Note: This is a contentious subject, and I have often shied away from it because it often erupts in food fights. However, Mr. Gill is making a good-faith effort here, and asks some relevant questions that I consider worth discussing. His original essay was sans graphics, and I’ve added two relevant graphics to aid in the discussion. – Anthony
Do Wien’s Law and Quantum Physics 101 prove CO2 can’t warm anything?
Guest essay by Rod Gill
WUWT has happily demonstrated many ways CO2 fails to produce measurable warming. I’ve thought of another way. It’s so simple I must have missed something, but I simply can’t work out what. It goes like this…
Experts suggest there is a net down welling 2W/m2 of long wave infra-red radiation (LWIR) that is causing global warming. I suggest the quality of that 2W of radiation is crucial to determining whether or not it causes any atmospheric warming at all. First a few key points which I think are facts and not open to dispute.
My understanding of Thermodynamics and Radiation from CO2 is as follows:
In Thermodynamics, Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles in a body (solid or gas).
The temperature of a volume of air has nothing to do with the amount of radiation (sometimes mislabelled as heat by scientists) passing through it. Unless that radiation is at a frequency that can be absorbed by the air, its temperature is completely unaffected by the radiation (ignoring any convectional heating).For example at the top of Mount Everest, there is a lot of solar energy (long and short wave radiation) there when the sun is out but the temperature is still cold.
Different gases have different emission spectrums. For example Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb or emit Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) at all, so are not considered to be “Greenhouse” gases.
The temperature of a body (gas, liquid or solid) directly affects the wavelength of the radiation it emits and absorbs.
Wien’s Law defines the temperature – wave length relationship. The formula is Temperature (in degrees Kelvin) = 2898 / peak wave length in µm (micro metres). So for the average temperature of the Earth, lets call it 15C (=289 Kelvin), the wave length is 2898 / (15+274) = 2898 ÷ 289 = 10um.
The wavelength of the peak of the blackbody radiation curve decreases in a linear fashion as the temperature is increased (Wien’s displacement law). This linear variation is not evident in this kind of plot since the intensity increases with the fourth power of the temperature (Stefan- Boltzmann law). The nature of the peak wavelength change is made more evident by plotting the fourth root of the intensity. Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html
Carbon Dioxide’s absorption spectrum shows it absorbs LWIR at three different narrow wave lengths, sometimes called finger frequencies. Two of those wave lengths happen at temperatures too hot to exist in the atmosphere, the remaining wave length is 15um.
15um equates to 2898 ÷ 15 = 193K = -80C or -122F. In the atmosphere this temperature only occurs about 90-100Km high in the atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide only emits and absorbs radiation at -80C from a narrow layer of atmosphere 90Km above the Earth’s surface.
So now we need to examine the quality of that 15um radiation and its ability to heat the lower atmosphere. To do this we need to understand basic Quantum Physics as taught in 101 classes to Physics and Engineering students at University. Confession: I’m an Engineer, but trained before Quantum Physics was introduced to University courses so I’m self-taught, hence my need for a sanity check. Which, dear reader, is where you come in.
The key points in basic Quantum Physics, regarding radiative heat transfer, are:
Molecules have one or more electrons circling them. Their orbital height is not variable, But fixed. The electrons only orbit at set altitudes, the closer to the molecule the lower the kinetic energy of the molecule and so the lower the molecule’s temperature.
For a molecule to “warm up” (have more kinetic energy) it needs its electrons to move to a higher, more energetic orbit. This can happen in one of two ways, get energy from a more energetic molecule via collision or receive energy via radiation.
For an electron to move to a higher orbit from radiation it must receive a photon with sufficient energy for an electron to reach that higher orbit.
Photons with too much energy raise the electron to the higher orbit then the molecule immediately re-radiates surplus energy.
Photons with not enough energy to raise the orbit of any of the electrons are either scattered or immediately re-radiated (effectively reflecting or scattering them) with no change to the molecule’s kinetic energy, or temperature.
The Photon must have a frequency that resonates with the molecule, otherwise the Photon is just scattered or reflected immediately with no temperature change to the molecule.
Carbon dioxide can only absorb Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) energy and radiate it at 15 micro metres, a fraction of the LWR spectrum.
Electrons orbiting molecules of a liquid or solid need more energy to boost an electron’s orbit than electrons in a gas, so require more energetic photons again to warm them.
Therefore it is my understanding that it is impossible for the LWIR emitted by a cold low energy CO2 molecule to have the energy required to warm any molecule in the atmosphere warmer than -80C and certainly no molecule in a liquid (EG water) or a solid body, as their electrons require even more energy.
LWIR from CO2 simply bounces around the atmosphere until it escapes into space and it causes no warming of the lower atmosphere at all. The energy level of that 2W of LWIR is too poor to have any affect. It needs to be closer to 10um to be energetic enough to warm anything.
So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming.
So am I right? I deliberately have not included any references because I want you to confirm or deny my understanding independently. If I gave you my references, which knowing the web may or may not be accurate, you might erroneously come to the same conclusions I have. However I have tried to limit my research to University papers and lecture notes hoping they are more reliable.
If I’ve got this right, CO2 caused global warming isn’t possible. If I haven’t got this right, then exactly how does LWIR radiated from CO2 warm anything?
Many thanks and please limit comments to specifics mentioned above. And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything.
56votes
Article Rating
985 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeffrey Westcott
November 20, 2017 8:01 am
I dare anyone who believes that the science is settled on the GHE to read this entire discussion! The inability of anyone to clearly and convincingly explain this effect is confirmation of its complexity exceeding our current knowledge of the physics, chemistry, and meteorology involved. I’m not sure we even know the sign (positive or negative) of the climate’s sensitivity to increased CO2 ! I know that it’s a “wicked” problem to solve, but the wide range of currently proposed hypotheses is bigger than it ought to be, and that’s an embarrassment for science.
Very strange, somehow there are comments above under my name, “Robert Kernodle”, that I DID NOT WRITE. Somebody else wrote them and somehow was able to post under my name. How is this possible?
Martin Mason
November 20, 2017 8:48 am
Aveollila, that is true for a static mass of air at constant pressure. That isn’t the case in the troposphere where packages of air rise and cool and then fall and heat by compression. Surely this has to taken into the big picture.
Also recognize that the atmospheres volume is not static, thus allowing for cooling via expansion. This is the biggest problem with arhennious and Tyndalls experiments, they are in test tubes where the mass of air being heated with IR is not allowed to expand or contract with addition or subtraction of energy.
The Reverend Badger
November 20, 2017 9:19 am
As expected this thread has very rapidly accumulated hundreds of comments. Very nice! As there have been a number of criticism of my initial comment (pure luck got in first) concerning “photons” I would now like to add some additional comments.
1. The concept of a “photon” was invented to help explain certain experimental results involving electro-magnetic radiation. Specifically that in certain experiments it looked like there was quantisation as opposed to discrete analogue variation.
2. As a concept it has worked and aided our understanding but THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that an elementary particle , The “photon”, exists. All results can equally be explained by assuming electromagnetic radiation is a wave, with analogue variability but the interaction of this wave with matter causes phenomena which are discrete/quantised because matter itself is particulate. In other words the e-m is a wave, the matter is particles, the results can be “lumpy” BECAUSE of the matter, NOT because of the wave i.e. not because the wave is really “lumpy” itself or comprised of “photons”.
3. This is why I asked readers to use both explanations when trying to explain things in radiative physics. Try explaining it both from e-m being only a wave as well as your favourite photon/particle explanation.
4. The belief that photons are real elementary particles is very very widespread but you will find the better PhD’s referring to it as quantised e-m radiation (that’s sort of a fudge/middle ground idea).
5. Anyone who thinks “photons” are real elementary particles is advised to read up on the history of how the word came to be invented and what various eminent scientists at the time thought of it.
6. Finally, if anyone really thinks they do have a link to experimental evidence which conclusively shows that photons are real elementary particles I would be happy to look at it. Before giving me the link please be sure to consider the alternative explanation (e-m wave interacting with lumpy matter) and tell me why that is NOT an equally valid explanation.
Please post the work of the PhDs whom you consider better regarding the physical reality of photons. A photon is a quantum of EM radiation, so the formulation which “they” allegedly use is a distinction without a difference.
I’m familiar with how photons were discovered and named. In reply to your original comment, I’ve already given you examples demonstrating the reality of photons and their relationship to “matter”, to which you haven’t bothered to respond.
I, Robert Kernodle, did NOT post the following FOUR comments, even though each appears separately under my name (linked to my website) as indicated here:
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 4:35 pm Technically energy can be “destroyed.” If you observe the spectra from distant stars, you’ll note that the hydrogen emission lines are red shifted. When the photon left the star of origin, it had the normal wavelength (freq) of the emission lines of hydrogen. As it traversed the expanding intergalactic space, it’s wavelength grew longer (red-shift.) There is a calculable loss of energy in this red-shifted photon according to E=hc/l where delta-E = hc/delta-l.
…
Where did the ‘lost’ energy go?
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm I already did. The photon that was emitted a million light years ago, “lost” some of it’s energy. The frequency has decreased (increased wavelength.) Where is the “lost” energy?
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 6:02 pm Gerontius, that does not explain it. There is no gravitational field in the million light years between the star that emitted the photon, and the spectrometer here on earth that measured it. The red shift is due to the expansion of space, not to a gravitational field.
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 6:05 pm PS Gerontius, photons coming from the opposite side of the universe display the same red shift. You would think that if you looked in the opposite direction of the red shifted photon, you’d observe a blue shifted one if your “theory” were correct.
Either there is a bug, or my ID has somehow been hacked, or an alter-universe spawn of myself is phasing in and out of this universe. If one of his posts follows one of mine (the real me), then will the universe annihilate itself?
Alexander Vissers
November 20, 2017 12:47 pm
You should from the comments above by now understand that the -80 degree is the lowest temperature at which CO2 can emit radiation and from your own emission graph that it will emit more in any wavelength the warmer it gets. It absorbs radiation (your graph is a solar radiation absorbtion graph) from the sun which is approx 5770 K so a great deal warmer. The interesting thing of the “finger graph (spectrum figure)” is that heat can “escape” the CO2 trap if other substances emit the heat in a wavelength for which CO2 is “transparent” and that some solar radiation in the infra is absorbed by CO2 in the stratosphere and high altitude troposphere and never makes it to the surface of the planet. As to CO2 the absorbtion of light and heat by different types of gasses please read the treaty by Arrhenius. This may be a first introduction. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
davidbennettlaing
November 20, 2017 2:32 pm
Key points:
• Molecules have one or more electrons circling them. Their orbital height is not variable, But fixed. The electrons only orbit at set altitudes, the closer to the molecule the lower the kinetic energy of the molecule and so the lower the molecule’s temperature.
Correct, but strictly applicable only to molecular bonds. The fixed levels at which electrons exist in such bonds are “quantized” due to resonance and harmonics. When radiation of the exact same frequency as the natural resonant vibration of a particular molecular bond, or a harmonic thereof, is received, the electron in the bond in question makes an integral leap (1,2,3…,) to the next higher level. When a natural resonance or harmonic is equaled by incoming radiation, the ensuing leap occurs without requiring an input of energy.
• For a molecule to “warm up” (have more kinetic energy) it needs its electrons to move to a higher, more energetic orbit. This can happen in one of two ways, get energy from a more energetic molecule via collision or receive energy via radiation.
Correct, again, for bonds. Where radiation is involved, this happens by resonance without requiring energy input.
• For an electron to move to a higher orbit from radiation it must receive a photon with sufficient energy for an electron to reach that higher orbit.
No. As mentioned above, no energy input is required for the resonant leap of a bonding electron to a higher quantum level. Einstein couldn’t have known this, so he invented the “photon” to explain the phenomenon. In reality, EMR is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.
• Photons with too much energy raise the electron to the higher orbit then the molecule immediately re-radiates surplus energy.
EMR of frequencies between resonant levels don’t interact (aren’t absorbed) but are simply reflected or transmitted. Only resonant frequencies are absorbed.
• Photons with not enough energy to raise the orbit of any of the electrons are either scattered or immediately re-radiated (effectively reflecting or scattering them) with no change to the molecule’s kinetic energy, or temperature.
Correct.
• The Photon must have a frequency that resonates with the molecule, otherwise the Photon is just scattered or reflected immediately with no temperature change to the molecule.
Carbon dioxide can only absorb Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) energy and radiate it at 15 micro metres, a fraction of the LWR spectrum.
For “photon,” read “radiation.” The absorption/emission bandwidth of CO2 is from 13 to 17 microns, according to MODTRAN6.
• Electrons orbiting molecules of a liquid or solid need more energy to boost an electron’s orbit than electrons in a gas, so require more energetic photons again to warm them.
Therefore it is my understanding that it is impossible for the LWIR emitted by a cold low energy CO2 molecule to have the energy required to warm any molecule in the atmosphere warmer than -80C and certainly no molecule in a liquid (EG water) or a solid body, as their electrons require even more energy.
No. Again, quantum leaps only occur at resonant frequencies. In condensed phases (solids and liquids), in which atoms are in constant mutual contact, heat conduction occurs, leading to the familiar Planck distribution consisting of a continuous, bell-shaped, broad range of frequencies of which the peak frequency corresponds to the (Wien) temperature of the emitting object. In gases, atoms are seldom in contact (except for pressure-broadening in dense gases), so such thermal conduction can’t occur, so gases exhibit line spectra in which spectral lines are separated by resonant and harmonic intervals (Rydberg-Ritz combination principle). CO2 can only absorb and emit radiation in the bandwidth 13 to 17 microns, and if a Planck spectrum were to be assembled from radiation in this range, its Wien temperature would be well below Earth surface temperatures, hence CO2 is incapable of transferring heat to the warmer Earth.
• LWIR from CO2 simply bounces around the atmosphere until it escapes into space and it causes no warming of the lower atmosphere at all. The energy level of that 2W of LWIR is too poor to have any affect. It needs to be closer to 10um to be energetic enough to warm anything.
I was going to respond to some of these ‘corrections’ but when I got to: “In reality, EMR is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.”
I realized it was pointless. With such a flawed view of radiation, it would take way too much effort to address all the errors in the original post PLUS all the errors in the ‘correction’.
