Comments on Dr. Ollila’s Claims that Greenhouse Effect Calculations Violate Energy Conservation

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

March 12th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Once again I am being drawn into defending the common explanation of Earth’s so-called “greenhouse effect” as it is portrayed by the IPCC, textbooks, and virtually everyone who works in atmospheric radiation and thermodynamics.

To be clear, I am not defending the IPCC’s predictions of future climate change… just the general explanation of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which has a profound influence on global temperatures as well as on weather.

As we will see, much confusion arises about the greenhouse effect due to its complexity, and the difficulty in expressing that complexity accurately with words alone. In fact, the IPCC’s greenhouse effect “definition” quoted by Dr. Ollila is incomplete and misleading, as anyone who understands the greenhouse effect should know.

As we will see, in the case of something as complicated as the greenhouse effect, a simplified worded definition should never be the basis for quantitative calculations; instead, complicated calculations are sometimes only poorly described with words.

What is the “Greenhouse Effect”?

Descriptions of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect are unavoidably incomplete due to its complexity, and even misleading at times due to ambiguous phrasing when trying to express that complexity.

The complexity arises because the greenhouse effect involves every cubic meter of the atmosphere having the ability to both absorb and emit infrared (IR) energy. (And almost never are the rates of absorption and emission the same, contrary to the claims of many skeptics – IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not).

While essentially all the energy for this ultimately comes from absorbed sunlight, the infrared absorption and re-radiation by air (and by clouds in the atmosphere) makes the net impact of the greenhouse effect on temperatures somewhat non-intuitive. The emission of this invisible radiation by everything around us is obviously more difficult to describe than the single-source Sun.

The ability of air and clouds to absorb and emit IR radiation has profound impacts on energy flows and temperatures throughout the atmosphere, leading to the multiple infrared energy flow arrows (red) in the energy budget diagram originally popularized by Kiehl & Trenberth (Fig. 1).

K-T-energy-budget-diagram-550x413

Fig. 1. Global- and time-averaged (day+night and through the seasons) primary energy flows between the surface, atmosphere, and space (NASA). If there was no atmosphere, there would be a single yellow arrow reaching the surface, and a single red arrow extending from the surface to outer space, representing equal magnitudes of absorbed solar and emitted infrared energy, respectively.

[As an aside, contrary to the claims of the 2010 book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, this simplified picture of the average energy flows between the Earth’s surface, atmosphere, and space is NOT what is assumed by climate models. Climate models use the relevant physical processes at every point on three-dimensional grid covering the Earth, with day-night and seasonal cycles of solar illumination. The simplified energy budget diagram is instead the best-estimate of the global average energy flows based upon a wide variety of observations, model diagnostics, and the assumption of no natural long-term climate change.]

If the Earth had no atmosphere (like the Moon), the surface temperature at any given location would be governed by the balance between the rate of absorbed solar energy and the loss of thermally-emitted infrared (IR) radiation. The sun would heat the surface to a temperature where the emitted IR radiation balanced the absorbed solar radiation, and then the temperature would stop increasing. This general concept of energy balance between energy gain and energy loss is involved in determining the temperature of virtually anything you can think of.

But the Earth does have an atmosphere, and the atmosphere both absorbs and emits IR radiation in all directions. “Greenhouse gases” (primarily water vapor, but also carbon dioxide) provide most of this function, and any gain or loss of an IR photon by a GHG molecule is almost immediately felt by the non-radiatively active gases (like nitrogen and oxygen) through molecular collisions.

If we were to represent these infrared energy flows in Fig. 1 more completely, there would be a nearly infinite number of red arrows, both upward and downward, connecting every vanishingly-thin layer of atmosphere with every other vanishingly thin layer. Those are the flows that are happening continuously in the atmosphere.

The most important net impact of the greenhouse effect on terrestrial temperatures is this:

The net effect of a greenhouse atmosphere is that it keeps the lower atmospheric layers (and surface) warmer, and the upper atmosphere colder, than if the greenhouse effect did not exist.

I have often called this a “radiative blanket” effect.

Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere. Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere.

Dr. Ollila’s Claims

The latest installment of what I consider to be bad skeptical science regarding the greenhouse effect comes from emeritus professor of environmental science, Dr. Antero Ollila, who claims that the energy budget diagram somehow violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., conservation of energy, at least in terms of how the greenhouse effect is quantified.

His article is entitled, How The IPCC’s Greenhouse Definition Violates the Physical Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy. He uses a modified version (Fig. 2) of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram:

Fig. 2. Dr. Ollila’s version of the global energy budget diagram.

It should be noted that these global average energy budget diagrams do indeed conserve energy in their total energy fluxes at the top-of-atmosphere (the climate system as a whole), as well as for the surface and atmosphere, separately. If you add up these energy gain and loss terms you will see they are equal, which must be the case for any system with a stable temperature over time.

But what Dr. Ollila seems to be confused about is what you can physically and quantitatively deduce about the greenhouse effect when you start combining energy fluxes in that diagram. Much of the first part of Dr. Ollila’s article is just fine. His objection to the diagram is introduced with the following statement, which those who hold similar views to his will be triggered by:

The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 W/m2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.

At this point some of my readers (you know who you are) will object to that quote, and say something like, “But the only energy input at the surface is from the sun! How can the atmosphere add more energy to the system, when the sun is the only source of energy?” My reading of Dr. Ollila’s article indicates that that is where he is going as well.

But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.

As shown in Fig. 2, the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. And, as previously mentioned, all energy fluxes at the surface balance.

