the latter. Of course that will be because of evaporation but either way they will be cooler.
I agree. Albedo is pitched as another instant explanation to this issue and as a positive feedback that drives warming but it’s just too simplistic and as so often, way too convenient to their cause. Anything to keep AGW on life-support, eh?
I suppose it’s easier to attribute ‘blame’ to the life giving photosynthesizing CO2 gas & try limit to industrial development of the 3rd world, that has given us in the 1st/2nd world such a deluxe lifestyle from ‘caveman’ days, but the general public don’t really get blasted with info on other GHGs (except the GreenWash) so found this from this article (found from a few clicks from the above):
https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf
All of course ignoring other effects of Sun, Clouds, the uneven distribution of solar radiation on this little planet and of course Milankovic cycles etc in this very brief history of time.
These guys have got it backwards too.
The warming of the late 20th century was caused primarily by reduction in cloud cover.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/
Cloud cover decrease was responsible for about 90% of the global warming from 1981 to 2009, increased CO2 was responsible for about 10%. [1981-2009 was the full date range of available cloud data.].
The resulting warmer surface sends more IR radiation out into space, and the extra CO2 intercepts only a part of it. This is the cause behind their observation that “While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”
So when they say “At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.”, this is where they have got it backwards: The absorption of more SW is the natural result of a decrease in cloud cover. So it isn’t a reaction to CO2’s warming, it is the warming. “Sea ice and snow cover melt” is trivial compared to cloud cover decrease, because it involves a much smaller area placed where there’s a lot less solar radiation.
NB, it’s the ocean that absorbs the SW, not the land or the atmosphere.
Mike,
You said, “The warming of the late 20th century was caused primarily by reduction in cloud cover.” That has always struck me as a better explanation for the retreat of glaciers than the miniscule, claimed increase in average global surface temperatures, with most of the increase at high latitudes, at night, and in the Winter, where it is already cold enough to freeze.
Indeed. We know that warming began prior to the industrial revolution and we have anecdotal accounts from history as well as scientific proxy data that cold periods were often associated with literal dimming of the sun. Clouds, especially high level clouds nucleated from sulfate aerosols, is the culprit.
“during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness… and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear” — Procopius, 6th century
If this paper means anything, then we would have seen the authors and MIT cast aside as climate deniers by now.
More speculation about speculation about speculation…
Something about that word “impacting” bothers me.
Verbing nouns is an American thing.
“The atmosphere grows moister…”
But if one believes NOAA data, it has not but is actually getting drier.
Yes, that is my understanding. Could you link to the data?
I get it from http://www.climate4you.com/ Go to “Climate + Clouds” I am sure you can also get it directly from NOAA.
“The authors demonstrate that the source of the differences lies in the way in which a model represents changes in cloud cover with global warming, another big factor in how well Earth can reflect shortwave solar energy.”
Yes, and cloud cover can be greatly affected by the land over which the air travels and changes in land use can change cloud cover. Have there been any changes in land use in the last 200 years compared to the previous millennia?
The entire ‘scientific’ premise of ‘global warming’ is based on the erroneous concept of ‘greenhouse gases’.
If CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared energy from the sun and heats the atmosphere, what would happen to an atmosphere without CO2? The infrared energy would pass through the atmosphere and strike the surface, where it would be absorbed and converted into heat.
Where would this heat go? It would heat the air that is in contact with the warmed surface.
Either way, the infrared energy ends up heating the atmosphere. The presence or absence of a gas that absorbs infrared energy does not affect the total amount of energy transferred to the atmosphere. The source of all that infrared energy is the sun. The gas may, at best, provide a secondary path for some of the energy to get absorbed by the atmosphere.
Conversely, the emission spectrum of a gas is identical to its absorption spectrum. CO2 radiates infrared radiation (in ALL directions!) as well as it absorbs the same radiation. Whether or not a specific molecule of CO2 absorbs or radiates depends on several factors, but mostly the relative total kinetic energy of the molecular vibrations compared to the average total kinetic energy of the molecular vibrations of it’s molecular neighbors – i.e. the ‘temperature” of the surrounding gas. The presence of more CO2 in the atmosphere increases its ability to radiate energy at those same wavelengths.
The novelty level within this paper seems to be zero.
It has been said for almost 50 years that the direct effects of GHGs are low; approximately 1C increase for each doubling of CO2 as an example.
If AGW is dangerous, it is due to the feedbacks associated with a warming globe.
This paper is just reiterating common knowledge.
“While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2”
This is a ridiculous statement. Longwave radiation leaving the Earth is solely affected by the Earth’s temperature, otherwise you’d get short-term catastrophic warming. CO2 can only delay individual photons from escaping, not change the net energy balance.
“OLR takes centuries to recover”
Why and based on what knowledge?
“we have the global warming physical process backwards”
Agreed. No need to read your paper then.
Short version: The models are consistent with the pause. Longer term its worse than we thought. Send mony
” I really don’t know clouds at all ” – joni mitchell
there is a new paper out that suggests that the CO2 absorption spectra is already fully (or substantially already fully) saturated, such that CO2 at late 20th century levels does little, if anything at all. See:
Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations shows no increase in Earth’s surface temperature from increase in carbon dioxide (PDF Download Available).
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319324166_Solution_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_equations_shows_no_increase_in_Earth's_surface_temperature_from_increase_in_carbon_dioxide [accessed Nov 13 2017].
“If there were no leakage, the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface would be equal to the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus twice the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. ”
Simple, elegant, easy to understand(*). However, you have to consider that convection belongs in the leakage, as a not radiative way for surface to give energy to atmosphere.
Notice that according to the (awful, flat-earth) mainstream Earth energy budget,
A incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere ~67
B solar radiation absorbed by the surface ~168
A+2B = 403. Note this is maximum, no leakage, input to surface
C convection (part of leakage) ~102
D upwelling infrared radiation from surface: ~350 ( to atmosphere ~310, direct to space — leak– ~40)
C+D= 452 total energy loss by the surface
452 > 403, i.e. surface emits/transfers more than it can possibly recieve even in the no leakage case, so something is wrong in this Earth power budget, massively (in the ~50W/m² magnitude, 10x more than supposed anthropo forcing!).
(*) you are looking at a steady state solution where
A (atm in from sun) +B (surface in from sun) = C (global out to space = atmosphere out because no leakage surface to space and no leakage non radiative atmo to space, also backradiation from atm to surface because as much down as up)
D (surface out radiation = surface in because equilibrium and no convective leakage) = B + C = A+2B.
QED
More specifically, the energy that the dipole molecule absorbs must be EXACTLY the energy needed to bump the molecule into the quantized vibrational state. It will never, under any known physical reality, absorb more or less than the exact energy needed, and once it’s already in the quantized vibrational state, it IS transparent to those wavelengths. If all the OLWIR in those bands is already being absorbed and reemitted, any additional molecules will make little difference. The only additional energy will come from the increased probability that when molecules collide in the atmosphere, one of them will be a CO2 molecule that will lose some vibrational energy to translational kinetic energy on collision, so the additional energy will be fractions of the quantized energy level (very little energy).
“If all the OLWIR in those bands is already being absorbed and reemitted” (condition 1)
Then is it not the case that
“any additional molecules” (of the same kind)
will absorb any additional OLWIR that may arise (such as from an increasing surface temperature?
I’m not saying that the first condition of absorption and re-emittance will (or will not) lead to an increased surface temperature, I’m asking by what logic increased OLWIR, from any cause, would not interact with the additional molecules, adding to the total of condition 1.
I don’t think an increase in surface temperature increases the amount of each individual band of OLWIR, it slightly shifts the overall radiation to higher frequency/energy bands. If you believe the oft cited data, condition 1 was met before the industrial revolution.
@richard Verney
“half” is incorrect.
The molecule acts like a sphere, so 62.5% of radiation going in the direction of the molecule goes back to the direction where the light came from.
You can compare it a bit with putting on your bright lights in misty, moist conditions: the light is returned to you in your face.
{we are talking of light in the wavelength area where the molecule ‘absorbs’}
this reasoning goes for both SW (going back to space) and OLR (going back to earth) where there is absorption.
I was just stating the claim, ie., what proponents of AGW and the radiative GHE claim about the workings of their ‘theory’.
I agree that as a matter of geometry, less than half will find their way back to the surface.
Richard Verney
I think you did not get it.
The figure is 62.5% in the direction where the light came from. Not 50% or less than 50%.
Perhaps try and understand exactly how the GH and the anti GH effect works.
Note that on a cold winters night, when clouds come in, the minimum T in the night increases, as the IR radiation from earth hits on the water / water vapor and returns back to earth?
So, heat OLR is trapped by the clouds [at night]
During the day, clouds and GHG return [some] SW back to space.
Perhaps read this paper and understand exactly what is happening in fig 6 and 7: Follow the SW of the lines of H2O and CO2 that was deflected from earth to the moon and measured back on earth and tell me exactly what you see is happening?
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
Do you see that the CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere?
The wavelength areas of the molecule where absorption takes place, act like a mirror, returning the light, 62.5 % in the direction where it comes from.
Hence, more CO2 is [also] cooling the earth.
henryp November 13, 2017 at 5:52 am
@richard Verney
“half” is incorrect.
The molecule acts like a sphere, so 62.5% of radiation going in the direction of the molecule goes back to the direction where the light came from.
No the atmosphere is so thin that any emitting molecule is very close to the surface (radius ~6500km), the delay time after absorption is so long that the molecule emits randomly wrt the direction the light came from. The angle subtended by the earth at the emitting molecule is very close to 2pi steradians so the proportion of light scattered back to the earth is very close to 0.50. Henry appears to confuse the process with elastic scattering by liquid spheres.
“As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, ”
No it doesnt. CO2 isnt an energy source, hence it can’t heat anything. All CO2 can do is act as a bit of insulation, a poor one at that, hence all CO2 is KEEP the earth a bit warmer, not MAKE the earth warmer.
Exactly correct! A tiny few extra molecules basically replicating what many more water molecules are already doing.
longwave emitting up from the earth as longwave emitting down from co2 – really?
So, where are the computer model results that replicate the historical climate?
If these models were any good, they could replicate the climate from, say, the year 900 up until 1800; a time period before the industrial revolution, thus eliminating the affects of human activity on the climate. Yep, one less variable to mess around with – simplifies things.
The year 900 to 1800 period also includes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Surely such very pronounced climate periods can easily be modeled by today’s “scientists,”
After all, they claim to have a good understanding of climate science; so good in fact, they are telling us what the climate will be like 100 years into the future
If they can predict the future climate, than surely, replicating the historical climate should be easy.
I find it puzzling that so many are willing to comment on the latest “research” findings of the AGW proponents, yet no body seems to be asking where are the climate “replication” results that can shed light on the validity of the climate models.
Where are they folks ???
Where’s the beef??
“As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.
Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2“
Perhaps one of the most painfully stupid explanations I’ve ever read. Any physical body experiencing warming sheds LW radiation more effectively. The same LW radiation that leaves the Earth less effectively, due to the presence of increased CO2. So:
1) There is LESS LW radiation leaving the Earth because of increased CO2.
2) As a consequence, the Earth gets warmer.
3) So there is also MORE LW radiation leaving the Earth because of increased CO2.
Increasing levels of CO2 causes an incredecrease in the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth. It doesdoesn’t increase the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth AND it also doesdoesn’t decrease the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth.
I mean, it ISN’T, and can’t possibly be, observed, that increases in the amount of CO2 cause a decrease in the amount of LW radiation. What IS in fact observed, is the exact opposite. BUT, since we already KNOW that our theory is DEFINITELY CORRECT, then decreases in the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth, with rising CO2, are a given.
But, of course, it’s also a given that the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 means the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth increases. Like we said all along.
The incredecrease in LW radiation leaving the Earth is what the GHE is all about.
It’s not a disgrace to science. It’s a gooddisgrace to science. It’s an icredecrease to our knowledge as a species about the world around us. It’s a helphindrance to humanity. We arearen’t obviously stupid.