Can you actually refute my allegations, Mr. Folkerts, or would it be “too much effort?” It’s easy to dismiss things you don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve decided the issue. Science is too heavily burdened by people who simply accept long-established theory. As a polymath, I see definite value in questioning old thinking and in seeking truth in hard datasets rather than in the weight of well-established ideas. The Universe is what it is, not what we think it is, and the proper access to truth is a willingness to question old thoughts.
“When radiation of the exact same frequency as the natural resonant vibration of a particular molecular bond, or a harmonic thereof, is received, the electron in the bond in question makes an integral leap (1,2,3…,) to the next higher level. “
The absorption of this long wavelength IR involves vibrations and rotations of molecules. Not electrons jumping to higher levels. The “Bohr model” thinking with electrons jumping to higher energy orbitals is not correct here.
“Where radiation is involved, this happens by resonance without requiring energy input.”
This violates conservation of energy. If a molecule gains energy (warms up), it requires energy input.
“CO2 can only absorb and emit radiation in the bandwidth 13 to 17 microns, and if a Planck spectrum were to be assembled from radiation in this range, its Wien temperature would be well below Earth surface temperatures”
The “Wein temperature” strictly only applies to a full blackbody curve. The wavelength from Wein’s Law tells the wavelength that is most strongly emitted by a blackbody radiator. When the emitting material is not a blackbody, the strongest wavelength is not necessarily related to the wavelength predicted by Wein’s Law.
Can you actually refute my allegations, Mr. Folkerts, or would it be “too much effort?”
David, you have claimed that “In reality, EMR [electromagnetic radiation] is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.”.
Say what? Light is EMR and it definitely contains energy. We know this because we can feel the energy in sunlight warm our skins.
Microwaves are EMR. We use the energy in microwaves, the energy you claim doesn’t exist, to cook our food.
Given such a bizarre statement, one that is so divorced from reality, I can understand tjf not wanting to get into a discussion with you. The problem is that you are starting from a point that is so far away from well-established basic physics that there is little hope of bridging the gap.
You say “As a polymath, I see definite value in questioning old thinking and in seeking truth in hard datasets”, and I agree completely.
However, I also see no value in ignoring old thinking as you are doing. The fact that electromagnetic fields contain energy, energy that is used e.g. in electric motors to do practical work, has been known since someone, maybe Faraday, noticed that a wire containing an electrical current could move the needle of a compass. Moving a compass needle requires energy …
And regarding questioning old thinking, here’s some old thinking you might consider in your quest for new understanding …
1. Bond responses include rotations, vibrations, and ionizations, in order of resonant energy induction. The first doesn’t involve jumps to higher energy levels. The latter two do, creating increasingly greater distance between bonded atoms until the final distancing, ionization.
2. The first law of thermodynamics holds only in thermally isolated systems in equilibrium, which Earth/radiation interactions clearly are not. The principle of resonant response (unknown to Einstein) is well understood, now, and all that is required for an energyless response in a frictionless system (such as molecular bonds) is that incoming radiation has exactly the same frequency as a resonant frequency or overtone of the receiving bond. The resulting increased motion and acceleration of charged particles (electrons) in the bond results in the LOCAL generation of energy. This occurs in quantized steps, corresponding to resonant frequencies or overtones thereof. This is what Einstein interpreted as “Lichtquanten,” or “photons,” which are locally produced by the resonant interaction of EMR with matter and not carried by incoming EMR.
3. Quite true that the Wien temperature strictly only applies to the most intense frequency of a continuous Planck spectrum. However, I challenge you to assemble anything resembling a Planck curve from the discrete line spectra composing CO2’s input and output and have the Wien temperature of its most intense spectral line (about 14.95 microns) fall within a range that corresponds to normal Earth temperatures. In other words, CO2 can only return infrared radiation to Earth’s surface that is colder than Earth’s normal surface temperature range, and as is well-known, cooler objects (here, CO2) can’t transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earth’s surface).
“Light is EMR and it definitely contains energy. We know this because we can feel the energy in sunlight warm our skins.”
What we actually feel is our skins warming under the impact of energyless EMR. In all cases of the detection of “photons,” interaction of EMR with matter is involved. Even our detection devices are material, and so, logically, they respond to incoming EMR. “Photons,” to my knowledge, have never been “detected” in EMR in a context apart from matter. This removal of energy from EMR solves a lot of problems. First, EMR is known to have no mass and it travels at light speed, neither of which is possible if it contains energy. Second, complex mathematics with imaginary numbers are required to get around this, and these spin off all kinds of imaginary, Alice-in-Wonderland worlds for us to contemplate. Third, it relegates energy to its proper state as a property of matter, not as some two-faced protean phenomenon that is mass-bound in most forms and mass-independent in another. With appropriate dimensional transforms, all forms of energy (except, of course, that supposedly in EMR) can be seen to have a mass term. Mass is even present in Planck’s constant h, in that purest of equations dealing with EMR, E=hv.
The statement here is not bizarre. It is simply a rethink of old, entrenched theor based on new information. Once resonance and the consequent local generation of energy (“photons”) by EMR are taken into account, things become a whole lot simpler.
1) I don’t see how rotation and vibration could be considered “bond responses”. Rotation is a physical motion of the atoms (which you seem to acknowledge with “The first doesn’t involve jumps to higher energy levels”). Vibration could, I suppose, be considered 1/2 bond energy and 1/2 KE. In any case, this difference in terminology is only a minor point.
2) Conservation of energy always holds (with no known counterexamples). Your claim that “The first law of thermodynamics holds only in thermally isolated systems in equilibrium” is patently false. ΔU = Q – W applies when you use a calorimeter. It applies to heat engines. This law is ROUTINELY applied to non-isolated, non-equilibrium scenarios. For isolated systems in thermodynamic equilibrium, the first law becomes simply ΔU = 0!
Your claim of “results in the LOCAL generation of energy” simply is not observed in nature. Any local gain in energy of a molecule is the result of the simultaneous equal local loss of energy of a photon. Einstein said nothing to contradict this conclusion.
3) This whole paragraph seems to be a misapplication of some correct laws of physics. You say “as is well-known, cooler objects (here, CO2) can’t transfer heat to warmer ones”. This is true as far as it goes, but cooler objects (like CO2 in the air) CAN slow the loss of heat (radiation from the warm surface) when interposed in front of an even colder background (3K outer space). With a steady input of heat from the sun, this can and does result in a warmer temperature for the surface.
1) Right you are regarding rotations. Vibrations involve accelerations, as the bond stretches and contracts with each cycle. This does two things: first, accelerating charged particles emit EMR, and second, increased vibrational motion of the bonded atoms represents increased kinetic energy output.
2) Patently false? Wikpedia (e.g.,) says, “The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy OF AN ISOLATED SYSTEM is constant” (my emphasis). Perhaps I should have stressed “isolated,” which Sun/Earth certainly isn’t. If my view is correct, the local generation of energy is seen all the time in EMR resonantly inducing increased vibrations and ionizations with the release of photons in receiving matter, given a high enough frequency of radiation. Also, every time you drive your car, local generation of energy occurs in its internal combustion engine, given a sufficient fuel input. Again, not a closed system.
3) Absolutely! This is evident in the difference between enjoying a cool evening in humid Kent, Connecticut as opposed to a chilly one in the dry lower Sonoran desert of southern Arizona, even though the daytime temperature only hit 78 in Kent, whereas it hit 109 in Catalina. We’re talking H20, here, but CO2 works the same way, as Wm. Ferrell said back in 1884, or thereabouts. The thing is, CO2 absorption and back-radiation can retard heat loss, but it can’t add heat. It’s sort of like a blanket over a sleeping person. It can retard heat loss from the body, but it can’t raise the body temperature past its metabolic norm of 37 C unless, of course, it’s electric. Similarly, increased solar input can raise Earth’s surface temperature, but back-radiation from CO2 can’t. Interestingly, I haven’t seen the exothermic reactions involving O2 and O3 in the stratosphere as significant sources of added heat for the Earth system.
“[A blanket] can’t raise the body temperature past its metabolic norm of 37 C “
Ah! But here the body has an active thermostat the can adjust the power input (ie regulate metabolism rates) to deliberately seek a specific temperature of 37 C. The earth doesn’t in a similar way actively adjust the power input from the sun to deliberately seek a temperature of, say, 15 C.
The earth doesn’t in a similar way actively adjust the power input from the sun to deliberately seek a temperature of, say, 15 C.
Ah, but it does. First there’s trillions of tons of solar heated liquid all over, and as Willis has shown, water vapor clouds and then storms when it gets too how, there by regulating max T, and I’ve shown that water vapor regulates cooling using this stored energy to augment surface temps to limit cooling at night to dew point.
Steve Zell
November 20, 2017 3:12 pm
Rod Gill is not completely correct in saying that just because the temperature at which the maximum radiation is emitted at 15 um is -80 C, that IR radiation at 15 um cannot be absorbed at higher temperatures.
Rod Gill’s top graph shows the Planck distribution of intensity of emission as a function of wavelength at given values of temperature. If the wavelength of maximum intensity is about 500 nm for 6000 K (about the temperature of the surface of the sun), there is still substantial energy emitted at wavelengths above and below 500 nm.
The Planck distribution for the Earth’s surface at 289 K would reach a maximum intensity for a wavelength of 10 um, but there would still be a substantial intensity at the slightly higher wavelength (lower frequency) of 15 um.
The Planck distribution and Wien’s law (which is merely differentiating the Planck distribution and setting the derivative to zero) apply to EMISSION spectra. The ability of a gas to ABSORB infrared radiation is based on the photon energy levels that cause an electron to change from one orbital to a higher-energy orbital, which vary from one gas to another.
One of the keys to debunking global-warming theory is in the second figure in Rod Gill’s article. For the 13-17 um peak absorption range for CO2, there is also substantial absorption by water vapor. It is not clear from the graphs at what concentration these absorption spectra were measured, but it can be assumed that all were measured at the same concentration for an apples-to-apples comparison.
Over an ocean, it is common for the water-vapor concentration to be 1 to 2 percent, or 10,000 to 20,000 ppm, as compared to about 400 ppm CO2 (currently at Mauna Loa). If water vapor at 400 ppm would absorb 40 to 60% of the available energy at a wavelength between 13 and 17 um, at 10,000 ppm it would absorb over 99.9% of the available energy (the energy transmitted, or not absorbed, is a negative exponential of the concentration * distance), and the CO2 absorbs most of what’s left, which is less than 0.1% of the total energy absorbed.
Since 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, there is always water vapor more or less in equilibrium with it in the air over the oceans, and CO2 has a very minor effect on climate over the oceans, because water vapor has already absorbed the vast majority of the emitted IR energy.
CO2 can only affect the climate in areas with extremely low water vapor concentrations, either over deserts or in very cold climates where the air is too cold to hold much water vapor. This may occur over high-latitude areas in winter, but this does not prevent temperatures from dropping well below freezing.
During the Arctic spring and summer, some of the sea ice along the northern shores of Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and Canada does melt (primarily because of warmer sun-heated air blowing northward off the continents). But the open water allows for evaporation, which raises the humidity of the atmosphere and allows clouds and storms to form, which limits the amount of incident sunlight and keeps temperatures only slightly above freezing during the summer months.
The major fear of global-warming alarmists is that runaway warming will melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps and cause flooding of coastal cities.
The facts show that, over temperate and tropical oceans, the vast majority of the available IR energy is already absorbed by water vapor, and the CO2 effect is like the weight of a fly on top of an elephant (of water vapor absorption). CO2 can only absorb appreciable energy in very cold and/or dry environments, but in the polar regions, most of the “warming” is in the winter, when it is too cold to melt ice, and humidities increase in summer, damping out the effect of CO2. Also, most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are at high altitudes (over 2000 meters) where midsummer temperatures never get above freezing, so that no melting occurs.
“CO2 can only affect the climate in areas with extremely low water vapor concentrations, either over deserts or in very cold climates where the air is too cold to hold much water vapor. This may occur over high-latitude areas in winter, but this does not prevent temperatures from dropping well below freezing. “
This also occurs at high ALTITUDES. The emission of 15 um IR to space occurs mostly up near the tropopause. This is confirmed by various data like, which shows the IR emission to space in the 15 um range radiates as well as a ~ 215 K blackbody. At these low temperatures, there is basically no water vapor in the atmosphere.
So from your own logic, CO2 near the tropopause affects climate. And since the tropopause circles the earth, CO2 impacts the climate globally.
The main point that seems to be missing here is that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is about ‘trapping’ heat by radiative/greenhouse gasses. RGs don’t trap heat they just delay its transfer to space. The atmosphere is awash with collision induced IR that is constantly moving energy about. How fast? The key question is how long this delay is. Eventually the energy is radiated to space or the atmosphere would just keep heating up.
If the delay is long the energy involved will heat the atmosphere significantly. If it is short, the energy is transferred to space rapidly and there is no significant heating of the atmosphere. I calculate the heating to be negligible.
See: brindabella.id.au/climarc in the RadiativeDelayInContext article.
dai davies, I agree with your analysis with the exception that it would be clearer if you added the time frame to: ” calculate the heating to be negligible…( for a millisecond, second, hour, day, month years etc.). As I understand the average residence time of a photon in a GHG molecule is in the nano to microsecond time frame. So although “trapping” may occur, on a molecular basis, it is nearly instantaneous while leaving little if any energy transfer.
I agree with this statement of your: “The atmosphere is awash with collision induced IR that is constantly moving energy about.”, but would add molecular collisions to the concept. When these molecules collide they can and often do transfer energy. That function is called conduction. For me that is the best explanation for energy/heat “trapping” in the atmosphere.
It is the same for the surface, EXCEPT FOR WATER, where that IR energy can and most often is trapped for a significant time. It doesn’t mater whether that IR energy originated from a molecule in the atmosphere or from the Sun.
CoRev November 21, 2017 at 4:05 am
dai davies, I agree with your analysis with the exception that it would be clearer if you added the time frame to: ” calculate the heating to be negligible…( for a millisecond, second, hour, day, month years etc.). As I understand the average residence time of a photon in a GHG molecule is in the nano to microsecond time frame. So although “trapping” may occur, on a molecular basis, it is nearly instantaneous while leaving little if any energy transfer.