And this is what our intuition tells us should be happening: the surface is warmed by sunlight, and cooled by the loss of IR energy (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.) But the atmosphere’s radiative blanket reduces the rate of IR cooling from the warmer lower layers of the atmosphere to the upper cooler layers. This alteration of average energy flows by greenhouse gases and clouds alters the atmospheric temperature profile.

A related but common misunderstanding is the idea that the rate of energy input determines a system’s temperature. That’s wrong.

Given any rate of energy input into a system, the temperature will continue to increase until temperature-dependent energy loss mechanisms equal the rate of energy input. If you don’t believe it, let’s look at an extreme example.

Believe it or not, the human body generates energy through metabolism at a rate that is 8,000 time greater than what the sun generates, per kg of mass. But the human body has an interior temperature of only 98.6 deg. F, while the sun’s interior temperature is estimated to be around 27,000,000 deg. F. This is a dramatic example that the rate of energy *input* does not determine temperature: it’s the balance between the rates of energy gain and energy loss that determines temperature.

If energy has no efficient way to escape, then even a weak rate of energy input can lead to exceedingly high temperatures, such as occurs in the sun. I have read that it takes thousands of years for energy created in the core of the sun from nuclear fusion to make its way to the sun’s surface.

Since this is meant to be a critique of Dr. Ollila’s specific arguments let’s return to them. I just wanted to first address his central concern by explaining the greenhouse effect in the best terms I can, before I confuse you with his arguments. Here I list the main points of his reasoning, in which I reproduce the first quote from above for completeness:

[begin quote]

The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 Wm-2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 + 345 = 510 Wm-2….

The difference between the radiation to the surface and the net solar radiation is 510 – 240 = 270 Wm-2...

The real GH warming effect is right here: it is 270 Wm-2 because it is the extra energy warming the Earth’s surface in addition to the net solar energy.

The final step is that we must find out what is the mechanism creating this infrared radiation from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC’s definition, the GH effect is caused by the GH gases and clouds which absorb infrared radiation of 155 Wm-2 emitted by the surface and which they further radiate to the surface.

As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2. According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.

From Figure (2) it is easy to name the two other energy sources which are needed for causing the GH effect namely latent heating 91 Wm-2 and sensible heating 24 Wm-2, which make 270 Wm-2 with the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2.

When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2. Everything matches without the violation of physics. No energy disappears or appears from the void. Coincidence? Not so.

Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.

[end quote]

Now, I have spent at least a couple of hours trying to follow his line of reasoning, and I cannot. If Dr. Ollila wanted to claim that the energy budget numbers violate energy conservation, he could have made all of this much simpler by asking the question, How can 240 W/m2 of solar input to the climate system cause 395 W/m2 of IR emission by the surface? Or 345 W/m2 of downward IR emission from the sky to the surface? ALL of these numbers are larger than the available solar flux being absorbed by the climate system, are they not? But, as I have tried to explain from the above, a 1-way flow of IR energy is not very informative, and only makes quantitative sense when it is combined with the IR flow in the opposite direction.

If we don’t do that, we can fool ourselves into thinking there is some mysterious and magical “extra” source of energy, which is not the case at all. All energy flows in these energy budget diagram have solar input as the energy source, and as energy courses through the climate system, they all end up balancing. There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Is There an Energy Flux Measure of the Greenhouse Effect?

One of the problems with Dr. Ollila’s reasoning is that there really isn’t any of these unidirectional energy fluxes (or combinations of energy fluxes, such as 155, or 270, or 345 W/m2) that can be called a measure of the greenhouse effect. The average unidirectional energy fluxes are what exist after the surface and atmosphere have readjusted their temperature and humidity structures (as well as after the sensible and latent convective heat transports get established).

Even the oft-quoted 33 deg. C of warming isn’t a measure of the greenhouse effect… it’s the resulting surface warming after convective heat transports have cooled the surface. As I recall, the true, pure radiative equilibrium greenhouse effect on surface temperature (without convective heat transports) would double or triple that number.

If the atmospheric radiative energy flows are too abstract for you, let’s use the case of a house heated in the winter. On an average cold winter day, I compute from standard sources that the heating unit in the average house leads to a loss of energy through the walls, ceiling, and floor of about 10 W/m2 (just take the heater input in Watts [around 5,000 Joules/sec] and divide by the surface area of all house exterior surfaces [ around 500 sq. meters]).

But compare that 10 W/m2 of energy flow though the walls, ceiling, and floor to the inward IR emission by the exterior walls, which (it is easy to show) emit an IR flux toward the center of the house that is about 100 W/m2 greater than the outward emission by the outside of the walls. That ~100 W/m2 difference in outward versus inward IR flux is still energetically consistent with the 10 W/m2 of heat flow outward through the walls.

This seeming contradiction is resolved (just as in the case of Earth’s surface energy budget) when we realize that the NET (2-way) infrared flux at the inside surface of the exterior walls is still outward, because that wall surface will be slightly colder than the interior of the house, which is also emitting IR energy toward the outside walls. Talking about the IR flux in only one direction is not very quantitatively useful by itself. There is no magical and law-violating creation of extra energy.

Concluding Comments

If you have managed to wade through the arguments above and understand most of them, congratulations. You now see how complicated the greenhouse effect is compared to, say, just sunlight warming the Earth’s surface. That complexity leads to imprecise, incomplete, and ambiguous descriptions of the greenhouse effect, even in the scientific literature (and the IPCC’s description).

The most accurate representation of the greenhouse effect is made through the relevant equations that describe the radiative (and convective) energy flows between the surface and the atmosphere. To express all of that in words would be nearly impossible, and the more accurate the wording, the more the reader’s eyes would glaze over.