Oh look! Their already – Goldbergian manmade climate contraption has a couple more climate levers added to all the other knobs and gizmos. Shiny!
Donohoe is already cited by 22 papers
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18255791899792307663&as_sdt=800005&sciodt=0,15&hl=en
So, they agree that the “Science is NOT Settled” then.
“Climate Science” is not science. It is simply a way for lazy people to avoid having to engage in meaningful work.
Post docs = Looking for a job.
Fiddling with a computer model seems to be considered a resume enhancer by these people. This is not science.
So much bs.
Nothing about the so called “greenhouse effect” is “established”. It’s all based on pseudoscience. Equating radiation with heat when the two concepts are completely different to one another.
This blog perpetuates the fraud, by deceiving people into thinking that there are just differences of scientific opinion on how much warming CO2 can induce. But a cursory glance at any astronomy website with an article on the gas giants, will quickly confirm that heating via atmospheric compression is a well established fact and that the simple equation T=Pn/Rp derived from the ideal gas laws, is more than adequate to predict and calculate the temperature of any planet with a substantial atmosphere. That this formula works without ANY reference to “greenhouse gasses”.
This is not a scientific debate. This is a fraud. And those who profit by prolonging it via fake skepticism are just as culpable.
And what does the work? Gravity. Most of the LWIR leaving the planet happens to be centered at the 30 degree latitude belts where descending dry air (gravitational potential energy being converted to kinetic energy) causes higher pressure. Much of the 30 degree latitude area of Earth loses more heat into space than it receives from the sun, despite CO2 being well mixed in the troposphere.
Models, models, models. Theory, theory, guessing.
There is too much going on to model. We can only measure what is really happening.
And now for the CERES satellite of long-wave going back to space. No change.
BUT, here is something NEW.
Shortwave solar radiation being reflected back to space. It is going DOWN now and this is the first time it has shown up like this. I don’t think this has ever been noted by anyone yet. I think there must be a new methodology because this was not apparent before. There you go, the first piece of new science in climate science in a decade.
I have commented on this paper on other blogs with the question: What is the contribution of greenhouse gases to the global warming?
I think the question is actualized by the 2014 Donohoe et al paper, as they show that it is the absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that makes the earth warmer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
«In computer modeling of Earth’s climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.»
« As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.
Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2. However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.»
From:The missing piece of the climate puzzle. Researchers show that a canonical view of global warming tells only half the story. By Genevieve Wanucha, 2014.
Both measurements and models show that there is no reduction in IR radiation out at Top-of-atmosphere. Instead it has been a slight increase the last 40 years. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
So the increased heat uptake is coming from increased absorbed solar radiation. The OHC has increased by 7,5W m2 pr decade between 1992 and 2015, according to Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham, and Jiang Zhu (2017): Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015. I don`t know how correct this is, but it clearly show the direction.
The conclusion of this should be that only global warming can be directly attributed to increased Green House Gases.However the GHG theories say that iongwave radiationI has an indirect effect by redistributing energy and lay the ground for SW heating by feedbacks. But it is difficult to say how big this indirect effect is. And it also means that natural variations may play a greater role than revised canonical view will admit. There are variations in wind pattern, ocean currents and arctic melting.
The surface temperature is a different matter. Here I think that GHGs and longwave radiation play a part. There is some change in Downwelling Longwave Radiation that has some effect. Most studies operate with DLR increase of about 2 W m2 pr decade. Wang and Liang, 2009, have the value of 2,2 W, and is perhaps the most thorough study. The redistribution from this will change the lapse rate, and have some effect on surface temperatures and perhaps on ocean overturning. So when it comes to climate, both short wave and longwave radiation are of interest. Pressure systems and circulation will be affected. Variations in air pressure over 60 years range have clear consequences for temperature variations and regional sea level change. And they are part of change in wind patterns, ocean currents and arctic melting. AMO had great effect on arctic warming from 1915 to 1940, and on sea levels in the nothern Atlantic. But there may be longer variations that are interesting for the understanding of recent climate change, like the climate dynamics of LIA.
I am sorry that some of this came out wrong. What I wanted to state was: The conclusion of this should be that global warming cannot be directly attributed to increased Green House Gases. However the GHG theories say that longwave radiation has an indirect effect by redistributing energy and lay the ground for SW heating by feedbacks. But it is difficult to say how big this indirect effect is.
Very interesting Bill. Thanks for sharing. A decrease in outgoing SW might indicate an increase in tropical cloud cover. It would be interesting to see how these changes map out over the earth’s surface. Maybe Willis can give us an update.
This is nor weird. Real world is doing the same according to Ceres Ebaf.
Shortwave out is decreasing, which means that the albedo is decreasing.
First, annual changes in the energy balance at TOA (average values in the subtitle):
Second, inferred change in albedo, including seasonal variation:
Notice that all of these futuer predictions make the insane assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to increase. I’d love to hear them explain how that is going to happen.
that’s the only NOT insane part of the theory. Human emision are ~10ppm/year, when they were virtually nil a century ago. Human are releasing the CO2 that was buried in carboniferous era, and it returns where it came from: atmosphere. And life is happy, sucking up part of this CO2, but it will take sometime before it eats up again of this plant food.
So the message of this research is, “We had it wrong until now.” Is the science settled, or not?
So much of the discussion is supposition and models. When is someone going to go back to the beginning and do some actual measurements of what is actually happening?
Some of the satellite measurements seem to have made a start.
The answer is simple: yes, no, maybe.
Well they were still right but for the wrong reasons, a common theme in climastrology.
uh? i understood thay were wrong, but still for the right reason. Anyway. Never mind.
I think increased absorption of shortwave radiation from the sun would result in NEGATIVE feedback.
With no greenhouse gases, the earth will either heat up or cool down
until
the outgoing flux from the earth is equal to the incoming flux from
the sun.
Sun –> Atmosphere O –>
For the final balance,
4 units from Sun(space) to Earth surface
4/3 units from Atmosphere to Earth surface
Earth radiates 8/3 units to space and 8/3 units to atmosphere.
Atmosphere gets 8/3 units from Earth surface and radiates 8/6 to space, 8/6 to Earth surface.
Space(Sun) sends 4 units to Earth, receives 8/3 from Earth surface, 8/6 from atmosphere, for total of 4 units.
Everything is in balance.
Apply the same reasoning to an atmospheric absorption of infrared. Considering only infrared, with NO atmosphere, 4 units of infrared from Sun to Earth surface, 4 units from Earth surface to space: no greenhouse effect.
Now throw in an ultraviolet absorbing atmosphere. When balance is reached, the Sun sends 4 ultraviolet Joule units/sec to atmosphere. The atmosphere receives 4 units from the Sun, 4 from Earth surface.
Atmosphere radiates 4 units to space, 4 to Earth’s surface.
Earth surface receives no ultraviolet Joules/sec from the Sun, 4 Joules/sec from Earth’s atmosphere, for no change in wattage.
Note that before being absorbed by the atmosphere, those 4 infrared joules/sec went directly to Earth’s surface, where thanks to the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature went up and Earth surface radiated 5 1/3 Joules/sec.
With atmospheric absorption of the infrared, Earth’s surface only got the 4 joule/secs from the atmosphere rather than from the Sun, wiping out the multiplier greenhouse effect for that additional ultraviolet absorbed by the atmosphere.
The Horse And The Dog, H2O vs. CO2
Both water vapor and carbon dioxide act as insulators against infrared light, where generally only the CO2 is put in focus as the cause of making the climate warmer. My logic sense tells me that there is some truth in this, but the relationship has a magnitude of proportional misconception.
There is a tremendous amount more H2O than CO2 in the atmosphere, and H2O is significantly more effective per molecule than CO2.
I would like to compare this with a horse and a dog climbing a scale, whereas the scale shows 400kg, namely 390kg plus 10kg. Now the dog is joined by it’s twin, and the scale shows 410kg. Oh dear, we now have twice as many dogs, so how come we only get 2.5% increase in weight (insulation)?
How do these “greenhouse gases” trap longwave radiation?
The magical CO2 molecule just keeps gobbling up heat and never lets it go. The average temperature of the Earth is about 15C, but if you look at the details it’s actually just an average temperature of CO2 molecules floating around at 1,500C and N2 floating around near absolute zero. It’s “well established.”
The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.
That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.
The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.
The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.
The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
Bring science, I did. (5,800 views and zero rebuttals.)
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
****************
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
“The first design consideration for thermal control is insulation — to keep
heat in for warmth and to keep it out for cooling.”
“Here on Earth, environmental heat is transferred in the air primarily by
conduction (collisions between individual air molecules) and convection
(the circulation or bulk motion of air).”
Oops! WHAT?! Did they forget to mention RGHE “theory?” Global warming? Climate change? Bad scientists! Oh, wait. These must be engineers who actually USE science.
“This is why you can insulate your house basically using the air trapped
inside your insulation,” said Andrew Hong, an engineer (SEE!!) and thermal
control specialist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. “Air is a poor
conductor of heat, and the fibers of home insulation that hold the air still
minimize convection.”
“”In space there is no air for conduction or convection,” he added. Space
is a radiation-dominated environment. Objects heat up by absorbing
sunlight and they cool off by emitting infrared energy, a form of
radiation which is invisible to the human eye.”
Uhh, that’s in SPACE where radiation rules NOT on EARTH.
“Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space
Station’s Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while
thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F
(-157 C). There might be a comfortable spot somewhere in the middle of
the Station, but searching for it wouldn’t be much fun!”
121 C plus 273 C = 394 K Ta-dahhh!!!!!
Shiny insulation keeps the ISS COOL!!!! Just like the earth’s albedo/atmosphere keeps the earth COOL!!! NOT hot like RGHE’s BOGUS “Theory.”
well, you are right, but far to long, and far too angry (not that you don’t have reason to be, but, anyway… keep cool 😉 )
ANGRY, ANGRY! Moi!!!!
How could you tell from the post?
“Want to live in this lousy world, keep cool, boy, cooly cool, boy…” West Side Story
I can’t believe this albedo decrease is a one – way street. The cloud level may change eventually.
“I paid my four bits to see the high divin’ act … and I’m-a gonna see the high diving act!”
And if it don’t start warming up pretty quick, I wanna a refund on all this carbon tax I am paying.
Unfortunately, Magicarbon™ is currently busy creating Extremeweather™, and also Hideyheat™, and that has left very little Ninjaheat™ available for warming, but have no fear; it will, and when it does, pow, zoom, to the moon the temperatures will go. It has been written by the Climate Oracles and Carbon Wizards, so must be true.
of course you DO must have fear.
No refund, you paid for the show (not for the heat), you had the show, didn’t you?
Let the future sort it out.
The article above states “The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation.” However, the studies if seen, while a few years old, show relative humidity declining. Anyone aware of any more recent studies that show otherwise?
water vapor absorbs shortwave radiation ? i.e. visible light ? not so fast … if not in the form of a cloud but a CLEAR gas then no it doesn’t …
The article above states “The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation.” However, the studies if seen, while a few years old, show relative humidity declining. Anyone aware of any more recent studies that show otherwise?
There are more cosmic rays around recently. These will tend to desaturate the atmosphere. Dangerous to speculate without full knowledge of all of the factors involved. Radiation based analyses are suspect in this convection zone called the troposlphere.
I’ve been making that case for years. I’m glad to see people are finally looking at the basic physics behind this issue. Funny how my lack of knowledge of Slimate Clience allowed me to reach the correct conclusion before the experts. No PhD. needed, just common sense.
Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-is-a-weak-ghg-it-has-no-dipole/
SO, we have rediscovered albedo feedback, have we?
are they trying to say 2 wrongs make a right ? the GW theory and models are right but for DIFFERENT reasons than before ? talk about moving the goalposts …
The pseudoscience becomes even more comic-book’ish. And we can see why in their explanation of the pseudoscience, it’s all about radiative emissions to them. The more important thermodynamic processes, i.e. convection and conduction, have no place in climastrology.