No, for CO2 the time to emit is of the order of msec whereas a typical molecule will undergo about 10 collisions per nanosec in the lower atmosphere so there is plenty of time for energy transfer.
Phil, as I stated the residence time of a photon is” “is in the nano to microsecond time frame.” I need a scientific reference to assure such a long time as milli-second. Also do you have a reference for your claim of multiple molecular collisions for lower atmosphere resident molecules.
Regardless, i think you are confirming my contention that conduction/collisions are a/the major energy transfer mechanism.
I asked for a reference, not you making stuff up.
Fact: at equal temperature, no transfer. So why would there be transfer from cold to hot if one body is colder.
Show me a reference for any transfer outside of “net”, or shut up.
Glad to. I have more references if you wish, it is bog-standard thermodynamics. Or you could just google “two-way radiative transfer” …
Now, until you understand the equation at the bottom of that webpage I linked to, and you can explain it to us, how about YOU shut up …
lifeisthermal, in reference to you saying “Show me a reference for any transfer outside of “net”, or shut up.”, in fact, the very term “net transfer” should give you a clue that there are energy transfers other than the net transfer …
You see,”net energy transfer” means energy gains minus energy losses, and each of those IS AN ENERGY TRANSFER.
Willis, surely though there is radiative transfer from cold to hot but never a transfer of heat energy. The colder body can never warm the warmer body?
Willis, surely though there is radiative transfer from cold to hot but never a transfer of heat energy. The colder body can never warm the warmer body?
Thanks, Martin, and you are right. However, this gets us into semantical trouble because of our common meaning of “warm”, which differs from a strict scientific meaning.
For example, we think nothing of putting on a cold coat and noting that it has warmed us up … which of course can’t happen, as you point out. As they say:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics—It’s More Than Just A Good Idea
So I’m very careful in my use of words around this issue. If you look at my comments, I say things like “the cold atmosphere leaves the surface warmer than it would be without the atmosphere”, which is absolutely true and does not violate the Second Law.
When you say N2 and O2 cannot liberate ‘heat’ to space, are you saying they do not emit energy?
N2 and O2 do both absorb and radiate, but they do so in only a very limited part of the IR spectrum.
I keep hearing that N2 and O2 do not absorb or emit IR, but I’m also aware that any matter above 0 Kelvin emits radiation at a rate determined by its avg temp.
Not quite true. One exception is xenon gas, which is monatomic and has no free electrons. As a result, it neither radiates nor absorbs energy.
If an object or region of space emits radiation then it’s temperature decreases whether that energy is IR or not.
Yes, assuming it is not receiving any radiation …
Given that N2 and O2 make up about 4950 Trillion tons of the total ~5,000 Trillion tons that comprise our atmosphere, it seems fairly obvious that the energy being emitted by N2 and O2 is where most of the energy is lost from the atmosphere radiating.
Often in science, things that are “fairly obvious” are not true. In this case, because of the narrowness of the O2 and N2 absorption bands, they physically cannot absorb (or radiate) much of the upwelling radiant energy, because it is the wrong wavelength.
🙂
Who cares whether emissions are in the Infrared part of the spectrum or not? If an object radiates outside of the IR, are we to believe that the amount of energy within that region of space has not decreased and therefore cooled? Given no or less energy has been absorbed of course.
So our science books should say, all matter above 0 Kelvin, except Xenon, radiate energy. Oddly enough one can buy Xenon lights.
N2 and O2 do not need to absorb or emit IR in order to heat or cool. Energy is conducted via contact with the surface and they are constantly colliding with H2O vapor, CO2, CH4, etc reducing the energy within those molecules if the they have higher energy and increasing it if they have less. Once they have attained the Avg temp of say 15C, they are free to radiate that energy at a wavelength determined by Wein’s Law, correct?
Entropy be damned if objects cannot radiate unless they are some exact temp.
Steven Morris November 21, 2017 at 3:00 am
N2 and O2 do not need to absorb or emit IR in order to heat or cool. Energy is conducted via contact with the surface and they are constantly colliding with H2O vapor, CO2, CH4, etc reducing the energy within those molecules if the they have higher energy and increasing it if they have less. Once they have attained the Avg temp of say 15C, they are free to radiate that energy at a wavelength determined by Wein’s Law, correct?
No, they are unable to emit in that wavelength range because there is no excited dipole. The energy you refer to is just translational energy.
Not quite true. One exception is xenon gas, which is monatomic and has no free electrons. As a result, it neither radiates nor absorbs energy.
Actually Willis even Xenon emits, in fact it has a very large number of lines in the visible which is why it’s often used in lamps. http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/
Not quite true. One exception is xenon gas, which is monatomic and has no free electrons. As a result, it neither radiates nor absorbs energy.
Actually Willis even Xenon emits, in fact it has a very large number of lines in the visible which is why it’s often used in lamps.
Sorry for my lack of clarity, Phil. You are correct. However, I was referring to the current context, which is thermal longwave (IR) radiation. Xenon neither absorbs nor emits thermal longwave radiation.
However, when you get xenon up to very high temperatures, it can indeed emit light … but that is happening by an entirely different mechanism which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
Thanks,
w.
Michael S. Kelly
November 20, 2017 8:50 pm
I don’t have a definitive answer, here, but do submit the following criticisms. The idea that IR photons just bounce around the atmosphere, being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 molecules, producing no warming, is probably wrong. If absorption were followed instantaneously by emission, it would have a better chance of being true, but that isn’t the case.
For example, the radiative lifetime of a CO2 molecule for the 106 micron transition is on the order of 2 msec for CO2 in gases at a pressure of about 8 torr. That’s the only reason a CO2 laser can work, especially a Q-switched, high-power laser. It also means that at higher pressures, the probability of collisional, rather than radiative, de-excitation grows substantially. As a matter of fact, the transition I just cited – the 10.6 micron one – is produced by a collision with a nitrogen molecule with a rotational energy of about the same magnitude. De-excitation occurs exactly the same way.
I rather think that the absorbed energy by a photon exciting a CO2 molecule is more likely to be thermalized by collision than re-radiated, especially at lower altitudes.
I don’t have a definitive answer, here, but do submit the following criticisms. The idea that IR photons just bounce around the atmosphere, being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 molecules, producing no warming, is probably wrong. If absorption were followed instantaneously by emission, it would have a better chance of being true, but that isn’t the case.
For example, the radiative lifetime of a CO2 molecule for the 106 micron transition is on the order of 2 msec for CO2 in gases at a pressure of about 8 torr. That’s the only reason a CO2 laser can work, especially a Q-switched, high-power laser.
Michael, I find the CO2 laser talk contains an error, as CO2 lasers work with 10 um frequencies and not with 15um as specified in the text above:
Two of those wave lengths happen at temperatures too hot to exist in the atmosphere, the remaining wave length is 15um
Michael, I find the CO2 laser talk contains an error, as CO2 lasers work with 10 um frequencies and not with 15um as specified in the text above:
The radiative lifetime of the 15μm excited state of the CO2 is the same order of magnitude as the 10μm state (msec) far longer than the mean time between collisions (less than nsec).
Bernard Lodge
November 21, 2017 12:37 am
‘This is a contentious subject, and I have often shied away from it because it often erupts in food fights’
Thanks Anthony for having this discussion. It may be a bit messy, but only by repeatedly discussing this key issue will we be able to understand and either prove or disprove the GHG effect to the general satisfaction of the WUWT audience.
Thanks also to Willis in particular for engaging so deeply in this discussion despite his obvious frustration with so many people. I fear I am about to add myself to that group! I am a firm believer that if you can’t explain something to a willing listener, you don’t really understand it yourself. I am still doubtful about the GHG effect and will try to explain my doubts simply.
Some initial comments:
The Steel Greenhouse essay written by Willis explains how his definition of the greenhouse effect works, using black body objects radiating back and forth to each other. He assumes that there is perfect energy radiation and absorption and hence, any back radiation to the Earth’s surface will result in an increase in temperature. This model even works in a vacuum. He then says that this is how CO2 warms the Earth because back radiation from the CO2 will warm the Earth’s surface.
The implicit assumption seems to be that any back radiation must raise the temperature of the Earth above what it would otherwise be. This assumes that all emissions are additive with respect to temperature.
My first problem with this is that although all emissions are additive with regard to energy, I don’t believe that all energy emissions are additive with regard to temperature. For instance, sometimes electromagnetic (EM) emissions pass through material, sometimes they are reflected, sometimes they absorbed, sometimes they are immediately re-radiated, sometimes they are scattered etc. Many of these events do not change the temperature. An obvious example of this is that two bars of white hot metal placed together have double the energy but no change in temperature. From this, it is not certain to me that CO2 back radiation would for sure raise temperature in the real world. I need more proof than Willis’ black body model which by definition would increase temperature with any emissions.
My second problem relates to whether a cold body can raise the temperature of a warmer body. This is vital to understand because Willis himself stated in the thread that the approximate average temperature of the atmosphere is -50 C so how can that raise the temperature of the surface which is already at a higher temperature? Willis says that -50 C is warmer than the -270 C vacuum of space which means that the Earth will cool slower which is the same as being warmer.
I can think of two challenges to this logic:
a) Whether an atmosphere slows the cooling of the earth is not the point. The real question is does replacing a few -50 C molecules of oxygen with a few -50 C molecules of CO2 make any difference to the Earth’s temperature? The temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere is the same either way so why would the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface change at all? That is the real GHG effect that needs to be proven. In the 600+ comments in this thread, none of them addresses this.
b) Logically, I cannot see how CO2 at -50 C can warm the Earth’s surface which is already at +15 C. I do accept that cold objects emit EM radiation but do not accept that they can raise the temperature of an already warmer object. For instance, how many cubes of ice do I have to surround a one liter pan of water with to raise the water to boiling point? If someone can do the math on that and tell me the answer then I will be persuaded.
Those are my reasons for doubting the existence of the GHG effect.
“My second problem relates to whether a cold body can raise the temperature of a warmer body.”
Again what is so difficult about the concept of “slowed cooling” that cannot get through to some people and they continue to talk of “raise the temperature”.
Please look at it as energy in (from the Sun) vs energy out at TOA.
More is coming in (SW absorbed) than going out (LWIR emitted).
If there were no enhanced GHE then the two would balance.
The surface temp has to rise in order to equilibriate via the SB equation
Added anthro CO2 is “slowing the cooling” of Earth’s surface by back-radiating some of the LWIR to the surface where it “acts twice” to cause warming.
It isn’t a cold object warming a hot one at all.
The energy that is “causing” the warming is that that left from the warm body in the first place.
It is a reflection/insulation effect.
No point as you will always have the last hand-waving point, with a bit of SHOUTING, that you seem to think is intelligent discourse.
As I said – if you say so.
How about you post some rather than ranting at me for not.
You’re the one hand-waving as usual.
I say again – If you say so – I believe you.
And the rest of the scientific community also.
Martin Mason
November 21, 2017 2:55 am
Tone, slowing down cooling isn’t heating. Trapping heat is heating and that doesn’t happen. I also can’t see anywhere that a consistent radiation imbalance exists at the TOA
“Tone, slowing down cooling isn’t heating. Trapping heat is heating and that doesn’t happen. I also can’t see anywhere that a consistent radiation imbalance exists at the TOA”
Of course slowing down cooling is heating.
While it is slowed down the Sun is still shining on half the globe is it not?
So there is incoming SW being absorbed during the “slowing”.
That is the imbalance shown by TOA observations and also by calculation of OHC being accrued – which is where most of the imbalance is being stored.
For a blackbody receiving P input which is in a steady state with space at 3K
P=kA(T1^4-3^4)
For the same body in steady state with surroundings at 220K
P=kA(T2^4-220^4)
therefore T2^4=T1^4 + 220^4 – 3^4
Clearly as a result of this change the blackbody will be warmer.
AndyG55 November 21, 2017 at 11:50 am
Earth is NOT a black body.
Stop using non-applicable theoretical maths.
Deal with reality.
Realty is that the earth emits within a few % of a true Blackbody in the IR, those equations are applicable to the earth. Perhaps you should stop your content-free ignorant posts?
Personally I blame the astronomers for all this and yet it all started with such good intentions (The road to hell and all that). The simple question they wished to answer was how to devise a technique to calculate the average temperature of a planet given the following series of knowns:-
1. The energy intensity of the sun’s beam of light at a given distance from the star determined using the inverse square law of radiation.
2. The average orbital distance of a planet from the sun – this determines the average intensity of the sunlight that the planet intercepts.
3. The size of a planet’s disk – this determines the amount of sunlight that the planet collects.
4. Then there are the twin problems of daily planetary rotation and axial tilt.
So they made a perfectly valid simplification. They decided to ignore all the complicated spherical geometry of trying to determine how the surface of a spinning globe is lit and by what intensity and instead made the following correct assertions:-
1. Total energy in is equal to the total energy out.
2. That the cross-sectional area of the incoming radiant beam intercepted by a globe equates to the intercept area of a notional disk of equivalent radius BUT that the surface area of the outgoing emissions from that planet is spread over an area that is four times the area of the notional intercept disk. This is because the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2; that is four times the area of a disk that has the same radius. (Clever but lazy because it has caused all sorts of problems).
So having divided the total intensity of the incoming beam by 4 they then applied the Stefan Boltzmann equation to this value to compute the average temperature of the planet and (horror of horrors) the answer they got when the calculation was applied to the Earth was obviously wrong. The SB equation gave a value that is 33C too low. Oh dear.
And then they did something really stupid, they invented the radiant greenhouse effect to heat the planet’s surface in a curve fitting extrapolation of an equation of state that is applicable to the stratosphere, but not to the troposphere where its application is invalid. After all they were astronomers used to dealing with radiation so what could be wrong with that? It seems that they forgot all about Maxwell’s ideal gas law and its application to pressures above 10kPa. They forgot about the gravitational binding to the surface of a planetary atmosphere and the consequent storage of energy that this gravitational binding represents. They did not consider the effect of insolation intensity and gravitationally determined escape velocity on selective loss to space of atmospheric volatiles with a low molecular weight. And don’t get me started on the effect on the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell of the daily rotation rate of a planet (an angular momentum effect and not a temperature determined property of an atmosphere). All of these are easy things to forget after all.