So, we are left with people like me trying to inform the public on issues which I sometimes consider to be a waste of time arguing about. I only waste that time because I would like for my fellow skeptics to be armed with good science, not bad science.

[I still maintain that the simplest backyard demonstration of the greenhouse effect in action is with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky at different angles, and seeing the warming of the thermometer’s detector as you scan from the zenith down to an oblique angle. That is the greenhouse effect in action.]

Advertisements

582 thoughts on “Comments on Dr. Ollila’s Claims that Greenhouse Effect Calculations Violate Energy Conservation

  1. I don’t agree that back-radiation is the GHE. The heat accumulated in the atmosphere, and this heating it, is proportional to the time taken for it to be transferred to space. If this is instant, then no heating.

    B-r just has the affect of slightly raising the effective radiative surface into the lower atmosphere. It’s the surface and lower atmosphere trying for thermal equilibrium, as they must. It’s how fast heat is transferred from there that matters.

    Discussed in detail at http://brindabella.id.au front page

    I review various definitions. IPCC can’t make up its mind.

    • What else would you expect.

      When your whole effort is to try to prove a false preface, you have to keep trying to get something believable out of hundreds of efforts.

      • I read once again the story of Dr. Spencer. Her is a quote, which I want to comment: “The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface.”

        Now, using the phrasing, this statement strictly analyzed means that Dr. Spencer do thinks that the atmosphere does not add more energy to the surface. Adding more energy can be understood in the way that the overall energy to the surface is not more than 240 W/m2. This means that he denies the existence of the GH effect.

        In other places, Dr. Spencer writes that there is a GH effect but it is too complicated to describe. I think that the energy balance is so simple that it is univocal in this respect.

        • I think you misunderstood what Dr. Spencer says: the atmosphere is not adding more energy to the surface out of itself, it is sending back part of the energy that comes from the surface in first instance. That is what the greenhouse effect does. Still the surface is sending more IR energy out than it receives from the atmosphere and the total balance, including received solar energy, still is kept equal.
          You can’t use one sentence of what Dr. Spencer said to “prove” it ambiguous, while not including the context of that sentence…

          • It is a question, if we do understand, what Dr. Spencer is saying. I think that I have done it very clear that the “GH effect energy”, which is 155+91 +24=270 is recycling between the surface and the atmosphere. This energy flow is much greater than 240 W/m2, which has been denied by those persons who deny the very existence of the GH effect.

            Here is the problem with the wording of Dr. Spencer: “The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface.” This is not a clear wording. The atmosphere adds more energy to the surface and that is why we have the GH effect. It is another issue, from which source this energy originates, and as I wrote, it is originally from the sun. Thi energy has been trapped to recycle forever.

          • In Dr. Spencer’s Fig. 1 Antero’s 155+91+24=270 is shown as 158.4+86.4+18.4=263.2 so I don’t see that you two have any major difference in regards multiannual “GH effect energy” recycling between the surface and the atmosphere. The small numerical differences are most likely due to differences in time period, & length thereof, over which the observations were made.

          • Dear Dr. Olilla,

            After reading several of your comments, I don’t think there is much disagreement between you and Dr. Spencer, only a misunderstanding of what is meant in a few sentences…

            Bo problem thus and mostly cleared up by now…

          • My basic message was that the IPCC’s GH effect definition violates the physical laws, not the energy balance description. For example, Trick thinks that it is question about the accuracies of these three energy fluxes which together are in my presentation 270 W/m2. I just wonder how many other readers lost the main point of my study, which is that the measure of the GH effect is 270 W/m2 and not 155 W/m2. It has a huge impact on the warming contribution of CO2.

            For me, it looks like Dr. Spencer thinks that both values are incorrect but he does not write, what is the correct value and does not give any idea about the correct value. It is too easy to say that something is wrong without showing, what is the correct value.

          • Antero, you use the same accuracy in measured data as Dr. Spencer, just different observational periods (270 vs. 263.2). Your “measure of the GH effect” is a definition issue, as along the line of thought Ferdinand is commenting 12:50am, not an observational science issue.

            The GH effect is so ambiguous in meaning it can be called the ramafratz effect using the same data and relevant eqn.s. So we readers are left with the Antero effect (observed 270) and the Roy effect (observed 263.2), both using the same data and relevant eqn.s. but different time periods & apparently both reasonably correct but using different names for the same atm. process.

          • If you stand outside naked in -18C air you´re mimicking the relationship between the surface and the atmosphere. Do you get warm from the cold air absorbing and emitting your body heat? No?

            How come everything ON the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, but the surface itself is warmed by it?

            There are NO experiments that show that any GHG has the ability to warm anything. Not a single one.

          • life 2:53am, in your scenario do you quickly get warm then from putting on colder clothes and colder jacket absorbing and emitting your body EMR and conducting away your body warmth? Yes? That’s same effect as adding an atm., adding grey absorbers to the existing atmosphere, and a clear calm night changing to cloudy. Same as the Antero “measure of the GHE” does shown in his chart top post Fig. 2 & Dr. Roy’s chart Fig. 1.

            There are plenty of proper, replicable experiments that show added CO2 and other gaseous grey absorbers warm something. Of course, if you don’t look for these experiments & understand them, made available and popularized starting 1861, then you will remain unaccomplished in atm. thermodynamics.