It’s from modelling, right? On the other hand, we have two hemispheres and annual average incoming shortwave radiation is exactly the same for them due to a peculiar property of Keplerian orbits. The curious fact is (as measured by CERES), that annual cumulative absorbed shortwave radiation is also the same in spite of the clear sky albedo of the Southern hemisphere being much lower due to prevalence of oceans there. That only means it has more cloud cover and the difference is somehow equalizes their all sky albedoes. As if there were a sweet spot for albedo or something.
Unfortunately representation of clouds, the main reflector of incoming shortwave radiation, is abysmal in computational climate models. It is a well known fact, no need to say more.
see The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance
“Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.”
More solar near infrared being absorbed by the atmosphere means less of it reaching the surface. That would inhibit both daytime heating and nighttime cooling of the surface.
It seems like they are building theories from models. Although, maybe “explanations from models” is closer, to be fair.
Exactly. The models just do what they are programmed to do, and these dimwits are ‘investigating’ them to see why instead of examining the code. They then portray their results as if they pertain to the real world.
It’s a form of insanity, and seems to be spreading. It even works on this crowd. Most comments here start referring to the real world, which this is not in any way related to (literally).
Right, but this is like saying there are two types of kickers that are important to the game of football, and then continuing on to say the game of football is all about kicking.
Title should be, “MIT discovers Urban Heat Island Effect!!
Now maybe NASA and NOAA climate pseudoscientists/data keepers can admit their mal-adjusted temp data sets are phoney baloney (I know it’s “bologna”.)
Must also say
I am starting to distrust the satellites. For example, I see ocean temperature is dropping, whilst RSS / UAH is going up?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018
How does that make sense?
Looking at the version (UAH now at version 6.0) I think what happens is that the probes are degenerated by the awful radiation of the sun (more of the most energetic particles are able to escape during lower solar polar magnetic field strengths)
A delayed effect as the remnants of the El Nino find their way towards the poles and up through the atmosphere. Note from the UAH charts where most of the anomaly is.
Very little warming left in the tropics
And still the wobbly jet stream , making northern Russia FREEZING COLD yet again. I bet they would love some warming !!
ps.
Unless something has gone wrong with the satellite system, I suspect we will see a significant drop over the next couple of months
They are measuring the heat leaving the Earth through the Atmosphere, as the surface cools there be less to leave.
So as Andy says it should fall off a cliff soon.
October had record breaking cold over most of the world and November is even worse.
Black Carbon Soot and Particulate Emissions are higher than ever proven by the grey Soot on the Greenland Ice Cap and Mountain Glaciers; ie the River Reversal from Lake Kluane to the Gulf of Alaska has the same grey Soot on the Glacier. Google for pictures. This causes the Runaway Train effect. Pictures are worth a thousand words.
Non existent Electrostatic Precipitat ors Or poorly maintained Precips with a Once a Year Shutdown or Outages as called in the US. The Soot from Forest Fires and Gas and Oil Wellheads from Venting and -60% inefficient Flare Stacks all additive to Atmospheric Particulate and Soot. With Canada’s impending Carbon TAX firewood burning will increase. They are already burning garbage in our neighborhood to avoid paying a Fee 4 More than 2 Garbage Bags.
Speculation, speculation, I love it. Here’s more. Decreased albedo will allow more longwave out, so cool the oceans. On the other hand recent excursions of solar wind and solar flares might temporarily warm the stratosphere and indirectly the troposphere, without affecting albedo.
An intelligent and educated man (inclusive sense) is never absolutely sure of anything. Showing that one of their treasured narratives is wrong is a surefire trigger for the dimwits.
Why is it that the polar regions have very little reflected sunlight? They are covered in ice and should be highly reflective.
The sun is always low in the sky, giving the light a low angle of incidence, and a lot more atmosphere to penetrate.
All,
Note the third illustration in Anthony’s article. It is the one in blue, green, and white colors. Of interest, in this NASA illustration of CERES measurements, is that there are white areas that supposedly represent outgoing radiation about twice what the incoming TOA flux is. Can anybody explain what is wrong with this picture?
stevekeohane,
It is true that the light reaching the limbs goes through a longer path in the atmosphere than when the sun is overhead. However, the sun is still fairly bright when observed on the horizon (as anyone is all too painfully aware when driving west after work) and we are talking about reflectances of 80-100% for the limbs versus 4% for clear water at noon and less than 20% for most vegetated land at noon. I’m concerned that CERES is only giving us a lower-bound for the outgoing radiation.
David S,
Also, the oceans on the limbs should be showing substantially higher reflectance resulting from specular reflectance at grazing angles. I suspect that CERES is missing this.
“However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.”
They have it totally backward. CO2 is saturated, and it does help radiate more heat to outer space. The incoming radiation is what warms the earth and has nothing to do with CO2. More warmth makes more area for the earth to absorb heat. The role of CO2 is to help the earth cool from this additional heat. Gasses N2, O2 and CO2 are transparent to incoming visible radiation. Solar radiation is the answer, not CO2. Conduction and convection are slow, radiation is fast. CO2 rapidly transports heat out of the atmosphere, it is a cooling agent, not warming.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
This is not a surprise, except do they accurately account for clouds wh/ reflects even the short wave radiation?
MIT scientists have found out that solar radiation is warming Earth climate system. Sorry, no offence meant but this is for me, in a word, pathetic.
Send mony? OK Joe.
The stefan-Boltzmann equation shows it´s face on global scale. A body in vacuum absorbs(gets heated) by a rate that increases the rate as temperature drops. The rate of transfer depends on the emission from earth, T^4-T^4. Co2 decreases the density of the heat flow, radiative imbalance gets proportionally larger, which means that it cools. By (the sb)law, that means temperature decreases.
As T2 gets lower in T1^4-T2^4, from increasing amounts of dry ice, the rate of transfer from TSI increases.
T^4 is the greatest discovery of mankind.
Planet has a self-correcting system that offset each other. Intelligent design, anyone?
Perhaps among the billions of realized possibilities there is one that fits our requirements.
When you are wrong and make a lengthy explanation for being wrong, while remaining wrong, priceless… Now in their mind they are stuck with a paradox ‘n coming to the rescue with more of the same lol
But surely they’re just talking about models? They seem to be saying “We programmed some models. We didn’t understand why they behaved in certain ways. We sat around and speculated as to why. We came up with some theory that seemed to fit. We wrote a paper. Look ma, we’re Climate Scientists ™ !”
Am I missing something? They are treating some programmed models as rhough they are worth investigating how they work. And instead of just looking at the code, they resort to speculation to derive some made-up hypothesis that they then kind of pretend actually pertains to the real world!
The models do what they are programmed to do!
This isn’t science. This isn’t even worthy of the term ‘navel-gazing’. What disturbed me most of all is the vast majority of comments here immediately referring to the real world instead of this obvious fault in logic of theirs. You’ve fallen into their trap by doing so, I believe.
But the science is settled!
The science is settled!!!
The fact that it took decades to recognize and acknowledge the misguided notion that increased CO2 concentrations “trap” LWIR, reducing atmospheric emissions to space, is indicative of the flimsy scientific basis upon which “climate science” operates.
This paper from Massachusetts Institute of Technology has more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese, but is less tasty. When you read that mantra, “The greenhouse effect is well-established. “, it is very hard to keep on reading without laughing out loud.
ntesdorf, you can directly experience the “greenhouse effect” like this. Go to a hot desert. Stay there until the sun goes down. Experience how fast the air temperature drops with radiational cooling. Compare what you feel, to going to a warm moist place, like say, south Florida. Wait for a cloudy evening. Experience how little the air temperature drops with radiational cooling. Water vapor, (i.e. clouds) retards radiational coooling. Water is a greenhouse gas.
C. Paul Pierett, you can directly experience the “greenhouse effect” like this. Go to a hot desert. Stay there until the sun goes up. Experience how slowly and low the air temperature build up, as opposed to Florida, which benefit of much higher GHG (water) content than the desert, so the heat multiplies in Florida’s morning.
Oh. Wait. That the desert that get hotter, quicker, than GHG saturated Florida.
Never mind.
You just forgot the elephant in the room. Water huge water cooling/heating power (depending on whether it evaporates/condensates).
If you want to illustraed GHG effect, you need much better than your petty though experiment, and you need some way to get rid of the elephant. Not that easy…
CPP
You are confusing phase change energy released by condensing water vapor with LWIR from CO2.
Condensing water vapor is a new source of heat energy that flashes out of the act of condensation. It is not the re-emission of absorbed photons from CO2. It does keep night-time temps in Florida higher but it is not the greenhouse effect.
So the GHEis a cooling effect?
MIT read a bit like Comey with Hillary
they provide all the ammunition and evidence to lock AGW up, but then end by saying AGW is correct anyway
Probably seem sort of chain of interests that led to this peculiar behaviour/
Why/how does the climate change?
Fluctuations in:
the albedo, i.e. more albedo = less heat and cooler, less albedo = more heat and warmer,
a 92 W/m^2 ToA variation from perihelion to aphelion due to the elliptical orbit,
a 700 +/- W/m^2 ToA variation from summer to winter due to the tilted axis.
The W/m^2 contribution of GHGs RGHE “theory” amounts to little more than a rounding error.
And mankind can neither cause nor cure it.
There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The initial radiametric calculations came up with a climate sensivity of CO2 of 1.2 degrees C not factoring in feedbacks. One researcher has found that these calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. The reduction in the dry lapse rate will decrease the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensivity of CO2 to less than .06 degrees C.
An important part of the AGW conjecture is that CO2 based warming will increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is really the primary greenhouse gas and molecule per molecule is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. Those that believe in the AGW conjecture like to assume an amplification factor associated with H2O of 3. However, the AGW conjecture completely ignores that H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some energy balance models more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The cooling effect of more H2O is also evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which indicates that more H2O has a net cooling effect. So instesd of an amplification factor of 3 we should use an amplification factor of 1/3 which would yield a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a trivial amount.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The AGW conjecture completely ignores the fact that good absorbers are also good radiators and what ever LWIR photons are absorbed are eventually radiated away. The so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat any more than any other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact the non-greenhouse gases will tend too hold onto heat energy longer than the so called greenhouse gases because the non-greenhouse gases are such poor LWIR radiators to space. Since heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposhere, the fact that the so called greenhouse gases absorb LWIR radiation makes little difference.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of IR absorbiing greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too with the Earth’s climate system. Gravity along with the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the troposphere provide a convective greenhouse effect. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. There is no additional warming caused by a radiative greenhouse effect. A radiative greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that mater. The radiative greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. This is all a matter of science.
From an analysis of paleoclimate date and the results of work with models one can conclude that the climate change we are experieicnig today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. So far mankind has not been able to change weather events let alone global climate.
Reply
co2islife and nickreality65 seem to make the most sense to me on this topic.
As requested by Anthony in an earlier thread, I have carefully read ‘The Steel Greenhouse’ by Willis Eschenbach and ‘The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?’ by Dr. Roy Spencer, so I feel I have now done enough basic homework to offer my opinion on both the general CO2 greenhouse effect and also on this paper.
The MIT paper confirms its acceptance of the general greenhouse gas effect to get the ball rolling, adds a bit of extra boost from a bigger albedo effect, then tops it off with some extra short wave radiation heating of the atmosphere for good measure, which it states will result in the surface temperatures warming even more.
Willis, Roy and the MIT paper all seem to base their global warming case on the ‘energy budget’ approach that assumes that downward radiation of any kind will result in higher surface temperatures. In other words, all radiation is additive when it comes to temperature. I believe all three are wrong and I can prove it with a simple test. How many ice cubes do you have to surround a pan of water with to raise the temperature of the water by one degree? Ice cubes emit LWIR right? So they must increase the temperature of the water in the pan – right?
The answer of course is that you could surround the pan of water with infinity ice cubes and the temperature of the water would not increase one iota.