And then we come to the piece de resistance, the crowning glory of this sick sad farce, the dangerous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Using their logic they claim that adding CO2 to the troposphere will raise the radiant emission level at the TOA and so dangerously warm the surface. The fact that the Tropopause is a pressure and not a temperature induced phenomena of change of atmospheric state is ignored. IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall below their radiative balance equation calculated from first principles (the distance of the Earth from the Sun) and as this cannot happen it necessarily follows that CO2 cannot warm the planet because the outgoing emission temperature can never be set at a lower value than the notional incoming collection temperature.
I was with you until “And then they did something really stupid, they invented the radiant greenhouse effect to heat the planet’s surface in a curve fitting extrapolation “
The greenhouse effect is not an “invention — it is a very basic application of the laws of thermodynamics. If radiation is blocked as it leaves a planet’s surface, the result is an increase in the surface temperature. Nothing in this theory contradicts the gas laws. Nothing denies gravitational potential energy. Nothing is invalidated by lighter gases escaping off to space.
I will grant that the super-simple models are not sufficient to calculate actual temperatures, but they are not designed to be. More intricate models would be needed for that.
“IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall below their radiative balance equation calculated from first principles (the distance of the Earth from the Sun) and as this cannot happen it necessarily follows that CO2 cannot warm the planet”
You seem to have this rather reversed! There is no “first principle” that says that radiation must be balanced. *IF* radiation is balanced, then the temperature will remain steady. However, if the radiation becomes imbalanced, then the temperature will change. . The correct conclusion is IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall … causing net gain in thermal energy and an increase in temperature at the surface until balance was restored.
Quantum mechanics and absorption spectra aside – there is still no correlation between increasing CO2 conc and atmospheric warming. Temperature measurements over the past upteen years have shown that the latter is flatlining
Quantum mechanics and absorption spectra aside – there is still no correlation between increasing CO2 conc and atmospheric warming. Temperature measurements over the past upteen years have shown that the latter is flatlining
Good observation.
Either:
With all the increasing GHG’s, theory demands warming. Yet you are correct, other than el ninos, flatline.
To be flat, there has to be a counter regulating force.
Or
There is no GHG effect.
And I found the counter regulating force.
In either case, there is no chance of catastrophic warming.
Roger Clague
November 21, 2017 4:16 am
Philip Mulholland
November 21, 2017 at 3:51 am
says: Tropopause is a pressure and not a temperature induced phenomena
The Tropopause is a temperature phenomenon. Almost constant over the whole surface. Much more interesting than the surface temperature.
I don’t know what causes it, so am interested in suggestions like yours.
Pressure continues to fall after the tropopause height. That is while the temperature is not falling
I am puzzled that falling pressure can leave temperature to stay the same.
Roger,
Thank you for your comment.
Let me try this idea on you:-
The process by which the surface of a spherical, rotating, orbiting planet unevenly intercepts high grade solar energy from its parent sun and subsequently emits to space a uniform evenly distributed output of low grade thermal radiation forms the defining character of planetary climate.
The Stratosphere is an isothermal shell of low pressure gas that surrounds the Troposphere and provides a thermal datum that governs the operational parameters of the high pressure gases in the weather machine below. In a very real sense the Stratosphere is the exhaust system of the planet’s atmosphere. Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself, so it is also impossible for the exhaust heat content of the Stratosphere to power the weather machine by warming the planet’s surface below.
Uh, you do know that the exhaust gas from an engine is exactly what powers a turbo charger, right? That is, with the appropriate mechanism (in this case a turbo charger), you can harness a bit more of that thermal energy escaping the engine. To continue your analogy, it’s not even necessary to introduce the turbo mechanism to affect the engine. Merely, changing the parameters of the exhaust system, like downpipe diameter for example, will change flow from the system which can affect the power generated. I think one could fairly make the argument that this is analogous to changing the ratios of the radiatively-relevant molecules in our atmosphere.
Thus, I find your explanation lacking due to the simple fact that coupled systems are…well…coupled. Changes to one part will necessarily affect others. The amplitude of the effect can be debated, as well as whether or not the effect is physically significant at standard operating parameters, but again, the effect is real.
Philip Mulholland November 21, 2017 at 4:54 am
Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself,
Never heard of a turbocharger or a Turbojet I guess?
Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself,
Never heard of a turbocharger or a Turbojet I guess?
Yes, but they lose efficiency the closer the exhaust temp is to air temp. So usually turbo’s are at the exhaust where the gas is as hot as possible. When you account to pressure differences, that’s the temp differential?
Guys,
Lots of kick back here, but I will stand my ground. Every heat engine has an exhaust, even turbo charged ones. The genius of Robert Stevenson was to take the exhaust steam from the driving piston and use it to force ventilate the fire box in a feedback loop of increased power. But at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the friction within your machine is greater than the added power you can glean from the exhaust.
The real idea I want criticism on is the observation that the isothermal shell of the stratosphere is in fact an exhaust thermal datum to the weather machine of the troposphere. It is the uniform planet wide distribution of this isothermal shell that is most interesting. My biggest problem has always been that this uniformity is in effect a friction-less system, so how can this form the starting point to a weather machine that clear moves mass? It makes much more sense to me to view the stratosphere as an exit system with waste heat and not an input system.
Phillip says: “Stratosphere is the exhaust system of the planet’s atmosphere.”
Why would you say this? The ‘exhaust’ from the earth is the thermal IR that escapes to space. Some of the ‘exhaust’ comes directly from the surface through the ‘atmospheric window’. Some of the ‘exhaust’ comes from clouds; some comes from GHGs in the atmosphere. Very little comes from the stratosphere.
“I don’t know what causes it, so am interested in suggestions like yours.”
Simply put, it is the inversion level where heating of O3 in the stratosphere meets and overcomes the -ve LR of the Trop – the level at which (mostly) convection can reach in the Troposphere. The level is a trade off between the O3 induced warming and the warmth of the Trop – it is highest in the tropics and lowest at the Poles.
Roger,
I refer you to the figure in the following paper:
Robinson, T.D. & Catling, D.C. (2014) Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent intrared transparency. Nature Geoscience 7 (1), 12-15. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020
Venus is an exception. At its tropopause, temperature and pressure reach Earth-like levels, ie ~1.0 bar. Also, at its searing surface the winds are slow, but at the top of the troposphere, clouds pick up speed to 100 m/s, thus showing yet again colder is stormier, contrary to false CACA dogma regarding “extreme weather” from global warming.
The thin atmosphere of Mars is essentially stratospheric at the surface.
Richard Greene November 21, 2017 at 6:50 am
The science of climate change is obviously not settled.
The science points raised in the head post are settled, unfortunately many of them are wrongly stated or misunderstood as I, Willis and others have pointed out. Just because people unfamiliar with the science such as the author (as he admitted) get it wrong doesn’t mean the science isn’t settled.
E.g.
Phil. November 19, 2017 at 2:58 pm
The worst of these errors is the misrepresentation of Wien’s Law which has also appeared in numerous other places, including by a fictional astronomer on Steve site.
The mis-statement is that because Wien’s Law says the temperature at which the maximum emission occurs at a wavelength of 15microns is -80ºC then “Carbon Dioxide only emits and absorbs radiation at -80C from a narrow layer of atmosphere 90Km above the Earth’s surface.”
CO2 does indeed have a maximum in the radiance-wavelength curve at 15 microns for a temperature of -80ºC, however for a higher temperature the emissions at 15microns are always higher.
At 15 microns and 193K radiance is 1.09 W/m2/sr/µm, at 203K it’s 1.41 W/m2/sr/µm, at 213K it’s 1.80 W/m2/sr/µm, and at 223K it’s 2.26 W/m2/sr/µm.
Dr. Deanster
November 21, 2017 8:07 am
Just my uninformed opinion on back radiation, but it only becomes relevant in the absence of an external heat source. My observational evidence:
1) increased GHG does not increase day time highs. This says that the normal heating process of the atmosphere completely overwhelms any contribution from back radiation. During the day, the GHG compartment absorbs all the energy it can, which is a finite quantity. To some extent, the GHG compartment seems to prevent overheating, as it seems places of high WV can’t seem to reach the high temperatures achieved in desert environments.
2) most of the science-ee stuff I’ve seen show graphs where it is the night time lows that are increasing. IMO, this is because as the temperature drops, the GHG heat sink begins to release its energy to its surrounding, slowing the rate of cooling. This is supported by the comments of others, deserts with no WV cool rapidly, coastal areas like New Orleans don’t.
3) local temps are more influenced by air movement than than local radiation. When a cool front comes in, it gets cold, when a warm front comes in, it gets warmer ….. doesn’t seem to matter much what the back radiation is doing.
“During the day, the GHG compartment absorbs all the energy it can,”
And releases it as well, just as it does at night. It both absorbs and emits all the time on short time frames.
Most of the heat energy of the atmosphere is in molecular motion not stored protons, that energy has been transferred to molecular motion.
I just noticed this claim in the head post. There are two huge problems with it. Here’s what it says:
For a molecule to “warm up” (have more kinetic energy) it needs its electrons to move to a higher, more energetic orbit.
I’m sorry, but this is not true. A gas at 50°C has more kinetic energy than a gas at 20°C, without any electrons moving to more energetic orbits.
The word “kinetic” in “kinetic energy” is from the Greek, meaning movement or motion. Similarly, “kinetic” energy is specifically energy due to MOTION. It is not energy due to different energy levels of electrons, the name itself says that.
Second, the absorption of thermal longwave radiation does NOT result in an electron being kicked to a higher orbit. That is the photoelectric effect, but there’s not enough energy in thermal LR to move an electron.
Instead, when a molecule of a gas absorbs longwave radiation, it starts the molecule vibrating. Depending on the complexity of the molecule, this vibration can include a variety of vibrational modes including stretching, asymmetric stretching, scissoring, rocking, wagging, and twisting.
The more modes of vibration a molecule has, the more different frequencies of longwave radiation it can absorb (or radiate). Obviously, a simple two-atom molecule like N2 or O2 can only stretch, it can’t twist or flex … which is why they can only absorb or radiate in a narrow frequency band. Molecules with three atoms like CO2 and H2O have many more vibrational modes, so they absorb over a wide range. Solids, of course, made of millions of atoms or molecules, have a host of frequencies at which they absorb and radiate. And monatomic gases like argon have no vibrational modes at all, so they can neither absorb nor radiate longwave thermal radiation.
However, within microseconds, this vibrational energy is transferred to thousands and thousands of neighboring gas molecules. This converts the vibration into motion of the surrounding molecules. The net effect is to heat the body of the gas, even when the amount of GHG is quite small.
Man … the incorrect statements in the head post just keep on coming …
However, within microseconds, this vibrational energy is transferred to thousands and thousands of neighboring gas molecules. This converts the vibration into motion of the surrounding molecules. The net effect is to heat the body of the gas, even when the amount of GHG is quite small.
Quite true, it’s the main reasoning for the broadening of the absorption bands, and I believe this is the main mechanism for “GHG” warming after the concentration of such molecules reaches the point of absorbing the available LWIR. However, the energy of the vibration of these normal modes is between 0.0001-1.7 eV and the energy lost or gained upon molecular collisions is a fraction of this energy. And then we must ask, does the donation of molecular vibrational energy to kinetic energy increase convection?
@corev
The time scale I’m referring to is the mean transition time for energy to be transferred from the lower atmosphere to space. This is the upward component of the omnidirectional collision induced radiation. The timescale is a few hours. Compared with typical molecular timescales this is an eternity, but the intuitive comparison I make is that taking a square meter column of atmosphere (10T) and an upward flux of 200W, it’s like a 200W lightbulb heating the air in a gym for a few hours. A small effect of around 0.14C, cf the 33C GHE assumed by the IPCC science.
Yes, the average lifetime of an excited RG molecule is small – usually de-excited in the next molecular collision it experiences. A very small portion get to emit a photon, but since there are a lot of molecules the radiation levels are significant.
True, most of the energy in the atmosphere (ignoring mass energy) is KE of molecules, but conduction is slow. Convection and evaporation/condensation cycle are major players.
The essence of the GHE is not back radiation, but how much of the surface emitted energy remains in the lower atmosphere to contribute to it, and how rapidly it is transported upward radiatively rather than being ‘trapped’.
@tjfolkerts
“The correct conclusion is IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall … causing net gain in thermal energy and an increase in temperature at the surface until balance was restored.”
No. Again consensus CS is ignoring the time factor. Even though rates of emission in the upper troposphere will drop if the tropopause rises, global atmospheric circulation continues poleward, radiating as it goes, until the upper temps drop and density increases until upper air drops giving Hadley cells.
dai
Brett Keane
November 21, 2017 6:49 pm
Yes indeed, dai. This is all almost as good as Saturday’s Wales-All Blacks match should be.
About 1902, Prof Robert Woods refuted the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse, and soon all those other great experimemtalists agreed. Arrhenius realised this, and went on to do other good works. It is a mere latter-day contrivance of hippy science, magic mushroom stuff. Nasa’s solar system data shows the truth. It is all the gravito-thermal effect. Convectively enabled and phase change accelerated to easily cope with imbalances of input and distribution. Water is the real magic stuff…..
Radiation is an effect of KE, not a prime cause. Except of seemingly endless misconceptions. In furnace engineering, CO2 speeds heat movement to furnace walls etc.. Above 200ppm, no significant increase. That is all, no blanket to suck on, sorry Linus.
About 1902, Prof Robert Woods refuted the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse, and soon all those other great experimemtalists agreed.
The Wood experiment was fatally flawed for reasons I explained in detail in “The R. W. Wood Experiment“.
Now, let’s do this scientifically. I am not interested in your opinion of my analysis of the poorly-designed Wood experiment. I am interested in your scientific objections to my analysis. However, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU OBJECT TO in my analysis, so we can all understand just what you think is wrong.
Or you could either not read my analysis, or read it and know it is right and blow it off … your choice. However, note if you do not raise any scientific objections to my analysis, I will take that as evidence.
w.
Brett Keane
November 22, 2017 12:41 am
Willis Eschenbach
November 21, 2017 at 8:33 pm: Willis, this is not your post. Of course I read yours, referenced. It did not apply to the Optical Physicist’s propositition. Ask Konrad Hartmann. So I see no reason to debate it here,except to note that lids are out of place in a real atmosphere, as are surfaces also..