          • Hei Trick- March 16 8:49

            You and others (Spencer) must stop using analogies to explain GHE that contains new physical limitations GHE does not have.
            If you use comparisons as you suggest by comparing wearing clothes or walls in a house or a real greenhouse, you prevent conduction and convection. GHE has no such restrictions.
            If you put on clothes, their insulation properties will determine whether you stay warm or not.
            Clothes insulation properties describe how well they prevent convection and delay conduction.
            Insulation properties for walls in the house or for that matter, clothing, are determined by how much stagnant air you can create, and how low the conductivity of the substances you use to create this has. Stagnant air has very good insulation capacity. Moving air has no insulating ability, and the lower the temperature it has the faster and more powerful it cools down the object it touches.
            If you, or you, do not stop using such analogies,
            I want to say that you “will remain unaccomplished in atm. thermodynamics”

          • olav, there is added (not “prevent”ed) conduction away from surface when putting on a coat over the air conduction away with lifeisthermal “standing naked” in calm conditions. Similarly, there is added conduction with a 1 bar atm. over no atm. As you write, the balance between jacket conduction and jacket insulation is important in choosing jackets.

            I agree analogies are less than perfect but some are useful as in this case. NB: lifeisthermal introduced the analogy not me. Analogies are generally less useful by & for those who “will remain unaccomplished in atm. thermodynamics”. Analogies can be useful, when not pushed too far, by those accomplished in atm. thermodynamics.

          • Thanks for a polite answer Trick.

            But as this discussion shows, bad analogies provide more discussion and rarely better understanding of a problem.

            I mean you are wrong when you think clothing increases conduction and does not decrease it. It prevents conduction to the air that surrounds your naked body. This air will quickly be replaced with new. Thus, convection. Molecules of air will be quickly replaced with new. Thus, increased conduction. With clothing one will have conduction to the same standing molecules. And the air in the clothes will also stand still. Reduced conduction and convection.
            Certainly not compatible with GHE.

            When two objects touch each other, conduction and convection will be far stronger than radiation in the transfer / loss of heat.
            The denser the medium that surrounds your body, the faster the loss. Unless convection is restricted.
            How long can one survive naked in 0c air versus 0c (32f) water.
            Much much muuuuuuuch longer.

            I am not English speaking so try to understand to your best ability.

          • ”Thus, increased conduction. With clothing one will have conduction to the same standing molecules.”

            With a new higher steady state T from the added jacket (or wetsuit) and added atm. Conductive, convective and radiative thermodynamic internal energy transfer all in action to steady state in each example. A useful analogy with the surface GHE. I understand the language issue.

          • More discussion Trick

            No, by this reasoning, you make something more complex than it is.
            This is where we talk about how many molecules you release / lose heat to, over time.

            You can only lose so or so much heat over time to the same molecule, why, because the molecule you lose heat to is heated. Thus, the next unit of time you will lose less heat.

            If put on cold clothing, they will have poor insulating ability before the temperature has risen in (innermost layer) by transferring heat from your body. If you constantly change to new cold clothes, convection of clothes, you will freeze like hell.
            Why, because you have emitted / transmitted heat via conduction to many more molecules, just as you would if you are surrounded by a mobile atmosphere. That is why the temperature of a body drops faster in the wind, conduction to more and more molecules as the wind increases.
            If you are out sailing, you will be able to see people in t-shirts sailing with the wind, and people in bobble jackets crossing up against the wind.

    • dai davies re: “I don’t agree that back-radiation is the GHE. ”

      PLEASE (dear God) explain to this man how a humid, muggy night COOLS OFF LESS overnight than a dry, low humidity one (BOTH starting off at the SAME ‘surface’ air temperature) …

      It must work by MAGIC, dai davies, in your mind IF NOT BY RE-RADIATION AKA “back radiation” by the gases involved (WV in this case).

      DO lookup up the subject of IR SPECTROMETRY , dai davies. LOOK at how the WV molecule, in particular, works to absorb THEN re-radiate EM (Electromagnetic energy AKA near and FAR IR).

      FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, man.

      • Thanks. Please check my comments of back radiation during the cold winter nights in Scandinavia. They confirm your observations.

      • What do you mean by “cooling”? The warm, muggy (I think humid and muggy are pretty close to the same thing)night will most likely lose more total heat than the dry, low humidity night. The temperature may drop more but we are talking about heat loss-not temperature loss. So much of this discussion is lost in imprecision that I seriously doubt that half the geniuses at the IPCC even know what each other is talking about.

        • The night was hot, wait no, the night, the night was humid. The night was humid, no wait, hot, hot. The night was hot. The night was hot and wet, wet and hot. The night was wet and hot, hot and wet, wet and hot; that’s humid. The night was humid.

          Throw Momma From the Train

        • re: “What do you mean by “cooling”?”

          Seriously?

          A prereq for this discussion is some familiarity with the diurnal cycle.

          • USCRN data shows that RH and dry bulb trade places between night and day.

            RH falls as the day warms and rises as the day/night cools.

            Water vapor and dry air passing energy back and forth.

            Pierrehumbert says climate models hold RH constant.

            Well, that’s incorrect.

          • re: “USCRN data shows that RH and dry bulb … ”

            Irrelevant. Irrelevant for the case presented. Clearly, you don’t understand, probably never observed first hand, an observation such as I described.

            Can I suggest a couple of meteorological text books you could become a little more familiar with this ‘phenom’? It’s really a very elementary thing, but few people are directly familiar with it, maybe like yourself.

      • It is important to know whether you humid, muggy night is overcast or not. Overcast, yes it will not cool anywhere as much because the clouds have temperature, creating a temperature different of maybe 100ºC, as opposed to a clear sky when the atmosphere is losing IR to space, which has no temperature, thus creating a ~570ºC gradient. The warm and muggy is usually subjective to people as they do not benefit as well from evaporative skin cooling due to the humidity. The heat density of muggy air is probably also higher because of water’s higher degrees of freedom for storing energy in the molecule.