We know that the dry atmosphere lapse rate means that at 8000 feet, a dry atmosphere has a temperature below freezing. Just like the ice cubes, It can cannot raise the temperature of the surface one bit because the surface is already warmer than freezing.
This is the second law of thermodynamics, a cold body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer body.
I would love to hear Willis and Roy (and Anthony) on this point. All electromagnetic radiations are not additive with regard to temperature. Only a warmer body (e.g.the sun) can raise the temperature of the earth’s surface.
Therefore the greenhouse effect does not exist if the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. CO2 emits LWIR because it has a temperature, not because it is CO2. A cold object cannot raise the temperature of an already warmer object, even if it is CO2.
Oh please, stop this long debunked 2nd law rant .
“global warming” is not “warming” as a furnace would warm you, it is “warming” as a blanket would warm you, that is, “preventing loss of heat”. And, is this regard, ices cube WOULD reduce the heat loss off a pan of water, compared to the same pan exposed to deep cold space.
This doesn’t mean that GHE makes sense, is only means that your objection do not make sense either. Climate alarmists are not that stupid, and other scientists would had reacted long ago if a violation of 2nd law occurred.
Please link to a debunking of the second law of thermodynamics with regard to the greenhouse effect.
Like most gasses, air is a very good insulator – if you can prevent convection. Which is why fiber glass insulation is used in construction. Insulation is not the greenhouse effect.
Just to be clear, are you saying that, without convection effects, a cold object can increase the temperature of a warmer object?
“Just to be clear, are you saying that, without convection effects, a cold object can increase the temperature of a warmer object?”
Let’s translate it into real world, concrete example:
“Just to be clear, are you saying that your cloth, that are without convection effects, and colder objects your skin, can increase the temperature of your warmer body?”
Do i really need to answer this?
If you answer yes, you debunked yourself the pointless 2nd law violation rant, no need to point any link
if you answer no, well, i guess the colder it gets, the less cloth you wear. Do you?
You clearly didn’t read anything. There simply is no relationship between convection (ice cubes) and radiative transfer. Forget all the stupidity you have read and do one simple thing grab a thermal camera and look at something emitting like your body. Is it emitting … yes it is you can see it on the screen. Now go and stand next to a fire it is far hotter than your body. Do you think your body magically stops radiating heat because it’s near a hotter surface … the hint is you would drop dead if it did.
The part that does my head in, is you people see this all the time with radio signals. Radio signals are just a different frequency band of the EM spectrum. You guys seem to have no trouble that a transmitter kicks out radio waves at one frequency and if you put it near a larger more powerful signal well you have two signals one large one small. In the old days you had the guy next door on his CB band while watched TV in the lounge room. You don’t go all stupid and say the two frequencies are going to interact because they are different frequencies..
So what mental process stops you seeing that thermal emissions are exactly like a radio wave and funny enough they behave the same. Why do you expect them to behave differently?
So next time you see the word thermal emission replace it with the word radio waves and at least you will get close to the right answer and makes less stupid mistakes.
Please try to respond without an ad hominem.
All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation. That is not the point.
Just because a body absorbs electromagnetic radiation does not mean that its temperature increases. Its temperature would only increase if the source of the radiation was from an object with a higher temperature than its own.
My point is that the lower energy emissions from a cold object cannot raise the temperature of an already warmer body.
It’s obvious really. Consider the sun. It cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above the temperature of the sun. I assume you would agree with that. Same with CO2 – it cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above its own temperature.
If it absorbs the electromagnetic wave it absorbs the energy … what the energy just disappears?
This is where classical physics just goes to the dogs, stop trying to use it. It’s an RF emission that can be sometimes felt as heat, it isn’t convection heat as you know it classical physics rubbish and that is why it can pass thru the vacuum of space. If can sometimes be converted from EM to classical heat but that is a depends thing.
You see this with tanning beds or IR lamps they are lights that emit UV or IR emissions. They will generally pass thru the air with only a little bit of heating of the air. Put a body part in front of it and absorbs it like crazy and you feel heat. That behaviour is nothing like a normal classical convection heat.
So something being hot doesn’t mean a dam thing to an EM emission it works on the frequency. The hot object will absorb the emission because it doesn’t have any of that frequency. Does it make the object hotter well here we go down the classical physics rabbithole again. Temperature is not actually a real thing it is a combination of a number of QM statistics. It is hotter because it now has extra of that new frequency, will you be able to measure it with a thermometer .. probably not.
In RF terms if you gaffer taped your mobile phone to the top of CB antenna. Is there more RF energy at that point where the phone is you betcha .. but they are in two different bands. Here we have the same problem if I don’t measure both bands I may incorrectly deduce things.
So the problem rolls around the measurement of temperature because your classical physics measuring devices can’t really deal with this sort of spread. You can do this with a bunsen flame alongside an oxy torch your thermometer will only ever read the oxy temperature. With or without the bunsen you will read the same temperature which will be the oxy. You might want to try you same argument with this situation can the bunsen make the oxy flame hotter … indeed is it hotter having it there.
Oh I should give you one more example to show you how bad temperature and heat are defined in classical physics. Any vibrating plate or object should actually be viewed as having heat and temperature yet in classical physics you wont be able to measure it or even think of it like that yet the experiment was done by James Joule in 1845.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173362/violently-shaking-object
You classical thermometer simply wont measure that as heat because it based around a physical process 🙂
I hope this reply appears in the right place!
LdB,
In your example, a bunsen flame and an oxy flame will make a third object hotter if the third object has a lower temperature than either of the flames. But a bunsen flame would not make the oxy flame hotter.
I just looked up the temperature of an oxy flame and it apparently is 3480 c. If you put two oxy flames together, they still would only have a temperature of 3480 c. It is not additive, the temperature does not become 6960 c.
Apparently, a bunsen burner flame has a temperature of 1500 c. If you blended a bunsen flame with an oxy flame, you would actually cool down the oxy flame. The combination would have a temperature somewhere between 1500 c and 3480 c.
Imagine two white hot bars of steel brought together. Their temperatures would not change. Temperature is not additive that way. It only adds if the absorbing body is colder than the emitting bodies.
LdB
I totally agree with your point that temperature is not the same as energy. I think ‘classical physics’ would also agree. You can create a temperature increase by transforming other forms of energy into heat, e.g. friction, micro-wave ovens, electrical induction etc. I am just talking about radiative or conductive temperature exchanges.
Yes I think you have got it that heat/temperature is problematic in classical physics. You wouldn’t consider having a hot poker stationary and a hot poker on a vibrating compactor as different temperatures either and I doubt any of your classical temperature measuring devices would record that 🙂
For QM absolute zero means nothing is moving in the reference frame you are measuring. A new problem in classical physics you don’t even consider a reference frame you have a universal reference frame.
What it shows you is you need extreme care when mixing QM and Classical physics you usually need to massage terms. You can probably understand now how QM can do weird things with classical temperature. You can make it appear and disappear and you can even build things like thermal invisibility cloaks. Really it’s not that strange there are just a lot of problems with how classical physics defines things and we can punch holes in it.
You live in a Quantum Universe and sometimes Classical Physics is just really really wrong 🙂
Here is a real world challenge for you.
The suns surface is 5700 deg C
The suns corona is around 2M deg C
So does the suns surface heat the corona or the corona heat the surface. Why aren’t the two the same temperature or the surface closer to the corona they have had a couple of billion years to stabilize.
Oh and in case you were do most normal radio waves react with the atmosphere like thermal emissions, well the answer is yes they do
http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/gases.htm
It’s what causes attention and dissipation of the RF energy into the atmosphere. So all human RF emissions are directly heating the atmosphere it just is a very tiny amount because we don’t have the watts per square meter the sun has.
I would agree that all electromagnetic radiation has the potential to increases temperature when it is absorbed, including radio waves. The question is what temperature can be achieved?
CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 13-15 micron wavelength range. This is equivalent to black body emissions at a temperature of -80c to -50c. Thus, the CO2 emissions do have the capability to increase the temperature of the earth’s surface to -50c to -80c. The Earth is already above this temperature so it has no effect.
Electromagnetic radiation is not additive with respect to temperature when the absorbing body already has a temperature above that of the emitting bodies. It is additive if the absorbing body is cooler than the emitting bodies. The basic principle is that temperature only flows from a warm body to a cooler body.
You can play classical games with temperature. There is more energy you can do more work with it. In your bunsen + oxy situation above take a huge pot of water and put it ontop of both. The pot of water will heat far faster than the oxy alone because you have more energy available per second. You can do the same thing on a stove top put two burners under the same pot. In classical physics you call it all gets lumped under heat transfer and it’s an adhoc set of laws in the same way as temperature. The underlying feature is more energy means more ability to do work which is more aligned with heat capacity rate. I am sure there are twenty different classical laws covering it all to patch the bad definitions.
The underlying problem is temperature in a classical sense is something that makes a column of liquid expand up a capillary tube which is how it was originally derived. Later science sort of equated it motion of molecules but even that isn’t anywhere near correct. As I told you in QM there isn’t such a thing as temperature it is a made up statistic to match the human measurement.
So for me to deal with this in classical physics I am having to try to create narratives around the conversion from QM to Classical physics and it will break because I am having to create lies. If you want to stay with your view the temperature wont rise (you are selecting the hotter one) that is fine but you have more energy and more energy density you will still melt more ice and more energy to drive other things. What would you like to call this new feature in your classical physics. All I can try and do is work with your definitions patch it and lie, so it makes some sense. The problem is I will be able to make thermal energy disappear and appear in you current definitions.
I should give you the problems with this statement
You aren’t dealing with a classical quantity stop trying to use classical laws. To show you how badly what you are doing is I would advise you to look at laser cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
With your theory about CO2 and blackbody above how do I use laser beam which you would class as hot to cool something. It’s a pure frequency you will be able to give me a crazy classic blackbody temperature that you will put my laser beam is at. Yet I can use that hot beam to cool an object to absolute zero.
Yep the heat is going from a cold object to a hot beam … the very thing you said can’t happen and you were certain of it. That is just one on many experiments in which I make the cold magically jump to the hot.
Again the message you can’t use Classical physics on a Quantum problem .,.. stop doing it.
If you want to argue I would like you to remembering this statement
Temperature is a made up classical statistic it has vague meaning in QM and to the universe. Any statement you make about a QM process using classical physics will almost certainly be wrong, expect it. QM doesn’t say so just by theory it does so by experiment and everyday use. Currently there are no known violations of QM, so if classical physics conflicts with QM it’s probably wise to assume the classical physics is wrong.
QM makes no confinement that heat/temperature goes from hot to cold it’s just a madeup statistic. There are many places in everyday use and common experiments that assumption is openly violated by QM.
Bernard Lodge November 14, 2017 at 10:13 am
CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 13-15 micron wavelength range. This is equivalent to black body emissions at a temperature of -80c to -50c. Thus, the CO2 emissions do have the capability to increase the temperature of the earth’s surface to -50c to -80c. The Earth is already above this temperature so it has no effect.
This is nonsense that results from a fundamental misunderstanding of blackbody radiation!
A blackbody at 300K emits 26.8522 W/m2/sr between 13 and 17 microns
at 270K it emits 18.4933 W/m2/sr
at 223K (-50ºC) it emits 8.53892 W/m2/sr
at 193K (-80ºC) it emits 4.32413 W/m2/sr
Electromagnetic radiation is not additive with respect to temperature when the absorbing body already has a temperature above that of the emitting bodies. It is additive if the absorbing body is cooler than the emitting bodies. The basic principle is that temperature only flows from a warm body to a cooler body.
Again a fundamental misunderstanding of radiation heat transfer.
LdB commented – “Temperature is a made up classical statistic it has vague meaning in QM and to the universe”
Temperature can be measured — it isn’t “made up.” We live in the classical world, not the QM world. I can help you measure temperature if you need help. (Step 1:
go to
your local
hardware store…..
Bernard Lodge wrote:
“CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 13-15 micron wavelength range. This is equivalent to black body emissions at a temperature of -80c to -50c. ”
sorry, no.