Actually studying Fourier, Tyndall and Maxwell. for instance, shows where Wood was coming from. Not what flower children claim they said, which is something else.
I gave plenty of data sources in my entries above. Argue them if you wish. The header Post requests such for its own propositions. This is the basis of all real scientific method. A thing of beauty….
Willis Eschenbach November 21, 2017 at 8:33 pm: Willis, this is not your post. Of course I read yours, referenced. It did not apply to the Optical Physicist’s propositition. Ask Konrad Hartmann. So I see no reason to debate it here,except to note that lids are out of place in a real atmosphere, as are surfaces also..
Hey, Brett, if you can’t find anything wrong with my post on the R. W. Wood experiment, that’s fine. Trying to blow it off by claiming it “did not apply to the Optical Physicist’s proposition”, whatever that might be, is just handwaving to distract us from the fact that apparently you can’t find anything wrong with my post.
You made a claim about the R. W. Wood experiment. I gave you a detailed analysis and asked what is wrong with the analysis. In response, you’ve just headed for the door …
Willis Eschenbach November 22, 2017 at 11:24 am:
Willis, Wood was a brilliant experimentalist. So is Hartmann, so is Berthold Klein of the Mylar balloon expt. Such are not refuted by a thought expt. Nor are the Nasa solar system data and the many papers based on what it teaches us. Which is that atmospheric gases handle energy inpiut according to the combined gas laws under the Poissin relation, as Maxwell noted in his “Theory of Heat”. By vigorous convection until radiation can finally leave ie less than one optical depth. Window EMF alone takes that door, not I.
Willis Eschenbach November 22, 2017 at 11:24 am:
Willis, Wood was a brilliant experimentalist. So is Hartmann, so is Berthold Klein of the Mylar balloon expt. Such are not refuted by a thought expt. Nor are the Nasa solar system data and the many papers based on what it teaches us. Which is that atmospheric gases handle energy inpiut according to the combined gas laws under the Poissin relation, as Maxwell noted in his “Theory of Heat”. By vigorous convection until radiation can finally leave ie less than one optical depth. Window EMF alone takes that door, not I.
Thanks, Brett. Yes, I know that Wood was an experimentalist, although given his experiment I would not class him as “brilliant” … and more to the point, l+
et me remind you of a quote by the amazing RIchard Feynman, a true scientific genius. He said:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,”
If we took previous claims and experiments as gospel, science would never advance again …
Second, I note that once again you have not brought up a single argument against a single one of my claims. Instead, you are indulging yourself in argumentum ad verecundiam, which was recognized as a logical error a couple of millennia ago.
Look, I made a bunch of very clear claims in that post. If you think one of them is wrong, then quote it and tell us why. Because simply mumbling a bunch of scientists’ names as though they were a magical incantation doesn’t work here at WUWT.
I dare anyone who believes that the science is settled on the GHE to read this entire discussion! The inability of anyone to clearly and convincingly explain this effect is confirmation of its complexity exceeding our current knowledge of the physics, chemistry, and meteorology involved. I’m not sure we even know the sign (positive or negative) of the climate’s sensitivity to increased CO2 ! I know that it’s a “wicked” problem to solve, but the wide range of currently proposed hypotheses is bigger than it ought to be, and that’s an embarrassment for science.
Very strange, somehow there are comments above under my name, “Robert Kernodle”, that I DID NOT WRITE. Somebody else wrote them and somehow was able to post under my name. How is this possible?
Aveollila, that is true for a static mass of air at constant pressure. That isn’t the case in the troposphere where packages of air rise and cool and then fall and heat by compression. Surely this has to taken into the big picture.
Also recognize that the atmospheres volume is not static, thus allowing for cooling via expansion. This is the biggest problem with arhennious and Tyndalls experiments, they are in test tubes where the mass of air being heated with IR is not allowed to expand or contract with addition or subtraction of energy.
As expected this thread has very rapidly accumulated hundreds of comments. Very nice! As there have been a number of criticism of my initial comment (pure luck got in first) concerning “photons” I would now like to add some additional comments.
1. The concept of a “photon” was invented to help explain certain experimental results involving electro-magnetic radiation. Specifically that in certain experiments it looked like there was quantisation as opposed to discrete analogue variation.
2. As a concept it has worked and aided our understanding but THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that an elementary particle , The “photon”, exists. All results can equally be explained by assuming electromagnetic radiation is a wave, with analogue variability but the interaction of this wave with matter causes phenomena which are discrete/quantised because matter itself is particulate. In other words the e-m is a wave, the matter is particles, the results can be “lumpy” BECAUSE of the matter, NOT because of the wave i.e. not because the wave is really “lumpy” itself or comprised of “photons”.
3. This is why I asked readers to use both explanations when trying to explain things in radiative physics. Try explaining it both from e-m being only a wave as well as your favourite photon/particle explanation.
4. The belief that photons are real elementary particles is very very widespread but you will find the better PhD’s referring to it as quantised e-m radiation (that’s sort of a fudge/middle ground idea).
5. Anyone who thinks “photons” are real elementary particles is advised to read up on the history of how the word came to be invented and what various eminent scientists at the time thought of it.
6. Finally, if anyone really thinks they do have a link to experimental evidence which conclusively shows that photons are real elementary particles I would be happy to look at it. Before giving me the link please be sure to consider the alternative explanation (e-m wave interacting with lumpy matter) and tell me why that is NOT an equally valid explanation.
Please post the work of the PhDs whom you consider better regarding the physical reality of photons. A photon is a quantum of EM radiation, so the formulation which “they” allegedly use is a distinction without a difference.
I’m familiar with how photons were discovered and named. In reply to your original comment, I’ve already given you examples demonstrating the reality of photons and their relationship to “matter”, to which you haven’t bothered to respond.
PS: In terms of QM theory, photons are no more nor less real than electrons.
Do you also consider electrons not to exist?
As mass and energy are equivalent, so are particles and waves at relativistic and quantum scales.
I, Robert Kernodle, did NOT post the following FOUR comments, even though each appears separately under my name (linked to my website) as indicated here:
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Technically energy can be “destroyed.” If you observe the spectra from distant stars, you’ll note that the hydrogen emission lines are red shifted. When the photon left the star of origin, it had the normal wavelength (freq) of the emission lines of hydrogen. As it traversed the expanding intergalactic space, it’s wavelength grew longer (red-shift.) There is a calculable loss of energy in this red-shifted photon according to E=hc/l where delta-E = hc/delta-l.
…
Where did the ‘lost’ energy go?
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm
I already did. The photon that was emitted a million light years ago, “lost” some of it’s energy. The frequency has decreased (increased wavelength.) Where is the “lost” energy?
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Gerontius, that does not explain it. There is no gravitational field in the million light years between the star that emitted the photon, and the spectrometer here on earth that measured it. The red shift is due to the expansion of space, not to a gravitational field.
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 6:05 pm
PS Gerontius, photons coming from the opposite side of the universe display the same red shift. You would think that if you looked in the opposite direction of the red shifted photon, you’d observe a blue shifted one if your “theory” were correct.
________________________________________________________
I, Robert Kernodle DID, however, post SIX comments, as indicated on the dates below:
Robert Kernodle November 20, 2017 at 7:49 am
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Robert Kernodle November 19, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Robert Kernodle November 20, 2017 at 8:03 am
Robert Kernodle November 20, 2017 at 8:14 am
Robert Kernodle November 20, 2017 at 8:31 am
Either there is a bug, or my ID has somehow been hacked, or an alter-universe spawn of myself is phasing in and out of this universe. If one of his posts follows one of mine (the real me), then will the universe annihilate itself?
You should from the comments above by now understand that the -80 degree is the lowest temperature at which CO2 can emit radiation and from your own emission graph that it will emit more in any wavelength the warmer it gets. It absorbs radiation (your graph is a solar radiation absorbtion graph) from the sun which is approx 5770 K so a great deal warmer. The interesting thing of the “finger graph (spectrum figure)” is that heat can “escape” the CO2 trap if other substances emit the heat in a wavelength for which CO2 is “transparent” and that some solar radiation in the infra is absorbed by CO2 in the stratosphere and high altitude troposphere and never makes it to the surface of the planet. As to CO2 the absorbtion of light and heat by different types of gasses please read the treaty by Arrhenius. This may be a first introduction.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
Key points:
• Molecules have one or more electrons circling them. Their orbital height is not variable, But fixed. The electrons only orbit at set altitudes, the closer to the molecule the lower the kinetic energy of the molecule and so the lower the molecule’s temperature.
Correct, but strictly applicable only to molecular bonds. The fixed levels at which electrons exist in such bonds are “quantized” due to resonance and harmonics. When radiation of the exact same frequency as the natural resonant vibration of a particular molecular bond, or a harmonic thereof, is received, the electron in the bond in question makes an integral leap (1,2,3…,) to the next higher level. When a natural resonance or harmonic is equaled by incoming radiation, the ensuing leap occurs without requiring an input of energy.
• For a molecule to “warm up” (have more kinetic energy) it needs its electrons to move to a higher, more energetic orbit. This can happen in one of two ways, get energy from a more energetic molecule via collision or receive energy via radiation.
Correct, again, for bonds. Where radiation is involved, this happens by resonance without requiring energy input.
• For an electron to move to a higher orbit from radiation it must receive a photon with sufficient energy for an electron to reach that higher orbit.
No. As mentioned above, no energy input is required for the resonant leap of a bonding electron to a higher quantum level. Einstein couldn’t have known this, so he invented the “photon” to explain the phenomenon. In reality, EMR is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.
• Photons with too much energy raise the electron to the higher orbit then the molecule immediately re-radiates surplus energy.
EMR of frequencies between resonant levels don’t interact (aren’t absorbed) but are simply reflected or transmitted. Only resonant frequencies are absorbed.
• Photons with not enough energy to raise the orbit of any of the electrons are either scattered or immediately re-radiated (effectively reflecting or scattering them) with no change to the molecule’s kinetic energy, or temperature.
Correct.
• The Photon must have a frequency that resonates with the molecule, otherwise the Photon is just scattered or reflected immediately with no temperature change to the molecule.
Carbon dioxide can only absorb Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) energy and radiate it at 15 micro metres, a fraction of the LWR spectrum.
For “photon,” read “radiation.” The absorption/emission bandwidth of CO2 is from 13 to 17 microns, according to MODTRAN6.
• Electrons orbiting molecules of a liquid or solid need more energy to boost an electron’s orbit than electrons in a gas, so require more energetic photons again to warm them.
Therefore it is my understanding that it is impossible for the LWIR emitted by a cold low energy CO2 molecule to have the energy required to warm any molecule in the atmosphere warmer than -80C and certainly no molecule in a liquid (EG water) or a solid body, as their electrons require even more energy.
No. Again, quantum leaps only occur at resonant frequencies. In condensed phases (solids and liquids), in which atoms are in constant mutual contact, heat conduction occurs, leading to the familiar Planck distribution consisting of a continuous, bell-shaped, broad range of frequencies of which the peak frequency corresponds to the (Wien) temperature of the emitting object. In gases, atoms are seldom in contact (except for pressure-broadening in dense gases), so such thermal conduction can’t occur, so gases exhibit line spectra in which spectral lines are separated by resonant and harmonic intervals (Rydberg-Ritz combination principle). CO2 can only absorb and emit radiation in the bandwidth 13 to 17 microns, and if a Planck spectrum were to be assembled from radiation in this range, its Wien temperature would be well below Earth surface temperatures, hence CO2 is incapable of transferring heat to the warmer Earth.
• LWIR from CO2 simply bounces around the atmosphere until it escapes into space and it causes no warming of the lower atmosphere at all. The energy level of that 2W of LWIR is too poor to have any affect. It needs to be closer to 10um to be energetic enough to warm anything.
Correct.
I was going to respond to some of these ‘corrections’ but when I got to:
“In reality, EMR is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.”
I realized it was pointless. With such a flawed view of radiation, it would take way too much effort to address all the errors in the original post PLUS all the errors in the ‘correction’.
Can you actually refute my allegations, Mr. Folkerts, or would it be “too much effort?” It’s easy to dismiss things you don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve decided the issue. Science is too heavily burdened by people who simply accept long-established theory. As a polymath, I see definite value in questioning old thinking and in seeking truth in hard datasets rather than in the weight of well-established ideas. The Universe is what it is, not what we think it is, and the proper access to truth is a willingness to question old thoughts.
David … here are a few.
“When radiation of the exact same frequency as the natural resonant vibration of a particular molecular bond, or a harmonic thereof, is received, the electron in the bond in question makes an integral leap (1,2,3…,) to the next higher level. “
The absorption of this long wavelength IR involves vibrations and rotations of molecules. Not electrons jumping to higher levels. The “Bohr model” thinking with electrons jumping to higher energy orbitals is not correct here.
“Where radiation is involved, this happens by resonance without requiring energy input.”
This violates conservation of energy. If a molecule gains energy (warms up), it requires energy input.
“CO2 can only absorb and emit radiation in the bandwidth 13 to 17 microns, and if a Planck spectrum were to be assembled from radiation in this range, its Wien temperature would be well below Earth surface temperatures”
The “Wein temperature” strictly only applies to a full blackbody curve. The wavelength from Wein’s Law tells the wavelength that is most strongly emitted by a blackbody radiator. When the emitting material is not a blackbody, the strongest wavelength is not necessarily related to the wavelength predicted by Wein’s Law.
davidbennettlaing November 20, 2017 at 6:56 pm
David, you have claimed that “In reality, EMR [electromagnetic radiation] is simply a frequency field containing no energy whatsoever.”.
Say what? Light is EMR and it definitely contains energy. We know this because we can feel the energy in sunlight warm our skins.
Microwaves are EMR. We use the energy in microwaves, the energy you claim doesn’t exist, to cook our food.
Given such a bizarre statement, one that is so divorced from reality, I can understand tjf not wanting to get into a discussion with you. The problem is that you are starting from a point that is so far away from well-established basic physics that there is little hope of bridging the gap.
You say “As a polymath, I see definite value in questioning old thinking and in seeking truth in hard datasets”, and I agree completely.