        • re: “It is important to know whether you humid, muggy night is overcast or not.”

          Charles, why don’t you repeat the experiment and let us know what you find.

          In fact, why don’t you try and control for several different parameters while you are at it; run the tests, make the observations, see for yourself, become ‘convinced’ of your observations, since these observations may run strikingly contrary to initial, mistaken assumptions your ‘mind’ forms often all on its own.

      • It’s called heat capacity. It’s not magic and CO2 nor the other inaptly named “greenhouse gases” have magic thermodynamic properties. Water vapor has a relatively high heat capacity and it takes much longer to cool off.

        • If by heat capacity you mean latent heat, that is, the heat released or absorbed in phase change, yes, water vapor has a high heat capacity.

          The dew point, which in turns depends on the amount of water vapor per unit of air, is a “buffer” on how cold it gets after the sun sets. If there is something driving the temperature below the dew point, the air precipitates, . . . , dew! This condensation releases the latent heat held in the water vapor in the amount of about 1000 BTU/lb, where 1 BTU is the heat required to warm water by 1 deg-F. If you have a 50 deg swing between day and night, that 50 BTU/lb heat capacity of water pales in comparison to the 1000 BTU/lb released when dew forms.

          • No, I meant exactly what I said.

            Gas Specific heat capacity at
            constant pressure (J kg-1K-1) Specific heat capacity at
            constant volume (J kg-1K-1)
            Air 993 714
            Argon 524 314
            Carbon dioxide 834 640
            Carbon monoxide 1050 748
            Helium 5240 3157
            Hydrogen 14300 10142
            Nitrogen 1040 741
            Oxygen 913 652
            Water vapour 2020 –

            Cp for bulk air = 990…Cp for water vapor = 2020

            Air with 0% RH at 50 degrees has much less energy than air with 99% RH at 50 degrees and will cool off much slower. This is the exact reason why deserts cool off so much at night.

        • Robert, let’s run the numbers. I have a nice spreadsheet showing intermediate calculations but it does not paste into this box with my poor skill. The problem is that even humid air is still mostly air. At 245 K, air can only hold 0.00028 mass fraction of water before you hit the snow (dew) point. Even though water vapor has a much higher heat capacity than air, it is such a small contribution that the heat capacity of the saturated air is 993.3 J/kg-K instead of 993 J/kg-K. At 295 K, air can hold 0.016 mass fraction water before you hit the dew point (relative humidity of 100%). The heat capacity of this mixture is 1009.68 J/kg-K instead of 993 J/kg-K. This is an increase of 1.7%, which is not enough to explain the difference.

          The calculation proceeds as follows: the amount of water in air at saturation (100% relative humidity) is very closely approximated by the vapor pressure of water divided by the atmospheric pressure. For an ideal gas, the vapor mole fraction of water is equal to its partial pressure (the vapor pressure in this case) divided by the total pressure. We do a bit of algebra to convert mole fractions to mass fractions, then multiply the mass fraction of water by its heat capacity, the mass fraction of air by its heat capacity, and add them together. This is very close to the truth since air near room temperature and pressure is very close to behaving like an ideal gas.

        • For liquid and solid heat capacity is proportional to mass
          Whereas H, the gas with least mass, has the highest heat capacity.

          This because H has more molecules per unit mass and the heat capacity of gas is proportional to number of molecules not not total mass of particles.

      • _Jim,

        Consult the psychrometric properties of moist air and consider how a swamp cooler works.

        Water evaporates into and cools the dry air mostly because of relative humidity not temperature.

        • re: “Consult the psychrometric properties of moist air and consider how a swamp cooler works.”

          Irrelevant.

          Obviously, you completely missed the point in the original post too (most likely you did not read the original post for comprehension) . Do I have to repost the original post below, for you to read it again? Do I really need to post applicable text from a meteorological text book?

          You can, as I advised the dai davies, perform this sort of observation yourself. This is something every serious meteorological student ought have done at least once in their education.

      • Did you hear about the ChangE lunar probe? It measured the lunar cooling rate. It is something like 1 Kelvin per hour. The airless moon loses a degree per hour. Better heat retention than the Earth with it’s warming blanket.

      • It is not magic, nor is it ‘back radiation’ … it is the latent heat released as the water vapor condenses back into water.. Condensation releases a huge amount of heat that keeps the atmosphere warm … so long as there is more water vapor to condense. Once all the water vapor has condensed, the atmospheric temperature then drops sharply.

    • My prob lem with the IPCC’s GHE is that they claim the upper tropical troposphere is warmed by GHGs and them downwelling IR heats the surface. How can any gas at -17ºC put out radiation that can warm the 15ºC surface. The “science” fails right there.

      The supposed GHGs are actually properly called “radiative gases” which have no effect at all in daylight as they are saturated but serve to cool the atmosphere at night. If anything, more GHGs cools the climate.

      • You are confusing conduction vs radiation.
        If you take an object at -17C and physically touch it to an object at 15C, you are 100% correct that the 15C will not warm up.
        However, this is not what is happening. You have to shift your mind into the realm of radiation.
        An objects temperature will always be the difference between all of the energy inflows, and all of the temperature outflows.

        Any object that is above absolute zero in temperature, will radiate. Period.

        From the perspective of the 15C object, the -17C object is covering up something (space) which is even colder. (Closer to -270C)
        Since the -17C object is warmer than the -270C object the -17C will radiate more. In this case, much more.

        As a result, since the -17C object is covering up the -270C object, from the perspective of the 15C object, the 15C object is now receiving more radiation than it used to.