A BB emits radiation of all wavelengths.
Not just a few. You’re trying
to apply BB formulas to something
that is clearly not a BB
Crackers we always knew you didn’t live in the real world you are an internet troll.
The rest of us live in the real Quantum universe, you don’t even have the intelligence to understand what we are discussing, so please troll off.
Before you placed the ice cubes around the pan it was receiving warm radiation from its surroundings. By placing the ice cubes there you have replaced this warmer radiation with cooler radiation. Therefor the temperature of the pan should fall.
Bernard Lodge,
You said, “a cold body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer body…” That is true if you are talking about heat transfer by conduction. However, when you have a more complex situation of heating and cooling taking place by emission and absorption of electromagnetic energy, what is important is the difference in temperature between two radiating bodies. If you have a heated body radiating into free space, it will lose heat more rapidly than if the radiation is impeded by a ‘blanket’ that introduces a time-delay in the outgoing radiation.
Once again the skeptics are right: more CO2 yields more radiation into space.
Once again the climate hypesters get basic facts,wrong but still claim to he correct….and the science is settled.
Not.
Could it be that the modelers are adjusting the aerosol concentration to make it look like the models are working even though there has been no warming for nearly 20 years? The CO2 theory says CO2 reduces outgoing low frequency radiation. Adjusting the aerosol concentration to make it look like the models are working makes it look like there’s less outgoing high frequency radiation.
Global warming climatology is based in part upon application of the reification fallacy. In particular, the abstract Earth on which there is “radiative forcing” is treated as if it were the concrete Earth on which concrete people live.
nothing new here
at all.
Poor crackpot..
nothing new
from you
evah !!! just
mindless yapping.
as I said, anger55….
You are
empty as
always,
crackpot.
Areosols = unknown question = pure guessery, even cooling claimed from erputions.
aerosols not so unknown – “Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century” Shindell & Faluvegi, Nat Geo (2009)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo473.html
which translate:
“aerosols are poorly known, let’s use them as yet another parameter to have the elephant wiggle his trunk as we see fit, no one as enough data to object. “
You’re anotherbfaking hick if you claim much at all is understood regarding aerosols. Mosr of the same, believe ignorant ca ca like the atmosphere warms the e as rth, ang green house gases do so especially.
Utter, Conservation of Energy violating
pseudoscience.
Er… regardless of my poor phone syntax!
also, ‘Historical Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 1850-2000: Methods and Results,’ PNNL Jan 2004, PNNL-14537
https://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
Googling titles of papers you haven’t read and posting the links to them doesnt make you look as clever as you might wish.
“Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.
They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model”
Golly…it sure is a good thing these brainiacs had so much time on their hands so they could set us straight.
But I am sure they had no doubt in their own ability to solve all the mysteries of climatology via late night musings and wild ass guesses. But with some computer simulations and a simple model tossed in to the mix…how the hell could they not!?
Glad they did not need to skip any late night gab fests and alcohol fueled sessions of random musings and do any actual observations of experiments…that crap is like actual work!
The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming…
So you can’t have warming until you have warming?
Could he not have recorded on a windless day?
Measured haphazardly,
by government bureaucrats,
who WANT to show as much warming as possible,
our planet has remained in a 1 degree C. range,
excluding brief El Nino peaks,
for the past 137 years.
Delete the “adjustments” to the data,
that consistently ‘create’ more warming out of thin air,
and adjust for the fact that starting point thermometers in the 1800’s,
tend to read low,
and then we have been in approximately
a 0.5 degree C. range for the past 137 years.
That means it’s time to panic,
and ban all use of fossil fuels.
OMG — a 1 degree C. range in 137 years,
+/- 1 degree C. if you want to be honest,
about likely measurement errors.
Head for the hills.
Now!
Better yet, do everything government bureaucrats say without question.
They have computers way bigger than yours!
They have computer games .. er … models,
more complicated than any models YOU have.
How could government bureaucrats possible by wrong predicting the future climate?
They’ve been making predictions for 30 years
— over 40 years if you include the global cooling predictions in the 1970s.
That’s a lot of experience making predictions.
Have you been making predictions for 30 years?
And remember they have really big computers.
And some of them there bureaucrats even have PhDs.
How could they possibly be wrong?
Surely the theoretical basis of GW is not that it is like a blanket? A blanket works by reducing the amount of heat that we lose from our bodies which have an internal heat source keeping us “warmer” than we would have been without the insulating blanket but would never heat the body? GHGs don’t work as insulators only absorbers and re-emitters of LWR, they don’t slow down the release rate of heat from the earths surface.
I also find it staggering that anybody can claim that an ice cube or any numbers of ice cubes could warm a hot body like a pot of boiling water or a fire. How about reducing the rate at which they would cool? Total lunacy surely.
Surely what GHG theory claims is that I could make my house hotter by filling the loft with CO2 and putting ice blocks in front of the radiators?
Yes, an ice cube can radiatively warm a nearby boiling pot… in fact it has to, even if the effect is dwarfed by conductive/convective cooling. This is basically the same as the “cloudy sky at night” arguments… virtually every object emits thermal radiation, thus cloudy skies are warmer because there’s something in the sky to radiate — something colder than you, and yet it warms you! On clear nights, there’s nothing up there to radiate at you, so clear nights are colder than cloudy, even though the clouds are much colder than you.
More sophistry from a wannabe physicist. Cold heat conducting baths are not heaters. Not once nit ever, and when you figure that out you wont be hanging around with the likes of other sophists and fakes.
There’s no such thing as a cold bath that warms an object otherwise emitting to space in vacuum.
Steve Vertelli November 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm
More sophistry from a wannabe physicist. Cold heat conducting baths are not heaters. Not once nit ever, and when you figure that out you wont be hanging around with the likes of other sophists and fakes.
There’s no such thing as a cold bath that warms an object otherwise emitting to space in vacuum.
Suggest you look into igloos, you’ll be a lot warmer in one of them than just spending the night sitting on the ice in the arctic.
Or, ASR dominates the physics for reasons unrelated to GHG and the models are just wrong. That’s the much simpler and better evidenced conclusion.
Talldave2, surely the cloudy sky is reflecting heat back to the surface not absorbing and reradiating it.
I still don’t believe that a cold body can heat a warmer one. Heat can’t flow from cold to hot in the absence of work being done unless the second Law is incorrect. The material that I have read on Quantum mechanics seems to back up the second law in that the Quantum energy level of a particle in a body receiving a photon can’t be raised unless the energy level of the photon is higher.
Phil, the igloo is an insulator and the warmth is from internal heat sources such as bodies. If you’re saying that the ice warms the body by radiating heat to it then I reckon that is impossible as it breaks both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Can I heat my house with ice blocks, reflective shields in front of heat elements to reflect the heat back and warm it further, and Co2 in the loft to reradiate any heat entering the loft downwards back into the house.
Surely it is impossible to heat a body using energy that was initially emitted by the body?
Martin Mason November 15, 2017 at 7:25 am
I still don’t believe that a cold body can heat a warmer one. Heat can’t flow from cold to hot in the absence of work being done unless the second Law is incorrect. The material that I have read on Quantum mechanics seems to back up the second law in that the Quantum energy level of a particle in a body receiving a photon can’t be raised unless the energy level of the photon is higher.
Your knowledge of Thermo and spectroscopy is sadly lacking.
The quantum energy of a molecule can be raised from its current level to a higher energy level if the energy of the photon is equal to the energy difference between the two levels. That does not mean that the body the photon originated must be at a higher temperature than the receiving body, quite the contrary! For example CO2 at 300K will absorb a 666cm-1 photon, such a photon could come from a blackbody at 310K or 190K, either would be absorbed.
Phil, the igloo is an insulator and the warmth is from internal heat sources such as bodies. If you’re saying that the ice warms the body by radiating heat to it then I reckon that is impossible as it breaks both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The heat loss from a body at 37ºC in an igloo will be proportional to (310^4-273^4) whereas out in the open at -30ºC it will be proportional to (310^4-243^4), so you’ll be warmer in the igloo.
Can I heat my house with ice blocks, reflective shields in front of heat elements to reflect the heat back and warm it further,
Only if the ice is warmer than the previous background.
and Co2 in the loft to reradiate any heat entering the loft downwards back into the house.
Surely it is impossible to heat a body using energy that was initially emitted by the body?
No it’s quite possible, for example the Osram Decostar Energy Saving Halogen MR16 51S bulb uses a dichroic filter to reflect IR back to the filament which heats it to a higher temperature thus increasing the proportion of visible emitted. This results in increased efficiency.
Phil, I’m a process engineer and my knowledge of QM is, as you say, not great. The statement I made above is what I have interpreted from books such as Schrodinger’s Cat and Quantum reality. As it supports the 2nd Law I assumed it was possibly correct.
The dichroic filter in Halogen lamps, to the best of my knowledge, filters out visible light to feed forward from the lamp increasing its efficiency. The IR from the filter is fed out from the back of the lamp to cool the bulb not to heat the element.
Whatever I try I can’t see that you can transfer heat from a cold body to a warmer body and that AGW has to contradict the 2nd Law. Warming a body with no additional heat input, as AGW necessitates, surely breaks the 1st law. GHG’s don’t create heat, trap heat or act as insulation so how? It seems to me (of course I can be corrected) that the most important function of GHG’s is to cool the atmosphere below the temperature it would be without and that H2O is by far the most important in this respect. It seems to me that they form part of a wonderful self regulating system that has kept the planet at essentially constant temperature over millions of years even with CO2 levels 20 times higher than current and are not the bogey man that the warming industry claims.
When I look at what determines surface temperature and lapse rate, these can be calculated accurately with no reference to atmospheric back radiation only heat from the warmer sun, gravity and density of the atmosphere. How is this possible if heating by back radiation in the troposphere is significant in any way.
WattsUpWithThat, that we cannot C/P an interesting Comment to a File. Martin, your observations are relevant. My opinion is that Chasing the Co2 tail is misguided. Black Carbon, Soot and Particulate are being ignored. I have swept the 1″ thick Soot from the top of a new Electrostatic Precipitator under construction because the Utility Owner ran an older coal fired boiler with their Precipitators Shut Down during the night. The Grey Ash is the same I see on the pictures of Greenlands Ice Cap and the Glacier River Reversal from the Yukons Lake Kluane to the Gulf of Alaska. I don’t know the Status of Coal Fired Power Plants in China, as too whether they have installed the latest E/P technology. The Older Coal Facilities in the US East Coast are NoT up to Par and possibly the Airflow follows the Warm Gulf Stream Current towards Greenland. These pictures were taken before the Fort McMurray forest fire that increased Ozone levels in the Eastern Seaboard of which their local Industrial Emittors were accused of producing before the Satellite Pictures were examined showing the forest fire smoke Plume from Alberta blowing over the NE States of the US.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/…/why-greenland-dark-snow-should-worry-you«
Gerald
that link you gave does not work?
Martin Mason November 18, 2017 at 3:44 am
Phil, I’m a process engineer and my knowledge of QM is, as you say, not great. The statement I made above is what I have interpreted from books such as Schrodinger’s Cat and Quantum reality. As it supports the 2nd Law I assumed it was possibly correct.
I would suggest college level textbooks on ‘Radiation Heat Transfer’, those by Hottell are good.
The dichroic filter in Halogen lamps, to the best of my knowledge, filters out visible light to feed forward from the lamp increasing its efficiency. The IR from the filter is fed out from the back of the lamp to cool the bulb not to heat the element.
The ones I’m talking about pass the visible to the outside but reflect the IR back to the element and cause it to heat thus producing a greater proportion of visible. The stable operating condition allows at a higher temperature with less current and therefore greater efficiency. Remember you’re continuously providing electric current.
Whatever I try I can’t see that you can transfer heat from a cold body to a warmer body and that AGW has to contradict the 2nd Law. Warming a body with no additional heat input, as AGW necessitates, surely breaks the 1st law. GHG’s don’t create heat, trap heat or act as insulation so how?