However, I also see no value in ignoring old thinking as you are doing. The fact that electromagnetic fields contain energy, energy that is used e.g. in electric motors to do practical work, has been known since someone, maybe Faraday, noticed that a wire containing an electrical current could move the needle of a compass. Moving a compass needle requires energy …
And regarding questioning old thinking, here’s some old thinking you might consider in your quest for new understanding …
Best to you,
w.
T.J. Folkerts, to your attempted refutations:
1. Bond responses include rotations, vibrations, and ionizations, in order of resonant energy induction. The first doesn’t involve jumps to higher energy levels. The latter two do, creating increasingly greater distance between bonded atoms until the final distancing, ionization.
2. The first law of thermodynamics holds only in thermally isolated systems in equilibrium, which Earth/radiation interactions clearly are not. The principle of resonant response (unknown to Einstein) is well understood, now, and all that is required for an energyless response in a frictionless system (such as molecular bonds) is that incoming radiation has exactly the same frequency as a resonant frequency or overtone of the receiving bond. The resulting increased motion and acceleration of charged particles (electrons) in the bond results in the LOCAL generation of energy. This occurs in quantized steps, corresponding to resonant frequencies or overtones thereof. This is what Einstein interpreted as “Lichtquanten,” or “photons,” which are locally produced by the resonant interaction of EMR with matter and not carried by incoming EMR.
3. Quite true that the Wien temperature strictly only applies to the most intense frequency of a continuous Planck spectrum. However, I challenge you to assemble anything resembling a Planck curve from the discrete line spectra composing CO2’s input and output and have the Wien temperature of its most intense spectral line (about 14.95 microns) fall within a range that corresponds to normal Earth temperatures. In other words, CO2 can only return infrared radiation to Earth’s surface that is colder than Earth’s normal surface temperature range, and as is well-known, cooler objects (here, CO2) can’t transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earth’s surface).
Willis,you said:
“Light is EMR and it definitely contains energy. We know this because we can feel the energy in sunlight warm our skins.”
What we actually feel is our skins warming under the impact of energyless EMR. In all cases of the detection of “photons,” interaction of EMR with matter is involved. Even our detection devices are material, and so, logically, they respond to incoming EMR. “Photons,” to my knowledge, have never been “detected” in EMR in a context apart from matter. This removal of energy from EMR solves a lot of problems. First, EMR is known to have no mass and it travels at light speed, neither of which is possible if it contains energy. Second, complex mathematics with imaginary numbers are required to get around this, and these spin off all kinds of imaginary, Alice-in-Wonderland worlds for us to contemplate. Third, it relegates energy to its proper state as a property of matter, not as some two-faced protean phenomenon that is mass-bound in most forms and mass-independent in another. With appropriate dimensional transforms, all forms of energy (except, of course, that supposedly in EMR) can be seen to have a mass term. Mass is even present in Planck’s constant h, in that purest of equations dealing with EMR, E=hv.
The statement here is not bizarre. It is simply a rethink of old, entrenched theor based on new information. Once resonance and the consequent local generation of energy (“photons”) by EMR are taken into account, things become a whole lot simpler.
Cheers,
David
David, an interesting discussion.
1) I don’t see how rotation and vibration could be considered “bond responses”. Rotation is a physical motion of the atoms (which you seem to acknowledge with “The first doesn’t involve jumps to higher energy levels”). Vibration could, I suppose, be considered 1/2 bond energy and 1/2 KE. In any case, this difference in terminology is only a minor point.
2) Conservation of energy always holds (with no known counterexamples). Your claim that “The first law of thermodynamics holds only in thermally isolated systems in equilibrium” is patently false. ΔU = Q – W applies when you use a calorimeter. It applies to heat engines. This law is ROUTINELY applied to non-isolated, non-equilibrium scenarios. For isolated systems in thermodynamic equilibrium, the first law becomes simply ΔU = 0!
Your claim of “results in the LOCAL generation of energy” simply is not observed in nature. Any local gain in energy of a molecule is the result of the simultaneous equal local loss of energy of a photon. Einstein said nothing to contradict this conclusion.
3) This whole paragraph seems to be a misapplication of some correct laws of physics. You say “as is well-known, cooler objects (here, CO2) can’t transfer heat to warmer ones”. This is true as far as it goes, but cooler objects (like CO2 in the air) CAN slow the loss of heat (radiation from the warm surface) when interposed in front of an even colder background (3K outer space). With a steady input of heat from the sun, this can and does result in a warmer temperature for the surface.
tjfolkerts, Thank you!
1) Right you are regarding rotations. Vibrations involve accelerations, as the bond stretches and contracts with each cycle. This does two things: first, accelerating charged particles emit EMR, and second, increased vibrational motion of the bonded atoms represents increased kinetic energy output.
2) Patently false? Wikpedia (e.g.,) says, “The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy OF AN ISOLATED SYSTEM is constant” (my emphasis). Perhaps I should have stressed “isolated,” which Sun/Earth certainly isn’t. If my view is correct, the local generation of energy is seen all the time in EMR resonantly inducing increased vibrations and ionizations with the release of photons in receiving matter, given a high enough frequency of radiation. Also, every time you drive your car, local generation of energy occurs in its internal combustion engine, given a sufficient fuel input. Again, not a closed system.
3) Absolutely! This is evident in the difference between enjoying a cool evening in humid Kent, Connecticut as opposed to a chilly one in the dry lower Sonoran desert of southern Arizona, even though the daytime temperature only hit 78 in Kent, whereas it hit 109 in Catalina. We’re talking H20, here, but CO2 works the same way, as Wm. Ferrell said back in 1884, or thereabouts. The thing is, CO2 absorption and back-radiation can retard heat loss, but it can’t add heat. It’s sort of like a blanket over a sleeping person. It can retard heat loss from the body, but it can’t raise the body temperature past its metabolic norm of 37 C unless, of course, it’s electric. Similarly, increased solar input can raise Earth’s surface temperature, but back-radiation from CO2 can’t. Interestingly, I haven’t seen the exothermic reactions involving O2 and O3 in the stratosphere as significant sources of added heat for the Earth system.
“[A blanket] can’t raise the body temperature past its metabolic norm of 37 C “
Ah! But here the body has an active thermostat the can adjust the power input (ie regulate metabolism rates) to deliberately seek a specific temperature of 37 C. The earth doesn’t in a similar way actively adjust the power input from the sun to deliberately seek a temperature of, say, 15 C.
Ah, but it does. First there’s trillions of tons of solar heated liquid all over, and as Willis has shown, water vapor clouds and then storms when it gets too how, there by regulating max T, and I’ve shown that water vapor regulates cooling using this stored energy to augment surface temps to limit cooling at night to dew point.
Rod Gill is not completely correct in saying that just because the temperature at which the maximum radiation is emitted at 15 um is -80 C, that IR radiation at 15 um cannot be absorbed at higher temperatures.
Rod Gill’s top graph shows the Planck distribution of intensity of emission as a function of wavelength at given values of temperature. If the wavelength of maximum intensity is about 500 nm for 6000 K (about the temperature of the surface of the sun), there is still substantial energy emitted at wavelengths above and below 500 nm.
The Planck distribution for the Earth’s surface at 289 K would reach a maximum intensity for a wavelength of 10 um, but there would still be a substantial intensity at the slightly higher wavelength (lower frequency) of 15 um.
The Planck distribution and Wien’s law (which is merely differentiating the Planck distribution and setting the derivative to zero) apply to EMISSION spectra. The ability of a gas to ABSORB infrared radiation is based on the photon energy levels that cause an electron to change from one orbital to a higher-energy orbital, which vary from one gas to another.
One of the keys to debunking global-warming theory is in the second figure in Rod Gill’s article. For the 13-17 um peak absorption range for CO2, there is also substantial absorption by water vapor. It is not clear from the graphs at what concentration these absorption spectra were measured, but it can be assumed that all were measured at the same concentration for an apples-to-apples comparison.
Over an ocean, it is common for the water-vapor concentration to be 1 to 2 percent, or 10,000 to 20,000 ppm, as compared to about 400 ppm CO2 (currently at Mauna Loa). If water vapor at 400 ppm would absorb 40 to 60% of the available energy at a wavelength between 13 and 17 um, at 10,000 ppm it would absorb over 99.9% of the available energy (the energy transmitted, or not absorbed, is a negative exponential of the concentration * distance), and the CO2 absorbs most of what’s left, which is less than 0.1% of the total energy absorbed.
Since 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, there is always water vapor more or less in equilibrium with it in the air over the oceans, and CO2 has a very minor effect on climate over the oceans, because water vapor has already absorbed the vast majority of the emitted IR energy.
CO2 can only affect the climate in areas with extremely low water vapor concentrations, either over deserts or in very cold climates where the air is too cold to hold much water vapor. This may occur over high-latitude areas in winter, but this does not prevent temperatures from dropping well below freezing.
During the Arctic spring and summer, some of the sea ice along the northern shores of Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and Canada does melt (primarily because of warmer sun-heated air blowing northward off the continents). But the open water allows for evaporation, which raises the humidity of the atmosphere and allows clouds and storms to form, which limits the amount of incident sunlight and keeps temperatures only slightly above freezing during the summer months.
The major fear of global-warming alarmists is that runaway warming will melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps and cause flooding of coastal cities.
The facts show that, over temperate and tropical oceans, the vast majority of the available IR energy is already absorbed by water vapor, and the CO2 effect is like the weight of a fly on top of an elephant (of water vapor absorption). CO2 can only absorb appreciable energy in very cold and/or dry environments, but in the polar regions, most of the “warming” is in the winter, when it is too cold to melt ice, and humidities increase in summer, damping out the effect of CO2. Also, most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are at high altitudes (over 2000 meters) where midsummer temperatures never get above freezing, so that no melting occurs.
“CO2 can only affect the climate in areas with extremely low water vapor concentrations, either over deserts or in very cold climates where the air is too cold to hold much water vapor. This may occur over high-latitude areas in winter, but this does not prevent temperatures from dropping well below freezing. “
This also occurs at high ALTITUDES. The emission of 15 um IR to space occurs mostly up near the tropopause. This is confirmed by various data like
, which shows the IR emission to space in the 15 um range radiates as well as a ~ 215 K blackbody. At these low temperatures, there is basically no water vapor in the atmosphere.
So from your own logic, CO2 near the tropopause affects climate. And since the tropopause circles the earth, CO2 impacts the climate globally.
The main point that seems to be missing here is that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is about ‘trapping’ heat by radiative/greenhouse gasses. RGs don’t trap heat they just delay its transfer to space. The atmosphere is awash with collision induced IR that is constantly moving energy about. How fast? The key question is how long this delay is. Eventually the energy is radiated to space or the atmosphere would just keep heating up.
If the delay is long the energy involved will heat the atmosphere significantly. If it is short, the energy is transferred to space rapidly and there is no significant heating of the atmosphere. I calculate the heating to be negligible.
See: brindabella.id.au/climarc in the RadiativeDelayInContext article.
dai
dai davies, I agree with your analysis with the exception that it would be clearer if you added the time frame to: ” calculate the heating to be negligible…( for a millisecond, second, hour, day, month years etc.). As I understand the average residence time of a photon in a GHG molecule is in the nano to microsecond time frame. So although “trapping” may occur, on a molecular basis, it is nearly instantaneous while leaving little if any energy transfer.
I agree with this statement of your: “The atmosphere is awash with collision induced IR that is constantly moving energy about.”, but would add molecular collisions to the concept. When these molecules collide they can and often do transfer energy. That function is called conduction. For me that is the best explanation for energy/heat “trapping” in the atmosphere.
It is the same for the surface, EXCEPT FOR WATER, where that IR energy can and most often is trapped for a significant time. It doesn’t mater whether that IR energy originated from a molecule in the atmosphere or from the Sun.
CoRev November 21, 2017 at 4:05 am
dai davies, I agree with your analysis with the exception that it would be clearer if you added the time frame to: ” calculate the heating to be negligible…( for a millisecond, second, hour, day, month years etc.). As I understand the average residence time of a photon in a GHG molecule is in the nano to microsecond time frame. So although “trapping” may occur, on a molecular basis, it is nearly instantaneous while leaving little if any energy transfer.
No, for CO2 the time to emit is of the order of msec whereas a typical molecule will undergo about 10 collisions per nanosec in the lower atmosphere so there is plenty of time for energy transfer.
Phil, as I stated the residence time of a photon is” “is in the nano to microsecond time frame.” I need a scientific reference to assure such a long time as milli-second. Also do you have a reference for your claim of multiple molecular collisions for lower atmosphere resident molecules.
Regardless, i think you are confirming my contention that conduction/collisions are a/the major energy transfer mechanism.
lifeisthermal November 19, 2017 at 10:48 am
Glad to. I have more references if you wish, it is bog-standard thermodynamics. Or you could just google “two-way radiative transfer” …
Now, until you understand the equation at the bottom of that webpage I linked to, and you can explain it to us, how about YOU shut up …
w.
lifeisthermal, in reference to you saying “Show me a reference for any transfer outside of “net”, or shut up.”, in fact, the very term “net transfer” should give you a clue that there are energy transfers other than the net transfer …
You see,”net energy transfer” means energy gains minus energy losses, and each of those IS AN ENERGY TRANSFER.
w.
Willis, surely though there is radiative transfer from cold to hot but never a transfer of heat energy. The colder body can never warm the warmer body?
Martin Mason November 21, 2017 at 2:05 am
Thanks, Martin, and you are right. However, this gets us into semantical trouble because of our common meaning of “warm”, which differs from a strict scientific meaning.
For example, we think nothing of putting on a cold coat and noting that it has warmed us up … which of course can’t happen, as you point out. As they say:
So I’m very careful in my use of words around this issue. If you look at my comments, I say things like “the cold atmosphere leaves the surface warmer than it would be without the atmosphere”, which is absolutely true and does not violate the Second Law.
Regards,
w.
Steven Morris November 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm
N2 and O2 do both absorb and radiate, but they do so in only a very limited part of the IR spectrum.
Not quite true. One exception is xenon gas, which is monatomic and has no free electrons. As a result, it neither radiates nor absorbs energy.
Yes, assuming it is not receiving any radiation …
Often in science, things that are “fairly obvious” are not true. In this case, because of the narrowness of the O2 and N2 absorption bands, they physically cannot absorb (or radiate) much of the upwelling radiant energy, because it is the wrong wavelength.
w.