        As a result, the 15C object WILL get warmer.

        • Mark W

          Handwavium nonsense.

          Put these two in a closed system. The energy will flow from hot to cold until they reach equilibrium. The amount of energy in the system does not change.

          Unplug that garage refrigerator and see what happens in month.

          Q = sigma A (Thot^4 – Tcold^4) is not the “net” radiated energy, it’s the amount of work needed to create and maintain that energy imbalance.

          • re: “The energy will flow from hot to cold”

            How does a mirror work?

            Take a ‘source’, flashlight (LED) or Tungsten bulb – does the bulb or LED ‘warm’ the mirror?

        • MarkW,

          Your understanding is wrong.

          A cold body cannot warm up a hot body even more through radiation. It does not happen through radiation nor through conduction.

          • Another Joe 2:58am, here’s an experiment I conduct in the NH every night at my summer cottage outside the kitchen window always in the shade of the sun. The well water pump is outside in an insulated cabinet. A 40watt light bulb I can control over the internet kept the inside temperature at 50F when the outside temperature is at 26F as it was last night when I checked it over the internet.

            Today, the outside air temperature is at 38F and the cabinet temperature reads 52F. By your reasoning “A cold body cannot warm up a hot body even more through radiation….nor through conduction.” If correct, then will not allow this to happen.

            Here I have shown you data that does counter your reasoning as incorrect – a colder body (the atm.) going from 26F to 38F has warmed a warmer body from 50F to 52F with no change in the 40W bulb.

            Your reasoning is shown to be faulty by experiment.

          • Trick,

            nice name. Did you think this through?

            Was it the outside ambient that changed the temperature?

            For Earth the outside ambient does not change the same way it did for your experiment.

            So given the same input and the same ambient how does a cold body make a warm body warmer? It does not!

          • ”Was it the outside ambient that changed the temperature?”
            Yes.

            ”For Earth the outside ambient does not change the same way it did for your experiment.”

            The location of the experiment was on Earth using Earth’s natural atm.

            ”So given the same input and the same ambient how does a cold body make a warm body warmer?”

            When the cold body replaces an even colder body such as in my experiment because entropy is produced. You are mistakenly using the 2LOT as some sort of heat law when it is a law about entropy.

          • Trick,

            so it gets to another steady state due to a change in the outside condition.

            This is not happening on Earth.

            BTW, did you leave the window open in the room?

            You need to allow for convective cooling, otherwise your model is not valid representation of the atmospheric conditions.

          • No common windows in my cabinet Joe. There is convection above the light bulb allowing for convective cooling as valid representation of the atmospheric conditions in the troposphere. A change in the outside condition (or inside condition) is continuously happening on Earth – both are measured.

        • Trick,

          I think you do not understand that you have a circular argument in your reasoning.
          If what you say was true then the atmosphere gets warmer and in return the surface gets warmer. But since the surface heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer and so must the surface.
          Where exactly does this process stop in your opinion?

          • Any out of balance condition stops warming when steady state temperatures are achieved with my 40 watt bulb. No circular argument. In that condition energy in=energy out.

          • Trick,

            can you confirm that you understand that the surface is the main heat source for the lower troposphere?
            Your light bulb as no way of impact on the outside temperatures.
            But if surface temperatures go up so does the temperature of the atmosphere.

            Please explain how there is no circular argument when you compare this to your light bulb? Does the light bulb heat the souroundings that much?

          • ”Please explain how there is no circular argument when you compare this to your light bulb?”

            My premises are independent of my conclusion.

            The 40w light bulb maintains a steady state cabinet temperature I monitor over the internet when the atm. conditions are steady state, protecting the pump from freezing & cracking its case. I observe when the cooler atm. temperature goes up after dawn & I observe so does the warmer cabinet temperature.

            Sometimes I can even shut the bulb off day or night when outside is above freezing – and the cabinet T heads towards ambient temperature.

          • Your experiment lends nothing to explain the ambient temperature.

            Your light bulb is independent from the ambient and you can even switch it off.

            Atmosphere depends on surface warming. This is a connected system. Yours is not.

            It is not a representation of the atmospheric conditions and the interactions with the surface.

          • Trick doesn’t get that this is very simple physics.
            His cabin is in contact with the atmosphere outside. How quickly the cabin releases / loses heat to the surrounding atmosphere depends on two things.
            How well the walls are insulated and what temperature it is outside.
            The temperature inside the cabin is only controlled by the light bulb (the amount of energy) and the conduction between the cabin’s walls and atmosphere.

            Sorry, and of course if there is wind or stagnant air on the outside.

          • ”and what temperature it is outside.”

            Yes, olav. That is the point. Another Joe objected that “A cold body cannot warm up a hot body”; his meaning being the atm. temperature outside my cabinet in NH winter “cannot warm up a warmer body”. My experiment demonstrates the temperature outside does matter as you write thus a colder body being replaced by a less colder body CAN warm up a warmer body in this circumstance.

      • “How can any gas at -17ºC put out radiation that can warm the 15ºC surface. The “science” fails right there.”

        It doesn’t fail, rather it is you that fails to understand the concept.
        The surface does not reject its (-17C gas’s) energy just because it is radiating at 27C(say).
        There is no violation of the 2nd LoT (that is net energy transfer).
        What it does is to slow the surface’s rate of cooling (absent of absorbed SW).
        It is GHGs at a higher temp lower down that back-radiate most to the surface.
        IOW: it is an integration of all the separate absorption/re-emission/collisions going on between that -17C gas and the surface that is required.