Well you’re providing continuous input and recycling back some of the output. The light bulb element would lose a certain amount of heat to the surroundings and would establish a steady state temperature by balancing the electrical input and the heat loss. Recycle some of that heat loss and the filament will operate at a higher steady state temperature at a lower current.
GHGs operate in a similar manner the earth is being continuously heated by the sun and achieves a steady state when radiative losses balance input. Introduce a GHG and some of the IR destined for space is absorbed by the GHG which in the lower troposphere for example thermalizes the energy into the atmosphere so a higher steady state is reached when the balance is reestablished.
Phil:
On the concrete Earth, it is not true that “the earth is being continuously heated by the sun and achieves a steady state when radiative losses balance input. Introduce a GHG and some of the IR destined for space is absorbed by the GHG which in the lower troposphere for example thermalizes the energy into the atmosphere so a higher steady state is reached when the balance is reestablished.” It is on the abstract Earth that this is true. By making reference to the abstract and concrete Earth by the ambiguous term “earth” you make application of the equivocation fallacy.
Terry Oldberg November 18, 2017 at 8:28 pm
Phil:
On the concrete Earth, it is not true that “the earth is being continuously heated by the sun and achieves a steady state when radiative losses balance input. Introduce a GHG and some of the IR destined for space is absorbed by the GHG which in the lower troposphere for example thermalizes the energy into the atmosphere so a higher steady state is reached when the balance is reestablished.”
Really, what part of that statement do you disagree with and then then explain this:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
Phil:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify..The concrete Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. Thus the concrete Earth does not approach steady state.
gerald l commented – “Black Carbon, Soot and Particulate are being ignored.”
no they’re not. at all.
see any ipcc ar.
ps: those last two factors are cooling, not warming.
Global warming occurs even though IR not trapped – because like all the numpties they believe that the greenhouse effect is due to “heat trapping” which is a simplistic childish dumbed-down models for the newspapers and not one for any real scientist.
What actually happens is that the radiation from the atmosphere occurs FROM CO2 molecules, and the average temperature of these gives you the average temperature of outgoing IR.And that in turn is related to the average height – and that to the density of CO2. So, the more CO2, the higher up in the atmosphere and the lower the average temperature of CO2 being emitted.
And like putting on a coat – if the coat resists heat – the temperature on your outer surface is lower.
Now, this isn’t too complex I hope and even Anthony Watts might be able to understand it (if he wasn’t so resistant to new ideas). So, why does the stupid ignorant model of “heat trapping” remain? The answer I think is that if you work out the actual change of e.g. a 0.65C increase in temperature … it amounts to a 100m rise in the average level from which radiation leaves the planet. That isn’t scary – because it means the total change we’ve seen – amounts to moving 100m down a hill. Which when you put it in that term make the whole issue of CO2 look about as overblown as you can get. And it also tells us that increases in CO2 can’t possibly cause a “runaway” greenhouse effect – because a change in CO2 leads to a very content stasis. You’re going from one stable condition to another.
So, the reason the alarmists don’t tell the public what is really going on is because if people like Anthony Watts actually understood and told the public – the whole scam would look so ridiculous that the alarmists would be the laughing stock of the whole world.
Just to add – the .65C rise comes from the lapse rate. That sets the drop in temperature FROM the surface. So the temperature of emission is Surface-Temp – h x lapse-rate.
And if on average the height rises so that the relative temperature from the surface drops by 0.65C, in order to regain stability – which occurs when the average temperature is that needed to emit all the incoming solar that is absorbed, the surface temperature must increase by 0.65C.
Phil. says
A blackbody at 300K emits 26.8522 W/m2/sr between 13 and 17 microns
Henry says
I find it unbelievable that an intelligent person like you, Phil, who frequents wuwt, apparently still believes that man made global warming due to [more] CO2 is true.
There is no man made warming. Global warming due to man made ozone destruction was in fact more probable to me [as more UV coming through would heat the oceans – now there is mass – ] but you were not convincing to me on the last thread about that either.
#
now we know that besides the absorption of CO2 in the 14-15 um range where earth emits, we also have a few absorptions of the CO2 0-5 um where the sun emits, namely in the UV range – which is how we are able to qualitatively and quantitatively establish its presence on other planets –
and we also have absorptions 1-2 um and 4-5 um.
##
To prove that CO2 also cools the atmosphere follow the green line fig. 6
bottom
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
(this radiation came from the sun, bounced from earth back to space, went to the moon, and was picked up again on earth)
So now, Phil, what I need to see from you to prove to me that man made warming is true, is a balance sheet, showing me exactly how much cooling in W/m2/sr (4 decimals is fine!) the CO2 causes 0-5 um (where the sun emits) and how much warming it causes 14-15 um (where the earth emits, the 4 decimals is good!)
Thanks!
Hint : my own analysis of daily data of 54 weather stations balanced on latitude show there is no room for any man made warming…
henryp November 16, 2017 at 9:58 am
Phil. says
A blackbody at 300K emits 26.8522 W/m2/sr between 13 and 17 microns
Henry says
I find it unbelievable that an intelligent person like you, Phil, who frequents wuwt, apparently still believes that man made global warming due to [more] CO2 is true.
I’m not sure why you think this is relevant to my comment on blackbody radiation.
now we know that besides the absorption of CO2 in the 14-15 um range where earth emits, we also have a few absorptions of the CO2 0-5 um where the sun emits, namely in the UV range – which is how we are able to qualitatively and quantitatively establish its presence on other planets –
and we also have absorptions 1-2 um and 4-5 um.
These are in the near IR not the UV.
##
To prove that CO2 also cools the atmosphere follow the green line fig. 6
bottom
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
(this radiation came from the sun, bounced from earth back to space, went to the moon, and was picked up again on earth)
That emission came from the stratosphere (via the moon), the emission from lower in the atmosphere was already absorbed and thermalised.
So now, Phil, what I need to see from you to prove to me that man made warming is true, is a balance sheet, showing me exactly how much cooling in W/m2/sr (4 decimals is fine!) the CO2 causes 0-5 um (where the sun emits) and how much warming it causes 14-15 um (where the earth emits, the 4 decimals is good!)
Thanks!
At the TOA with CO2 removed for a surface temperature of 300K in the tropics the emission is 329.7 W/m^2 according to Modtran. Including CO2 (400 ppm) gives an emission of 298.5 W/m^2 so that means that the CO2 removed 31 W/m^2 (~10%). If the surface temperature is allowed to change to give the same output we get a temperature change of 6.5ºC. The absorption of solar radiation by CO2 is negligible since the absorption bands are in the tail region of the solar spectrum.
Phil.
You are not paying attention much. I said there were absorptions in the UV and in the 1-2 and 4-5 um
here, you can see how water and CO2 chews away the incoming sunshine.
The water cuts out quite lot does it not? Are you sure the net effect of H2O is that of warming rather than cooling?
Remember that incoming solar is 5500 K and outgoing is only 300 K or less. So, to my mind, the 1-2 and 4-5 um absorption of CO2 causing deflection of 5500K cuts out much more energy than it traps your energy 14-15 um from earth of 300K.
Is that not logical for you?
That is why you must produce a balance sheet….
henryp November 17, 2017 at 6:39 am
Phil.
You are not paying attention much. I said there were absorptions in the UV and in the 1-2 and 4-5 um
I was reading very carefully, you said:
” we also have a few absorptions of the CO2 0-5 um where the sun emits, namely in the UV range – which is how we are able to qualitatively and quantitatively establish its presence on other planets –
and we also have absorptions 1-2 um and 4-5 um.
The two you explicitly mentioned were IR, there are no significant CO2 absorptions in the UV.
here, you can see how water and CO2 chews away the incoming sunshine.
The water cuts out quite lot does it not? Are you sure the net effect of H2O is that of warming rather than cooling?
Why are you changing the subject, you only mentioned CO2 in your original question?
Remember that incoming solar is 5500 K and outgoing is only 300 K or less. So, to my mind, the 1-2 and 4-5 um absorption of CO2 causing deflection of 5500K cuts out much more energy than it traps your energy 14-15 um from earth of 300K.
Is that not logical for you?
No it’s completely illogical, the total area under the solar curve at TOA should equal the area under the outgoing curve (and should be in wavenumber not wavelength).
That is why you must produce a balance sheet….
I did but for some reason you appear to have changed the question.
henry commented – “So now, Phil, what I need to see from you to prove to me that man made warming is true, is a balance sheet, showing me exactly how much cooling in W/m2/sr”
there are many such
proofs
Philipona+ GRL 2004: https://is.gd/ePKTwX
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, and E. Puckrin
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf
Feldman+ Nature 2015: https://is.gd/vIWMxr
others: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
After reading the comments I have come to the conclusion
that the causes of climate change are not “settled”.
A real model of climate change could not be built —
perhaps hundreds of models could be built,
each representing a different theory?
The science is not settled.
Perhaps it will never be settled.
Until it is settled, I will rely on that popular philosopher Robert Zimmerman,
who once sang:
“You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows”.
Well, I don’t need a scientist
to tell me the climate has barely changed in the past 50 years,
and the only change I’ve noticed here in Michigan,
living in the same home for 30 years, and just four miles
south for seven years before that,
is slightly warmer nights,
especially winter nights.
Subterranean Homesick Blues
by Bob Dylan
“Johnny’s in the basement, mixin’ up the medicine
I’m on the pavement, thinkin’ about the government
The man in the trench coat, badge out, laid off
Says he’s got a bad cough, wants to get it paid off
Look out kid, it’s somethin’ you did
God knows when, but you’re doin’ it again
You better duck down the alleyway looking for a new friend
The man in the coon-skin cap in the pig pen
Wants 11 dollar bills – you only got 10
Maggie comes fleet foot, face full of black soot
Talkin’ that the heat put plants in the bet book
Phone’s tapped anyway
Maggie says “The Man, he say”
They must bust in early May, “Orders from the D.A.”
Look out kid, don’t matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes, don’t try No-Doz
Better stay away from those that carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose, watch the plainclothes
You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows
Oh, get sick, get well, hang around a ink well
Hang bail, hard to tell if anything is gonna sell
Try hard, get barred, get back, ride rail
Get jailed, jump bail, join the Army if you fail
Look out kid you’re gonna get hit
By losers, cheaters, 6-time users
Hangin’ round the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool’s looking for a new fool
Don’t follow leaders, a’watch the parkin’ meters
Oh, get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance
Learn to dance, get dressed
Get blessed, try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don’t steal, don’t lift
20 years of schoolin’ and they put you on the day shift
Look out kid, they keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole, light yourself a candle
Don’t wear sandals, try avoid the scandal
Don’t want to be a bum, ya’ better not chew gum
The pump don’t work ’cause the vandals took the handle
Climate Models are basically like the dictum:
“The map is not the territory”. (A.Korzybski)
phil.
I think you are being deliberately confusing?
I said there were areas of absorption of the CO2 molecule in the UV , meaning 200 – 300 nm
we use these wavelengths areas in the UV to determine its presence on other planets, both qualitatively and quantitatively. You can google it?
Amazing, is it not, that our instruments can even pick up the deflection caused by CO2 on other planets….
AND, in addition, we have the 1-2 and 4-5 um, which is near infra red and infra red respectively.
I remember that I used the 4.6 wavelength to determine the concentration of CO2 in nitrogen.
[The instrument ‘s sensors pick up the [amount of ] deflected light if you bombard it with a beam of 4600 nm]
now you also say:
‘the total area under the solar curve at TOA should equal the area under the outgoing curve (and should be in wavenumber not wavelength).’
I think you refer here to the graphic representation used by Mr Turner:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/study-we-have-the-global-warming-physical-process-backwards/#comment-2665856
but, like I told you before, that representation is convenient to explain something, but outgoing from earth is totally out of proportion with that of coming in from the sun. The sun is blasting away 5500K and earth is 300K max. So, to understand the proportion you have to divide the area under earth by 5500/300 and understand how dinky we are…..