🙂
Who cares whether emissions are in the Infrared part of the spectrum or not? If an object radiates outside of the IR, are we to believe that the amount of energy within that region of space has not decreased and therefore cooled? Given no or less energy has been absorbed of course.
So our science books should say, all matter above 0 Kelvin, except Xenon, radiate energy. Oddly enough one can buy Xenon lights.
N2 and O2 do not need to absorb or emit IR in order to heat or cool. Energy is conducted via contact with the surface and they are constantly colliding with H2O vapor, CO2, CH4, etc reducing the energy within those molecules if the they have higher energy and increasing it if they have less. Once they have attained the Avg temp of say 15C, they are free to radiate that energy at a wavelength determined by Wein’s Law, correct?
Entropy be damned if objects cannot radiate unless they are some exact temp.
Steven Morris November 21, 2017 at 3:00 am
N2 and O2 do not need to absorb or emit IR in order to heat or cool. Energy is conducted via contact with the surface and they are constantly colliding with H2O vapor, CO2, CH4, etc reducing the energy within those molecules if the they have higher energy and increasing it if they have less. Once they have attained the Avg temp of say 15C, they are free to radiate that energy at a wavelength determined by Wein’s Law, correct?
No, they are unable to emit in that wavelength range because there is no excited dipole. The energy you refer to is just translational energy.
Willis Eschenbach November 20, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Not quite true. One exception is xenon gas, which is monatomic and has no free electrons. As a result, it neither radiates nor absorbs energy.
Actually Willis even Xenon emits, in fact it has a very large number of lines in the visible which is why it’s often used in lamps.
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/
Phil. November 22, 2017 at 4:53 am
Sorry for my lack of clarity, Phil. You are correct. However, I was referring to the current context, which is thermal longwave (IR) radiation. Xenon neither absorbs nor emits thermal longwave radiation.
However, when you get xenon up to very high temperatures, it can indeed emit light … but that is happening by an entirely different mechanism which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
Thanks,
w.
I don’t have a definitive answer, here, but do submit the following criticisms. The idea that IR photons just bounce around the atmosphere, being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 molecules, producing no warming, is probably wrong. If absorption were followed instantaneously by emission, it would have a better chance of being true, but that isn’t the case.
For example, the radiative lifetime of a CO2 molecule for the 106 micron transition is on the order of 2 msec for CO2 in gases at a pressure of about 8 torr. That’s the only reason a CO2 laser can work, especially a Q-switched, high-power laser. It also means that at higher pressures, the probability of collisional, rather than radiative, de-excitation grows substantially. As a matter of fact, the transition I just cited – the 10.6 micron one – is produced by a collision with a nitrogen molecule with a rotational energy of about the same magnitude. De-excitation occurs exactly the same way.
I rather think that the absorbed energy by a photon exciting a CO2 molecule is more likely to be thermalized by collision than re-radiated, especially at lower altitudes.
Michael S. Kelly
November 20, 2017 at 8:50 pm
I don’t have a definitive answer, here, but do submit the following criticisms. The idea that IR photons just bounce around the atmosphere, being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 molecules, producing no warming, is probably wrong. If absorption were followed instantaneously by emission, it would have a better chance of being true, but that isn’t the case.
For example, the radiative lifetime of a CO2 molecule for the 106 micron transition is on the order of 2 msec for CO2 in gases at a pressure of about 8 torr. That’s the only reason a CO2 laser can work, especially a Q-switched, high-power laser.
Michael, I find the CO2 laser talk contains an error, as CO2 lasers work with 10 um frequencies and not with 15um as specified in the text above:
Two of those wave lengths happen at temperatures too hot to exist in the atmosphere, the remaining wave length is 15um
Lars P. November 21, 2017 at 5:31 am
Michael, I find the CO2 laser talk contains an error, as CO2 lasers work with 10 um frequencies and not with 15um as specified in the text above:
The radiative lifetime of the 15μm excited state of the CO2 is the same order of magnitude as the 10μm state (msec) far longer than the mean time between collisions (less than nsec).
‘This is a contentious subject, and I have often shied away from it because it often erupts in food fights’
Thanks Anthony for having this discussion. It may be a bit messy, but only by repeatedly discussing this key issue will we be able to understand and either prove or disprove the GHG effect to the general satisfaction of the WUWT audience.
Thanks also to Willis in particular for engaging so deeply in this discussion despite his obvious frustration with so many people. I fear I am about to add myself to that group! I am a firm believer that if you can’t explain something to a willing listener, you don’t really understand it yourself. I am still doubtful about the GHG effect and will try to explain my doubts simply.
Some initial comments:
The Steel Greenhouse essay written by Willis explains how his definition of the greenhouse effect works, using black body objects radiating back and forth to each other. He assumes that there is perfect energy radiation and absorption and hence, any back radiation to the Earth’s surface will result in an increase in temperature. This model even works in a vacuum. He then says that this is how CO2 warms the Earth because back radiation from the CO2 will warm the Earth’s surface.
The implicit assumption seems to be that any back radiation must raise the temperature of the Earth above what it would otherwise be. This assumes that all emissions are additive with respect to temperature.
My first problem with this is that although all emissions are additive with regard to energy, I don’t believe that all energy emissions are additive with regard to temperature. For instance, sometimes electromagnetic (EM) emissions pass through material, sometimes they are reflected, sometimes they absorbed, sometimes they are immediately re-radiated, sometimes they are scattered etc. Many of these events do not change the temperature. An obvious example of this is that two bars of white hot metal placed together have double the energy but no change in temperature. From this, it is not certain to me that CO2 back radiation would for sure raise temperature in the real world. I need more proof than Willis’ black body model which by definition would increase temperature with any emissions.
My second problem relates to whether a cold body can raise the temperature of a warmer body. This is vital to understand because Willis himself stated in the thread that the approximate average temperature of the atmosphere is -50 C so how can that raise the temperature of the surface which is already at a higher temperature? Willis says that -50 C is warmer than the -270 C vacuum of space which means that the Earth will cool slower which is the same as being warmer.
I can think of two challenges to this logic:
a) Whether an atmosphere slows the cooling of the earth is not the point. The real question is does replacing a few -50 C molecules of oxygen with a few -50 C molecules of CO2 make any difference to the Earth’s temperature? The temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere is the same either way so why would the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface change at all? That is the real GHG effect that needs to be proven. In the 600+ comments in this thread, none of them addresses this.
b) Logically, I cannot see how CO2 at -50 C can warm the Earth’s surface which is already at +15 C. I do accept that cold objects emit EM radiation but do not accept that they can raise the temperature of an already warmer object. For instance, how many cubes of ice do I have to surround a one liter pan of water with to raise the water to boiling point? If someone can do the math on that and tell me the answer then I will be persuaded.
Those are my reasons for doubting the existence of the GHG effect.
“My second problem relates to whether a cold body can raise the temperature of a warmer body.”
Again what is so difficult about the concept of “slowed cooling” that cannot get through to some people and they continue to talk of “raise the temperature”.
Please look at it as energy in (from the Sun) vs energy out at TOA.
More is coming in (SW absorbed) than going out (LWIR emitted).
If there were no enhanced GHE then the two would balance.
The surface temp has to rise in order to equilibriate via the SB equation
Added anthro CO2 is “slowing the cooling” of Earth’s surface by back-radiating some of the LWIR to the surface where it “acts twice” to cause warming.
It isn’t a cold object warming a hot one at all.
The energy that is “causing” the warming is that that left from the warm body in the first place.
It is a reflection/insulation effect.
No warming in 39 years apart from El Nino and ocean events
CO2 has NO effect on oceans.
Warming by CO2 in a convectively control atmosphere has NEVER been measured.
If you say so.
Notice you have no other come-back.
EMPTY.
End of story, hey !!
No point as you will always have the last hand-waving point, with a bit of SHOUTING, that you seem to think is intelligent discourse.
As I said – if you say so.
Good to see you have ZERO !
Not one counter to the FACTS.
Poor little petal
How about you post some rather than ranting at me for not.
You’re the one hand-waving as usual.
I say again – If you say so – I believe you.
And the rest of the scientific community also.
Tone, slowing down cooling isn’t heating. Trapping heat is heating and that doesn’t happen. I also can’t see anywhere that a consistent radiation imbalance exists at the TOA
Martin:
“Tone, slowing down cooling isn’t heating. Trapping heat is heating and that doesn’t happen. I also can’t see anywhere that a consistent radiation imbalance exists at the TOA”
Of course slowing down cooling is heating.
While it is slowed down the Sun is still shining on half the globe is it not?
So there is incoming SW being absorbed during the “slowing”.
That is the imbalance shown by TOA observations and also by calculation of OHC being accrued – which is where most of the imbalance is being stored.
Tone, define “slowing down heating?”
For a blackbody receiving P input which is in a steady state with space at 3K
P=kA(T1^4-3^4)
For the same body in steady state with surroundings at 220K
P=kA(T2^4-220^4)
therefore T2^4=T1^4 + 220^4 – 3^4
Clearly as a result of this change the blackbody will be warmer.
Earth is NOT a black body.
Stop using non-applicable theoretical maths.
Deal with reality.
AndyG55 November 21, 2017 at 11:50 am
Earth is NOT a black body.
Stop using non-applicable theoretical maths.
Deal with reality.
Realty is that the earth emits within a few % of a true Blackbody in the IR, those equations are applicable to the earth. Perhaps you should stop your content-free ignorant posts?
“Tone, define “slowing down heating?””
Why?
That’s not what I said.
Personally I blame the astronomers for all this and yet it all started with such good intentions (The road to hell and all that). The simple question they wished to answer was how to devise a technique to calculate the average temperature of a planet given the following series of knowns:-
1. The energy intensity of the sun’s beam of light at a given distance from the star determined using the inverse square law of radiation.
2. The average orbital distance of a planet from the sun – this determines the average intensity of the sunlight that the planet intercepts.
3. The size of a planet’s disk – this determines the amount of sunlight that the planet collects.
4. Then there are the twin problems of daily planetary rotation and axial tilt.
So they made a perfectly valid simplification. They decided to ignore all the complicated spherical geometry of trying to determine how the surface of a spinning globe is lit and by what intensity and instead made the following correct assertions:-
1. Total energy in is equal to the total energy out.
2. That the cross-sectional area of the incoming radiant beam intercepted by a globe equates to the intercept area of a notional disk of equivalent radius BUT that the surface area of the outgoing emissions from that planet is spread over an area that is four times the area of the notional intercept disk. This is because the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2; that is four times the area of a disk that has the same radius. (Clever but lazy because it has caused all sorts of problems).
So having divided the total intensity of the incoming beam by 4 they then applied the Stefan Boltzmann equation to this value to compute the average temperature of the planet and (horror of horrors) the answer they got when the calculation was applied to the Earth was obviously wrong. The SB equation gave a value that is 33C too low. Oh dear.
And then they did something really stupid, they invented the radiant greenhouse effect to heat the planet’s surface in a curve fitting extrapolation of an equation of state that is applicable to the stratosphere, but not to the troposphere where its application is invalid. After all they were astronomers used to dealing with radiation so what could be wrong with that? It seems that they forgot all about Maxwell’s ideal gas law and its application to pressures above 10kPa. They forgot about the gravitational binding to the surface of a planetary atmosphere and the consequent storage of energy that this gravitational binding represents. They did not consider the effect of insolation intensity and gravitationally determined escape velocity on selective loss to space of atmospheric volatiles with a low molecular weight. And don’t get me started on the effect on the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell of the daily rotation rate of a planet (an angular momentum effect and not a temperature determined property of an atmosphere). All of these are easy things to forget after all.
And then we come to the piece de resistance, the crowning glory of this sick sad farce, the dangerous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Using their logic they claim that adding CO2 to the troposphere will raise the radiant emission level at the TOA and so dangerously warm the surface. The fact that the Tropopause is a pressure and not a temperature induced phenomena of change of atmospheric state is ignored. IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall below their radiative balance equation calculated from first principles (the distance of the Earth from the Sun) and as this cannot happen it necessarily follows that CO2 cannot warm the planet because the outgoing emission temperature can never be set at a lower value than the notional incoming collection temperature.
I was with you until “And then they did something really stupid, they invented the radiant greenhouse effect to heat the planet’s surface in a curve fitting extrapolation “
The greenhouse effect is not an “invention — it is a very basic application of the laws of thermodynamics. If radiation is blocked as it leaves a planet’s surface, the result is an increase in the surface temperature. Nothing in this theory contradicts the gas laws. Nothing denies gravitational potential energy. Nothing is invalidated by lighter gases escaping off to space.
I will grant that the super-simple models are not sufficient to calculate actual temperatures, but they are not designed to be. More intricate models would be needed for that.
“IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall below their radiative balance equation calculated from first principles (the distance of the Earth from the Sun) and as this cannot happen it necessarily follows that CO2 cannot warm the planet”
You seem to have this rather reversed! There is no “first principle” that says that radiation must be balanced. *IF* radiation is balanced, then the temperature will remain steady. However, if the radiation becomes imbalanced, then the temperature will change. . The correct conclusion is
IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall … causing net gain in thermal energy and an increase in temperature at the surface until balance was restored.
Quantum mechanics and absorption spectra aside – there is still no correlation between increasing CO2 conc and atmospheric warming. Temperature measurements over the past upteen years have shown that the latter is flatlining
Good observation.
Either:
With all the increasing GHG’s, theory demands warming. Yet you are correct, other than el ninos, flatline.
To be flat, there has to be a counter regulating force.
Or
There is no GHG effect.
And I found the counter regulating force.
In either case, there is no chance of catastrophic warming.
Philip Mulholland
November 21, 2017 at 3:51 am
says: Tropopause is a pressure and not a temperature induced phenomena
The Tropopause is a temperature phenomenon. Almost constant over the whole surface. Much more interesting than the surface temperature.
I don’t know what causes it, so am interested in suggestions like yours.
Pressure continues to fall after the tropopause height. That is while the temperature is not falling
I am puzzled that falling pressure can leave temperature to stay the same.
Roger,
Thank you for your comment.