        • Anthony,

          you fail to understand the problem at hand. Something cold does not make something warm warmer. This is wrong climate science conjecture.

          You could try to warm a spoon on some snow. You can dip the spoon into the snow (Conduction) or hold it just over the snow. If the spoon heats up from your hands you are doing it wrong.

      • There, you;re mistaken, That -17° C is a lot warmer than the minus 270° C of outer space, and slows down the rate of cooling at Earth’s surface. Using your argument, one wouldn’t wear a jacket in the winter because the temperature of the jacket is much less than temperature of your body, Using your arguent, wearing a jacket in the winter is silly because, How can any (jacket at 15ºC) put out radiation that can warm the (37ºC human body). The “science” fails right there.

        • “The “science” fails right there”.
          Keep forgetting there are excellent exponents of D-K syndrome here.

          Look, the point is that all objects radiate.
          But that space does the least.
          An object at -17C will radiate more than one at -270C.
          Therefore the GHG constituents of the atmosphere will reduce the rate of cooling relative to one without and with terrestrial LWIR going through it transparently to space.

          • Reducing the rate of cooling is not warming.

            Try that statement with some logic.

            For example try to warm something up from -17 Deg C to Deg by reducing the cooling.

            Good luck!

        • Alan says:
          That -17° C is a lot warmer than the minus 270° C of outer space, and slows down the rate of cooling at Earth’s surface.

          Exactly — it’s as simple as that. How some cannot comprehend this is — incomprehensible. And the Second Law (as some blather on about cluelessly) is not involved in this AT ALL — First Law energy conservation is all that is required.

          • Reducing the rate of cooling is not warming.

            Try that statement with some logic.

            For example try to warm something up from -17 Deg C to Deg by reducing the cooling.

            Good luck!

        • What a weird concept. The jacket is acting as an insulator to slow down the loss of heat from your body to the cooler atmosphere. It’s nothing to do with the jacket heating your warmer body by radiation.

          • I copy here my own comment below:

            This is for those people who have no idea (or do not approve the fact) on that the energy balance fluxes are based on the observations, I quote a few sentences from the paper of Kato et al. (2018) “Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product”.

            Direct quotations from this paper: “TOA and surface irradiances are derived nearly independently. We use surface observations to evaluate EBAF-surface irradiances. The geographical location of surface buoy and land-surface sites used in this study’s validation is shown in Fig. 9. The caption of Fig. 9 is like this: Location of 46 buoys (blue diamond) and 36 land-surface sites (white diamond) where downward irradiances used in validation were taken (after Rutan et al. 2015).”

            This is a simple piece of evidence that there is an encompassing network of ground and sea surface measurement stations totaling 81 together, which do measure the downward LW radiation from the atmosphere.

            This is the basic reason that ALL ENERGY BALANCE DIAGRAMS have this LW downward flux in their presentations.

          • “…sigh…”

            Roy W. Spencer, you are a giant but sometimes giants have to come down to the level of mere mortals.

            You push this back radiation thing, and even though you do not consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a problem, all you are doing is weaponising climate change alarmists to accuse you of not taking the climate emergency seriously. They probably think you are acting against them by appeasing the role of atmospheric CO2.

            Is there one scientific paper in the history of scientific papers that provides evidence of the surface warming effects of atmospheric CO2 and please don’t quote Feldman et al (2015)?

            I dont’t hink so.

          • re: “You push this back radiation thing,”

            Can you explain how the Yagi-Uda antenna works?

            Can you explain how a mirror works?

            Can you explain how a lightly-silvered (one-way) mirror works?

            Are you at all familiar with IR Spectroscopy?

            Can you describe the resonant ‘motion’ between the individual atoms making up the H2O or the CO2 molecules?

            Do you further understand these ‘resonances’ correlate with Electro-magnetic spectral absorption and emission ‘lines’?

            What do you suppose happens if you place a number of these CO2 or H2O molecules between the earth’s warm LWIR emitting surface and space?

          • Ah yes, I see you are back with your religious convictions that anyone who believes that CO2 is capable of influencing the climate is as bad as those who claim that CO2 is going to kill.

            We spend all our time complaining about how bad the science is on the other side, yet you want us to completely abandon science in order to “avoid giving any benefit” to the other side.

          • Calm down _Jim.

            Just make your point instead of asking irrelevant questions and showing off.

            “What do you suppose happens if you place a number of these CO2 or H2O molecules between the earth’s warm LWIR emitting surface and space?”

            Does it set the planet on fire?

          • leitmotif, there are lots of measurements of back radiation even over longer periods:
            https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/

            Most is from water vapor, but it is easy to make a differentiation between water vapor and CO2, as that has its specific wavelengths where water is not active.
            That is what Feldman e.a. did.
            Any radiant energy that comes in from the sky adds energy to the surface. If the surface warms up or not is a question of balance between what is absorbed and emitted, in this case the balance for IR alone is more loss than gain, but without greenhouse gases there was only loss the IR range, thus lower temperatures of the surface…

          • Ferdinand Engelbeen.

            Science of Doom? Really? is that the guy who has been getting his @rse kicked for many years on his own blog?

          • “We spend all our time complaining about how bad the science is on the other side, yet you want us to completely abandon science in order to “avoid giving any benefit” to the other side.”

            MarkW, your understanding of science is consensus; mine is the scientific method. Just become a climate change alarmist and pay homage to anthropogenic CO2 and stop pretending to be a lukewarmer.

          • leitmotif,

            If you want to be taken serious about using the scientific method, then don’t shoot at the messenger and show the errors in the message…

            There are lots of measurements of back radiation. Radiation is energy and with 99% of that energy absorbed in the IR range, that does increase the energy of the surface.
            If that “heats” the surface is a matter of balance, but without GHGs the balance is more negative than with GHGs. That is all what matters.