If you don’t get this, you will never understand why most of us here are saying that the net effect of more CO2 is probably zero or even rather slight cooling, seeing it deflects a certain proportion of sunshine away from earth.
AGW due to [man made] ozone destruction would have been a more distinct possibility to me but my own various evaluations of results of global T and even ozone measurements in Arosa suggest a natural process. The window [of UV warming the oceans} TOA is open and closed as God [nature] wants it, and there is nothing you or me or anyone can do about it….if it were not so you and I would not be alive today. You don’t just ‘get’ the weather. It was created.
Best wishes,
Henry
henryp November 18, 2017 at 2:41 am
phil.
I think you are being deliberately confusing?
I said there were areas of absorption of the CO2 molecule in the UV , meaning 200 – 300 nm
No I’m straightening out your errors! There is no absorption above 205nm, that is on the tail of the emission spectrum of the sun and also is the region of the spectrum where O2 and O3 absorb strongly.
we use these wavelengths areas in the UV to determine its presence on other planets, both qualitatively and quantitatively. You can google it?
Amazing, is it not, that our instruments can even pick up the deflection caused by CO2 on other planets….
Only if they’re sited outside the atmosphere!
AND, in addition, we have the 1-2 and 4-5 um, which is near infra red and infra red respectively.
I remember that I used the 4.6 wavelength to determine the concentration of CO2 in nitrogen.
[The instrument ‘s sensors pick up the [amount of ] deflected light if you bombard it with a beam of 4600 nm]
Most unlikely that you used Rayleigh scattering most likely absorption.
now you also say:
‘the total area under the solar curve at TOA should equal the area under the outgoing curve (and should be in wavenumber not wavelength).’
I think you refer here to the graphic representation used by Mr Turner:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/study-we-have-the-global-warming-physical-process-backwards/#comment-2665856
but, like I told you before, that representation is convenient to explain something, but outgoing from earth is totally out of proportion with that of coming in from the sun. The sun is blasting away 5500K and earth is 300K max. So, to understand the proportion you have to divide the area under earth by 5500/300 and understand how dinky we are…..
Absolutely not, the flux of solar irradiance must equal the IR losses from the TOA otherwise the planet would either boil or freeze over very rapidly! I wasn’t referring to that graph, rather your statement that the light at 5500K must dwarf that from the earth at 300K.
If you don’t get this, you will never understand why most of us here are saying that the net effect of more CO2 is probably zero or even rather slight cooling, seeing it deflects a certain proportion of sunshine away from earth.
If that’s what you base your understanding on then you need to get up to speed with the science.
Phil.
actually it is you that does not understand. Take the subject of spectrophotometry:
you say the light gets ‘absorbed?’ and then what? We had these arguments before/
alas, it is perhaps good I get back in here and that we get on to this subject because it is important for knowing.
we have substances that ‘absorb’ light so we can measure its concentration. Absorption has to do with the condition of the molecule.. it has some room to take in some photons. The end result is what we used to call extinction…
We put a beam on the solution of certain wavelength without the substance and measure the transmittance after it has gone through and we have 4 standard solutions that each make a different transmittance so we can make a concentration curve. In the case of CO2 we use the 4.6 um wavelength on the sample.
Now a good question: if the light beam is going through and is becoming extinct on the opposite side due to the presence of the substance, where is the light [of that wavelength] that we have not stopped coming through, going?
Now, Phil is one of the people who thinks that it simply ‘disappears’ as heat inside the sample. Obviously this cannot be true. Many times I have left the meters running for many hours at same wl and same cuvette and nothing has exploded.
No. The light that becomes extinct is going back, exactly 62,5% in the direction where it came from and the rest is scattered in all other directions. You can actually see this happening if you have a substance in solution that has absorption in the visible spectrum by opening the cuvette holder whilst measuring.
So, more CO2 in the air will also put more sun light of 1-2 and 4-5 um back to space [during day time]. So, more of it helps [also] in cooling the atmosphere. On this point, Phil seems simply in denial…
Note that the heat of a plate exposed to the sun goes down if the humidity goes up. This is because water vapor has also strong absorption in the near infra red.
so,the best way that I can describe on what I see is happening is that once the fotons have been absorbed the molecule starts acting like a mirror at this wavelength where absorption takes place.
henryp November 18, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Phil.
actually it is you that does not understand. Take the subject of spectrophotometry:
you say the light gets ‘absorbed?’ and then what? We had these arguments before/
alas, it is perhaps good I get back in here and that we get on to this subject because it is important for knowing.
Yes it’s about time that you understood it properly rather than your pseudo-elastic scattering model.
In the case of CO2 we use the 4.6 um wavelength on the sample.
Now a good question: if the light beam is going through and is becoming extinct on the opposite side due to the presence of the substance, where is the light [of that wavelength] that we have not stopped coming through, going?
Now, Phil is one of the people who thinks that it simply ‘disappears’ as heat inside the sample. Obviously this cannot be true.
Really, “cannot be true”!
What happens in the case of the 4.6 micron band is that the asymmetric stretch is excited. That vibrational mode with its associated rotational structure has two possible fates: it can re-emit in any direction thereby greatly reducing the transmission (the 62.5º that Henry quotes is fiction), or it can thermalize with the surrounding gases. Which predominates depends on the pressure, at atmospheric pressure thermalization is the more likely.
Many times I have left the meters running for many hours at same wl and same cuvette and nothing has exploded.
Why would it, the amount of energy in the spectrometer light beam is minuscule (and you’re not testing CO2 in a cuvette).
“Infrared spectroscopy is the study of how molecules absorb infrared radiation and ultimately convert it to heat. By examining how this occurs, we will not only learn about how infrared radiation is absorbed, but we will also learn about molecular structure and how the study of infrared spectroscopy can provide information about the structure of organic molecules.”
http://www.umsl.edu/~orglab/documents/IR/IR2.html
So, more CO2 in the air will also put more sun light of 1-2 and 4-5 um back to space [during day time]. So, more of it helps [also] in cooling the atmosphere. On this point, Phil seems simply in denial…
Quite right, it doesn’t happen.
Phil.
here I show you that it happens exactly like that,
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
sunlight specific to the absorption bands of CO2 between 1-2 um can be picked up via the moon coming back to earth. Follow the green line fig 6 bottom and fig 7.
the way that radiation went: sun-earth-moon-earth.
In the introduction of the paper CO2 gets specifically mentioned.[strong]
You can use your books, but the way I explain it is that in the absorption regions the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, sort of, the strength of which depending on the amount of absorption taking place. The molecule being or acting like a sphere, it can be calculated that 62,5% goes back in the direction where it came from.
so to sum it up, we have the CO2 deflecting energy away from earth: absorptions in the UV, near IR and IR . I have proven this to you now. [e.g. we can pick up the deflected near IR light from the CO2 via the moon]
We also have some absorption in the 14-15 um sending some energy back to earth.
So, where is your balance sheet showing me that the energy trapped by CO2 on earth is more than the energy back radiated to space?
henryp November 18, 2017 at 8:45 pm
Phil.
here I show you that it happens exactly like that,
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
sunlight specific to the absorption bands of CO2 between 1-2 um can be picked up via the moon coming back to earth. Follow the green line fig 6 bottom and fig 7.
the way that radiation went: sun-earth-moon-earth.
In the introduction of the paper CO2 gets specifically mentioned.[strong]
I suggest you look at the graph again, what it shows is that the earthshine returning from the moon is deficient in the CO2 bands, thus showing that the earth’s atmosphere absorbs in those bands.
You can use your books, but the way I explain it is that in the absorption regions the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, sort of, the strength of which depending on the amount of absorption taking place. The molecule being or acting like a sphere, it can be calculated that 62,5% goes back in the direction where it came from.
so to sum it up, we have the CO2 deflecting energy away from earth: absorptions in the UV, near IR and IR . I have proven this to you now. [e.g. we can pick up the deflected near IR light from the CO2 via the moon]
No you’re misreading the data that’s not what’s happening, it’s a reflectance spectrum.
Phil.
Note that the report says:
the resulting spectrum was fitted with a simple model of the reflectivity of Earth.
In other words, what is shown in the graph is what earth is reflecting into space, not absorbing, i.e. the graph shows a part of earth’s albedo, including that what is reflected into space by the H2O, CO2, O3 and a few other gases notably CH4…ca. 0.5 % in total. The rest of the atmosphere is mostly permeable to all types of radiation, including the re-radiation from the GH gases e.g. the 14-15 um from the CO2.
You are really just avoiding the question posed by me? Do please explain to me and to all of us in your own words as to why you believe the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, rather than cooling? We love to hear your theories from your books.
henryp November 19, 2017 at 6:24 am
Phil.
Note that the report says:
the resulting spectrum was fitted with a simple model of the reflectivity of Earth.
In other words, what is shown in the graph is what earth is reflecting into space, not absorbing, i.e. the graph shows a part of earth’s albedo, including that what is reflected into space by the H2O, CO2, O3 and a few other gases notably CH4…ca. 0.5 % in total. The rest of the atmosphere is mostly permeable to all types of radiation, including the re-radiation from the GH gases e.g. the 14-15 um from the CO2.
The measured spectrum was fitted using the following:
“The first stream reflects from the planet’s surface at 0 km altitude, the second stream reflects from a cloud layer with a top at an adjustable height (here 4 km), and the third stream reflects from a cloud at a high altitude, fixed at 10 km. The relative proportions of each stream are adjusted in a least-squares fit to the full reflectance spectrum.”
This does not include your fictional reflection into space by gases!
The measured spectrum shows zero reflection at the strong absorption band of CO2 at ~2 micron for example.
The reflections from the clouds and the surfaces are filtered by the absorption bands of the atmosphere above them which is shown by the ‘holes’ in the spectrum which coincide with the absorption peaks in the spectra of the various gases shown in the figure.
You completely misunderstand what that paper is showing you.
You are really just avoiding the question posed by me? Do please explain to me and to all of us in your own words as to why you believe the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, rather than cooling? We love to hear your theories from your books.
I already answered this, you have ignored it.
Phil.
the report concludes:
From the clear-air and cloud fractions required in our model to fit the data, we would also conclude that the planet has a dynamic atmosphere. Thus, the spectral albedo could be expected to show slight changes with time
It is about earth’s albedo? Do you know and understand what it is?
There is a big difference between solar irradiation TOA and what arrives at sea level…
I put it to you that you have only presented a sheet as to radiation trapped on earth by GHG’s [like you showed just now to Terry] but you have not presented any knowledge from your books as to how much radiation is deflected off from earth by each of the GHG’s. Your continued denial that such a process occurs [which is similar to the process of the heat entrapment that you do think is happening ]
is quite pathetic.
henry – ghgs do
not “deflect” ghgs.
this is fundamental to the
understanding of what’s going
on.
henry wrote –
“but you have not presented any knowledge from your books as to how much radiation is deflected off from earth by each of the GHG’s.”
ghgs do not “deflect” radiation.
this is fundamental to
understanding what they
actually do.
Phil, as an intelligent person you surely must admit that the science isn’t settled and that the events predicted from the models and the warming industry are just not happening. Sceptics are absolutely correct to question the consensus science when it appears to be bereft of anything to support it in the real world.
Martin Mason November 18, 2017 at 3:08 am
Phil, as an intelligent person you surely must admit that the science isn’t settled and that the events predicted from the models and the warming industry are just not happening. Sceptics are absolutely correct to question the consensus science when it appears to be bereft of anything to support it in the real world.
The science I have been talking about is settled, and when people like Henry produce some theory which is totally at variance with the facts I will point out the flaws. Some will realize their mistakes, Henry doesn’t and just ignores them when they are pointed out. Hopefully others reading here will see that Henry is wrong.