Let me try this idea on you:-
The process by which the surface of a spherical, rotating, orbiting planet unevenly intercepts high grade solar energy from its parent sun and subsequently emits to space a uniform evenly distributed output of low grade thermal radiation forms the defining character of planetary climate.
The Stratosphere is an isothermal shell of low pressure gas that surrounds the Troposphere and provides a thermal datum that governs the operational parameters of the high pressure gases in the weather machine below. In a very real sense the Stratosphere is the exhaust system of the planet’s atmosphere. Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself, so it is also impossible for the exhaust heat content of the Stratosphere to power the weather machine by warming the planet’s surface below.
Philip,
Uh, you do know that the exhaust gas from an engine is exactly what powers a turbo charger, right? That is, with the appropriate mechanism (in this case a turbo charger), you can harness a bit more of that thermal energy escaping the engine. To continue your analogy, it’s not even necessary to introduce the turbo mechanism to affect the engine. Merely, changing the parameters of the exhaust system, like downpipe diameter for example, will change flow from the system which can affect the power generated. I think one could fairly make the argument that this is analogous to changing the ratios of the radiatively-relevant molecules in our atmosphere.
Thus, I find your explanation lacking due to the simple fact that coupled systems are…well…coupled. Changes to one part will necessarily affect others. The amplitude of the effect can be debated, as well as whether or not the effect is physically significant at standard operating parameters, but again, the effect is real.
rip
Philip Mulholland November 21, 2017 at 4:54 am
Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself,
Never heard of a turbocharger or a Turbojet I guess?
Yes, but they lose efficiency the closer the exhaust temp is to air temp. So usually turbo’s are at the exhaust where the gas is as hot as possible. When you account to pressure differences, that’s the temp differential?
Guys,
Lots of kick back here, but I will stand my ground. Every heat engine has an exhaust, even turbo charged ones. The genius of Robert Stevenson was to take the exhaust steam from the driving piston and use it to force ventilate the fire box in a feedback loop of increased power. But at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the friction within your machine is greater than the added power you can glean from the exhaust.
The real idea I want criticism on is the observation that the isothermal shell of the stratosphere is in fact an exhaust thermal datum to the weather machine of the troposphere. It is the uniform planet wide distribution of this isothermal shell that is most interesting. My biggest problem has always been that this uniformity is in effect a friction-less system, so how can this form the starting point to a weather machine that clear moves mass? It makes much more sense to me to view the stratosphere as an exit system with waste heat and not an input system.
Philip Mulholland November 21, 2017 at 10:58 am
Philip, modeling the climate system as a heat engine is a very productive way to look at it. Unfortunately, this path is not followed a lot.
You might be interested in this paper, describing the application of the Constructal Law to the grand heat engine we call the climate …
w.
Thanks Willis,
I will study the Bejan & Reis paper.
Always more to learn.
Phillip says: “Stratosphere is the exhaust system of the planet’s atmosphere.”
Why would you say this? The ‘exhaust’ from the earth is the thermal IR that escapes to space. Some of the ‘exhaust’ comes directly from the surface through the ‘atmospheric window’. Some of the ‘exhaust’ comes from clouds; some comes from GHGs in the atmosphere. Very little comes from the stratosphere.
IMO, the poles and extratropics are, that where tropical air cools, and dehumidifier as it goes poleward.
“I don’t know what causes it, so am interested in suggestions like yours.”
Simply put, it is the inversion level where heating of O3 in the stratosphere meets and overcomes the -ve LR of the Trop – the level at which (mostly) convection can reach in the Troposphere. The level is a trade off between the O3 induced warming and the warmth of the Trop – it is highest in the tropics and lowest at the Poles.
https://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/htrop.htm
Yep, Convection and conduction RULE when the atmosphere is thick enough.
Thanks, Tone.. you are getting there.. finally !!
Roger,
I refer you to the figure in the following paper:
Robinson, T.D. & Catling, D.C. (2014) Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent intrared transparency. Nature Geoscience 7 (1), 12-15.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020
Thanks for the link, Philip, most fascinating.
w.
Interesting. Thanks.
Venus is an exception. At its tropopause, temperature and pressure reach Earth-like levels, ie ~1.0 bar. Also, at its searing surface the winds are slow, but at the top of the troposphere, clouds pick up speed to 100 m/s, thus showing yet again colder is stormier, contrary to false CACA dogma regarding “extreme weather” from global warming.
The thin atmosphere of Mars is essentially stratospheric at the surface.
The science of climate change is obviously not settled.
But does it really matter when the average temperature
of our planet has remained in a narrow 1 degree C. range since 1880?
And that range could easily have been doubled by measurement errors.
The current climate is the best it has ever been for humans,
and has improved for green plants since the 1800s.
What climate change problem?
The understanding of climate change (“settled science”)
does not matter, because there is no problem that needs to be solved.
My climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard Greene November 21, 2017 at 6:50 am
The science of climate change is obviously not settled.
The science points raised in the head post are settled, unfortunately many of them are wrongly stated or misunderstood as I, Willis and others have pointed out. Just because people unfamiliar with the science such as the author (as he admitted) get it wrong doesn’t mean the science isn’t settled.
E.g.
Phil. November 19, 2017 at 2:58 pm
The worst of these errors is the misrepresentation of Wien’s Law which has also appeared in numerous other places, including by a fictional astronomer on Steve site.
The mis-statement is that because Wien’s Law says the temperature at which the maximum emission occurs at a wavelength of 15microns is -80ºC then “Carbon Dioxide only emits and absorbs radiation at -80C from a narrow layer of atmosphere 90Km above the Earth’s surface.”
CO2 does indeed have a maximum in the radiance-wavelength curve at 15 microns for a temperature of -80ºC, however for a higher temperature the emissions at 15microns are always higher.
At 15 microns and 193K radiance is 1.09 W/m2/sr/µm, at 203K it’s 1.41 W/m2/sr/µm, at 213K it’s 1.80 W/m2/sr/µm, and at 223K it’s 2.26 W/m2/sr/µm.
Just my uninformed opinion on back radiation, but it only becomes relevant in the absence of an external heat source. My observational evidence:
1) increased GHG does not increase day time highs. This says that the normal heating process of the atmosphere completely overwhelms any contribution from back radiation. During the day, the GHG compartment absorbs all the energy it can, which is a finite quantity. To some extent, the GHG compartment seems to prevent overheating, as it seems places of high WV can’t seem to reach the high temperatures achieved in desert environments.
2) most of the science-ee stuff I’ve seen show graphs where it is the night time lows that are increasing. IMO, this is because as the temperature drops, the GHG heat sink begins to release its energy to its surrounding, slowing the rate of cooling. This is supported by the comments of others, deserts with no WV cool rapidly, coastal areas like New Orleans don’t.
3) local temps are more influenced by air movement than than local radiation. When a cool front comes in, it gets cold, when a warm front comes in, it gets warmer ….. doesn’t seem to matter much what the back radiation is doing.
🙂
“During the day, the GHG compartment absorbs all the energy it can,”
And releases it as well, just as it does at night. It both absorbs and emits all the time on short time frames.
Most of the heat energy of the atmosphere is in molecular motion not stored protons, that energy has been transferred to molecular motion.
I just noticed this claim in the head post. There are two huge problems with it. Here’s what it says:
I’m sorry, but this is not true. A gas at 50°C has more kinetic energy than a gas at 20°C, without any electrons moving to more energetic orbits.
The word “kinetic” in “kinetic energy” is from the Greek, meaning movement or motion. Similarly, “kinetic” energy is specifically energy due to MOTION. It is not energy due to different energy levels of electrons, the name itself says that.
Second, the absorption of thermal longwave radiation does NOT result in an electron being kicked to a higher orbit. That is the photoelectric effect, but there’s not enough energy in thermal LR to move an electron.
Instead, when a molecule of a gas absorbs longwave radiation, it starts the molecule vibrating. Depending on the complexity of the molecule, this vibration can include a variety of vibrational modes including stretching, asymmetric stretching, scissoring, rocking, wagging, and twisting.
The more modes of vibration a molecule has, the more different frequencies of longwave radiation it can absorb (or radiate). Obviously, a simple two-atom molecule like N2 or O2 can only stretch, it can’t twist or flex … which is why they can only absorb or radiate in a narrow frequency band. Molecules with three atoms like CO2 and H2O have many more vibrational modes, so they absorb over a wide range. Solids, of course, made of millions of atoms or molecules, have a host of frequencies at which they absorb and radiate. And monatomic gases like argon have no vibrational modes at all, so they can neither absorb nor radiate longwave thermal radiation.
However, within microseconds, this vibrational energy is transferred to thousands and thousands of neighboring gas molecules. This converts the vibration into motion of the surrounding molecules. The net effect is to heat the body of the gas, even when the amount of GHG is quite small.
Man … the incorrect statements in the head post just keep on coming …
w.
Quite true, it’s the main reasoning for the broadening of the absorption bands, and I believe this is the main mechanism for “GHG” warming after the concentration of such molecules reaches the point of absorbing the available LWIR. However, the energy of the vibration of these normal modes is between 0.0001-1.7 eV and the energy lost or gained upon molecular collisions is a fraction of this energy. And then we must ask, does the donation of molecular vibrational energy to kinetic energy increase convection?
@corev
The time scale I’m referring to is the mean transition time for energy to be transferred from the lower atmosphere to space. This is the upward component of the omnidirectional collision induced radiation. The timescale is a few hours. Compared with typical molecular timescales this is an eternity, but the intuitive comparison I make is that taking a square meter column of atmosphere (10T) and an upward flux of 200W, it’s like a 200W lightbulb heating the air in a gym for a few hours. A small effect of around 0.14C, cf the 33C GHE assumed by the IPCC science.
Yes, the average lifetime of an excited RG molecule is small – usually de-excited in the next molecular collision it experiences. A very small portion get to emit a photon, but since there are a lot of molecules the radiation levels are significant.
True, most of the energy in the atmosphere (ignoring mass energy) is KE of molecules, but conduction is slow. Convection and evaporation/condensation cycle are major players.
The essence of the GHE is not back radiation, but how much of the surface emitted energy remains in the lower atmosphere to contribute to it, and how rapidly it is transported upward radiatively rather than being ‘trapped’.
This is a perspective and paradigm shift.
dai
@tjfolkerts
“The correct conclusion is IF the thermal emission layer is raised in a gravitational field then the thermal emission temperature would fall … causing net gain in thermal energy and an increase in temperature at the surface until balance was restored.”
No. Again consensus CS is ignoring the time factor. Even though rates of emission in the upper troposphere will drop if the tropopause rises, global atmospheric circulation continues poleward, radiating as it goes, until the upper temps drop and density increases until upper air drops giving Hadley cells.
dai
Yes indeed, dai. This is all almost as good as Saturday’s Wales-All Blacks match should be.
About 1902, Prof Robert Woods refuted the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse, and soon all those other great experimemtalists agreed. Arrhenius realised this, and went on to do other good works. It is a mere latter-day contrivance of hippy science, magic mushroom stuff. Nasa’s solar system data shows the truth. It is all the gravito-thermal effect. Convectively enabled and phase change accelerated to easily cope with imbalances of input and distribution. Water is the real magic stuff…..
Radiation is an effect of KE, not a prime cause. Except of seemingly endless misconceptions. In furnace engineering, CO2 speeds heat movement to furnace walls etc.. Above 200ppm, no significant increase. That is all, no blanket to suck on, sorry Linus.
Brett Keane November 21, 2017 at 6:49 pm
The Wood experiment was fatally flawed for reasons I explained in detail in “The R. W. Wood Experiment“.
Now, let’s do this scientifically. I am not interested in your opinion of my analysis of the poorly-designed Wood experiment. I am interested in your scientific objections to my analysis. However, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU OBJECT TO in my analysis, so we can all understand just what you think is wrong.
Or you could either not read my analysis, or read it and know it is right and blow it off … your choice. However, note if you do not raise any scientific objections to my analysis, I will take that as evidence.
w.
Willis Eschenbach
November 21, 2017 at 8:33 pm: Willis, this is not your post. Of course I read yours, referenced. It did not apply to the Optical Physicist’s propositition. Ask Konrad Hartmann. So I see no reason to debate it here,except to note that lids are out of place in a real atmosphere, as are surfaces also..
Actually studying Fourier, Tyndall and Maxwell. for instance, shows where Wood was coming from. Not what flower children claim they said, which is something else.
I gave plenty of data sources in my entries above. Argue them if you wish. The header Post requests such for its own propositions. This is the basis of all real scientific method. A thing of beauty….
Brett Keane November 22, 2017 at 12:41 am Edit
Hey, Brett, if you can’t find anything wrong with my post on the R. W. Wood experiment, that’s fine. Trying to blow it off by claiming it “did not apply to the Optical Physicist’s proposition”, whatever that might be, is just handwaving to distract us from the fact that apparently you can’t find anything wrong with my post.
You made a claim about the R. W. Wood experiment. I gave you a detailed analysis and asked what is wrong with the analysis. In response, you’ve just headed for the door …
w.
Willis Eschenbach November 22, 2017 at 11:24 am:
Willis, Wood was a brilliant experimentalist. So is Hartmann, so is Berthold Klein of the Mylar balloon expt. Such are not refuted by a thought expt. Nor are the Nasa solar system data and the many papers based on what it teaches us. Which is that atmospheric gases handle energy inpiut according to the combined gas laws under the Poissin relation, as Maxwell noted in his “Theory of Heat”. By vigorous convection until radiation can finally leave ie less than one optical depth. Window EMF alone takes that door, not I.
Brett Keane November 22, 2017 at 12:40 pm
Thanks, Brett. Yes, I know that Wood was an experimentalist, although given his experiment I would not class him as “brilliant” … and more to the point, l+
et me remind you of a quote by the amazing RIchard Feynman, a true scientific genius. He said:
If we took previous claims and experiments as gospel, science would never advance again …
Second, I note that once again you have not brought up a single argument against a single one of my claims. Instead, you are indulging yourself in argumentum ad verecundiam, which was recognized as a logical error a couple of millennia ago.
Look, I made a bunch of very clear claims in that post. If you think one of them is wrong, then quote it and tell us why. Because simply mumbling a bunch of scientists’ names as though they were a magical incantation doesn’t work here at WUWT.
Regards,
w.