Phil, there is your position and the equally credible one that you have been propagandised by warmism and the sceptics are correct. As AGW theory and the predictions from it remain completely invalidated by data from the real world, I’m going for the sceptic side every time. When I see the warmist industry being correct in any way then I will revise my opinion but at the moment there isn’t a shred of evidence to show that the AGW theory and the tragedies that must unfold from it have any credibility in the real world. The science is anything but settled.
Martin
In proper technical English, a model is “invalidated” when an attempt at cross validation fails.Today’s climate models are insusceptible to cross validation as the statistical population underlying the model does not exist. The IPCC has invented the alternative to cross validation that it calls “evaluation.” To “evaluate” a climate model one compares projections from the model to a selected global warming time series. The time series is necessary but a statistical population is not. Climatologists act as if unaware of the fact that a statistical population is required if the model is to supply a would be regulator of Earth’s climate with information. Information is required for regulation.
Martin Mason November 19, 2017 at 3:51 am
The science is anything but settled.
I suggest you address the science which I have been addressing here not some political issues. Henry has some made up theory that says that absorption works by back reflecting 62.5% of the light rather than exciting molecular vibrations and rotations. Says that CO2 absorbs in the UV where it does not, that there is much more solar radiation striking the earth than there is IR leaving it, etc.
Apparently you would rather believe such junk science rather than real science because it fits with your political view.
Martin Mason commented – “Phil, as an intelligent person you surely must admit that the science isn’t settled and that the events predicted from the models and the warming industry are just not happening”
“The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly,”
ethan siegel, forbes, mar 15 ’17
link – https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#6a442ea96614
Friend
Please enlighten us with the results of your own research as to why you believe AGW is true
Can I ask the moderators why a comment of mine above is awaiting moderation? I can’t see anything controversial in it.
[Of course you can. There is no comment of yours waiting anywhere that I can see. That’s it. Sorry. . . mod]
Thank you, two comments showed on my screen as awaiting moderation and I wondered why that’s all. Sometimes I do go OTT and just wondered if I’d done so.
The IPCC climate models lack the statistical population that underlies them, an indication that the reification fallacy is being applied. To “reify” is to treat an “abstract” object as if it were a “concrete” object. For modern global warming climatology, the abstract object is the Earth of the Greenhouse effect. The abstract Earth exhibits “radiative forcing” but the concrete Earth (the one on which we live) does not exhibit radiative forcing. It seems to climatologists as though the concrete Earth exhibits radiative forcing because reification is part of what a climatologist does..A climatologist is a Platonist rather than being a scientist. .
Very interesting to see that Laser cooling is given as an example of heat being transferred from a low temperature body to a high temperature body. I don’t believe that this is true, the cooling isn’t effected by heat transfer from anything to anything.
As I understand it the laser cooling relies on the atoms emitting radiation which must be absorbed somewhere. In the case of Rubidium 85 it gets cooled to 150 microK I would assume that those absorbers are at a higher temperature than that?
Phil, like your lamp, the laser transferring from cold to hot isn’t actually what really happens. I reckon that heat doesn’t flow from cold to warm at any level or at any time. Can you actually show proof that this can happen as I can’t find it other than on warmist sites.
Martin wrote – “I reckon that heat doesn’t flow from cold to warm at any level or at any time”
all objects emit radiation in all directions. why wouldn’t
it impact on whatever other object is out there,
regardless of its T?
Crackers, radiation can flow in all directions but heat only in one and that is from warm to cold. Radiation isn’t heat. Photons of a low energy level (e.g., CO2) will flow to a warmer body but unless the photons have the energy to raise the energy level of the warm body they will not be absorbed. All photons are not equal and I believe that if heat (as against radiation) only flows from warm to colder at the real world level this has to be true at the quantum level.
Martin: radiation
is heat.
Phil.
the report concludes:
From the clear-air and cloud fractions required in our model to fit the data, we would also conclude that the planet has a dynamic atmosphere. Thus, the spectral albedo could be expected to show slight changes with time
It is about earth’s albedo? Do you know and understand what it is?
There is a big difference between solar irradiation TOA and what arrives at sea level…
I put it to you that you have only presented a sheet as to radiation trapped on earth by GHG’s [like you showed just now to Terry] but you have not presented any knowledge from your books as to how much radiation is deflected off from earth by each of the GHG’s. Your continued denial that such a process occurs [which is similar to the process of the heat entrapment that you do think is happening ]
is quite pathetic.
it is not me ignoring, it is you.
Crackers, radiation transfer isn’t heat transfer. A “photon” arriving at a receiver can be absorbed and re-emitted (raise the temperature of the body), reflected (without raising energy level) or transmitted (pass through). Unless the photon has come from a source with a higher energy level it won’t be absorbed. This is simplistic I know but heat (even if you call it net heat) only flows from a warmer body to a colder body, if this is so (and the laws of thermo and real life say it is) then heat can’t flow from a cooler body to a warmer body, in turn this means that a cooler body can’t heat a warmer body. This seems to be so blindingly obvious that I’m sure I must be missing something.
crackers345
[can I call you ‘friend’? I don’t like crackers. I love my dogs and I hate crackers.]
Anyway,what is the significance of your number 345?
Like the sun, the earth is also a radiating body. The only difference is that we have ca. 12 hours a day of sunshine and 24 hours of earthshine. Now< I am not going to repeat here what I have told your friend phil. to prove to him that GHG's do deflect radiation off from earth just like earth's radiation is send back to earth by some of the GHG's. If you like, you can go through my comments on this thread and the argument I have with him.
I will tell you that I love my dogs and I also love my big 4 x 4 truck. I also like to go up the hills and take my dogs for a stroll. I am also a strong believer, so you can imagine feeling a bit guilty about my diesel consumption. That is when I started to investigate your so called AGW…
here is my final report on that.
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa] I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..
henry – ghgs don’t “deflect” —
they absorb and emit.
big difference.
Crackers, they can reflect and transmit too without raising the energy level.
co2 doesn’t “reflect.”
friend,
there seems to be a lot of confusion about using the right word.
My idea is that if it acts like a mirror it probably is a mirror.
reflectivity
deflection
emission
re-emission
radiation
re-radiation
back radiation
is all OK if used in the right context?
I am always watching with some amusement a lot of scholar discussions on the green house effect as I realize that the people that I encounter on most scientific blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of absorption and subsequent re-radiation. In fact very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. …
They know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) “absorbs” in the 14-15 um region. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighboring molecules. Then it absorbs again, and so on, and so on…and all the absorbed light is continuously transferred to heat…
Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas, that is in fact not what is causing the heat entrapment. Namely, there is only 0.5% GHG in the atmosphere and the rest is permeable to almost any type of radiation. So, there is no heat that can be ‘absorbed’ as there is only 0.5% [of the atmosphere] that can do it….?
The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn on a bright cloudless night. Note that water (g) also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of the sun hits on the water (g) around you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapor.
henryp – co2 does’t “reflect.”
assuming it does will lead to a
fundamental error in the analysis.
but co2 does _not_
act like a mirror.
“absorption and subsequent re-radiation”
is not “reflectivity.”
henryp wrote – “Namely, there is only 0.5% GHG in the atmosphere and the rest is permeable to almost any type of radiation. So, there is no heat that can be ‘absorbed’ as there is only 0.5% [of the atmosphere] that can do it….?”
no heat?
that is not the logical
consequence of what you wrote.
lots of heat is blocked — just look
at any measure of the radiation
spectrum out the top of the
atmosphere
Friend,
to confuse matters even more, now you use the word ‘blocked’ instead of the ones that are being used:
deflection, reflectivity, re-radiation, re-emission, etc. What do you mean by that> blocked?
Radiation can only move in straight lines. The absorptive areas of the gh gas are the areas where certain radiation cannot pass straight through.
To see how back-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water (g) has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.
We can conclude from this simple experiment that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Assuming the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming (GH) or cooling (anti-GH) effect of a GH gas hit by radiation.
Especially in winter, you can feel the increase in minimum temperature (observed during the night) when clouds move in from one day to another. The radiation from earth hits on the clouds and it is send back to earth, 62.5% in the direction where it came from, making it warmer.
99.5% of the atmosphere is permeable to almost any type of radiation, even the radiation back radiated to space by the GH gasses.
henryp:
Thanks for clarifying. Your description of the “back radiation” phenomenon is accurate. Years ago, the waters surrounding this issue were muddied by a widespread but mistaken use of the word “heat” under which the 2nd law of thermodynamics was violated by the flow of this “heat” against a negative temperature gradient.
Something is wrong with the “Greenhouse effect” but that the 2nd law is violated by it is not what is wrong. The wrong idea is “radiative forcing.” Radiative forcing is an application of the reification fallacy. Application of this fallacy makes of modern global warming climatology a pseudoscience.
Terry
thx.
I am always trying to explain in ways so that everyone can understand what is happening around them,
indeed
my results also indicate there is no manmade warming, i.e. there is no room for it in my equation…not even 0.01 of a %.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/study-we-have-the-global-warming-physical-process-backwards/#comment-2671106
henryp
I may not have reached you with my entire message. The part of it that you may have missed is that the popular idea of “radiative forcing” is an application of the reification fallacy. This is evident, for example, in the absence of the statistical population underlying the IPCC climate models. Cross validation of a model cannot take place absent this statistical population so IPCC climatologists have replaced cross validation of their models by “evaluation” of them. Those global temperature vs time plots with the squiggly lines crossing them are IPCC-style “evaluations.” Unfortunately, a model that can only be “evaluated” produces no information about the outcomes of events thus being practically worthless.
Terry
reify: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing: to reify a concept. See more.
Yes, well I found that there really is no ipcc. Have you ever tried to contact them? It seems there is no office, no one to answer the phone or answer my questions [via e-mail]
Are you perhaps not trying to re-ify the IPPC? lol.
As explained, there is a GH effect but there is no mass in the atmosphere to ‘change’ the temperature.. Adding more GHG would not make it warmer. Anyway, like I said, looking at minima, I cannot even allocate 0.01% to man made warming.
A more probable cause for earth getting warmer is the anti GH effect, i.e. e.g. the ozone getting less, meaning less UV is deflected off from earth and more UV is getting through into the oceans.Now there is mass and the UV is getting absorbed and changed into heat, eventually, as there are many molecules touching…
Indeed, a correlation can be seen between arctic ice getting less and ozone depletion.
But even here I think it is natural. Historical dwellings now becoming visible in Greenland show that the climate is now what it was a 1000 years or so ago. Hence we had my countryman Willem Barentz in the 16th century looking for a passage past the arctic to the east. He died trying to find it, but he must have acted on information that it existed before?
henryp commented – “Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas”
saturation is a myth
it assumes that only the ground
radiates (upward). but the atmosphere
radiates as well, both up and down…..
even Venus isn’t saturated.
I am not sure why my comment to my friend [crackers] does not show?
(It was in the trash,Anthony rescued it,you complained just 2 minutes after you made that long post,that was fast!) MOD
thanks!
friend
I always like challenging a bit, for you to start thinking science for yourself. Think of an experience that you had where you could feel the GH [warming] effect. Did you ever have any such experience
Terry
look here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/study-we-have-the-global-warming-physical-process-backwards/comment-page-1/#comment-2677223
henryp:
Let me clarify. In this case, the concept that is reified is an abstract Earth that is formed from the concrete Earth (the physical object.on which we live) by abstraction (removal) of features of the concrete Earth whose values are time varying. One of the consequences from abstraction is Arrhenius’s idea of “radiative forcing.” Under” radiative forcing” an increase in the concentration of a “greenhouse gas” “forces” an increase in the global surface air temperature.This “temperature” does not belong to the concrete Earth but rather to the abstract Earth. Thus, while we can think about this temperature we cannot measure it.
Terry
indeed, we are still living with the mistakes made by Tyndall and Arrhenius.
They looked at the closed box, and indeed, my initial experimentation inside my shower cubicle showed that they might have been right: some heat is trapped in water vapor.
However, I later realized that the closed box experiment only related to earthshine, 24 hrs /day, where earth emits 5-20 um,
not to the sunshine 12 hrs/day 0-5 um, where the sun emits.