            It is not because there is a “consensus” based on faulty climate models that everything that is said by the “consensus” is wrong…

          • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

            what does back radiation have to do with warming? Nothing!

            It is merely an aspect of insulation, which prevents cooling but it does not warm.

            Since we are looking for a source of warming, we need to look elsewhere.

          • Another Joe

            I only said that back radiation is energy and when that hits the surface, 99% or so is absorbed and increases the energy of the surface. That is certainly true.

            If that “warms” the surface is a matter of balance, in this case the balance gets less negative than without back radiation from GHGs. Thus indeed more or less comparable to a blanket: the loss to space is lower.

          • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

            “I only said that back radiation is energy and when that hits the surface, 99% or so is absorbed and increases the energy of the surface. That is certainly true.”

            No it isn’t. You will not learn it, but here it goes. It can only increase the energy content of the surface if the radiation from the atmosphere transfers more energy than the surface loses itself by radiation.

            Since the atmosphere has only a small bandwidth to radiate in, the atmosphere can be much warmer and still does not increase the energy content of the surface. It simply cannot do this.

            The rest of your talk might convince you, but less cooling is not warming.

          • Another Joe,

            Sorry, but I am right:

            Back radiation is a matter of photons and photons are packets of energy.
            If such a packet hits the surface, then it adds to the energy of the surface. Point.

            That is independent of the total radiation energy balance. Indeed, there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics, as never more energy can be send back to the surface than was emitted by the same surface. But the latter is about the total energy balance, not the energy that is added from the atmosphere to the surface.

          • Mr. Engelbeen,

            you are trying semantics to turn a less cooling into a warming.

            Adding energy makes a body warmer. The added energy is called heat.

            You are claiming that atmospheric radiation ADDS energy to the surface.

            This is still wrong as this would amount to a warming.

            What is happening is, that the surface in most cases radiates more energy away and the difference to the incoming radiation is the heat loss of the surface.

            Your semantics do not help with real physics.

        • Dont you forget what is really warming you?

          The Jacket is merely an insulation, but it does not make you warmer.

          Try put a block of concrete in a Jacket and see how warm the concrete gets.

          • Thanks Ferdinand. You made this atmospheric LW radiation to be real thing clear enough. If somebody cannot accept or understand that radiation comes in forms of energy packages called photons and when these photons are absorbed this energy cannot disappear, then it is a mission impossible to do anything more. But as we know, after reading the comments of this blog story, there are many of those like “Another Joe”.

          • Antero,

            Grasping straws?

            You can only try to explain how the atmospheric LW radiation adds to the heat content of the surface. Most of you try and all will fail, because it does not!

            The very easy part here is to understand what difference there is of the terms and meaning of heat and energy.

          • “You can only try to explain how the atmospheric LW radiation adds to the heat content of the surface.”

            Fortunately Joe is wrong about this or my outdoor insulated cabinet w/well water pump would have frozen solid this winter and it has not. Still works just fine because like in my cabinet increasing “the atmospheric LW radiation adds to the heat content of the surface.”

          • Trick,

            If the atmosphere was warming so much, why did you have to build a cabinet in the first place?
            According to your wrong understanding the atmosphere warms, but in fact your pump would freeze! Why?
            Can you see the irony in this one?

            Is the atmosphere the cabinet I am asking? No its not!

          • Because the atm. warming from 15F to 25F at dawn in NH winter is not good for my well water pump, means I have to use an insulated cabinet with a 40w incandescent bulb. There is no irony. The atm. is not the cabinet in this drama, the atm. plays itself.

          • Fancy that,

            Trick admits “The atm. is not the cabinet in this drama, the atm. plays itself.”

            So where is the warming effect of the atmosphere if I might ask?
            Thanks Trick, no answer needed.

      • Please read further comments below. The radiation from the atmosphere is based on the measurements. Measurements.

      • It can’t. Those of us that prefer the actual laws of physics are pointing out that their conceptualization is erroneous, not that a body at a lower temperature doesn’t emit LIR to a body at a higher temperature.

      • “How can any gas at -17ºC put out radiation that can warm the 15ºC surface.”

        It can’t but many of those who replied to your comment don’t seem to understand the difference between radiation and heat.

        See the comment by Rod further down.

        • Actually it can and does, as explained over and over again.

          Interesting that you have never attempted to explain why the above posters are wrong, you just declare them to be idiots because they don’t worship as you do.

          • I just did explain why, MarkW. You just happen to be stuck in this misconception that radiation is the same as heat.

            Where is your evidence that back radiation is a real forcing that actually transfers heat? I’ll save you the trouble; there isn’t any.

            Aren’t you the guy who reckons he can heat his home by filling it with huge blocks of ice? Ice, say at -1C, will be radiating into your 20C home and raising the temperature? Wonder why it has not caught on, my little stalker?

          • When you have to lie about what others are saying, then you might as well go ahead and admit that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            I never said that radiation is the same as heat. I pointed out that they can be and are converted back and forth, from one to the other.

            I realize that even you know how indefensible your position is, which is why you have to go all Nick Stokian on us and try to divert attention with side irrelevancies.

          • Beyond that, give up on the analogies, you are so bad at it that if you weren’t an idiot, you would be embarrassed.

            I never said that you can heat your house by filling it with ice, that’s your mental aberation.

            I’m trying to decide if you are too mentally deficient to actually understand the arguments that I am making, or if you are so desperate to protect your religious convictions that you are willing discard what little self respect you have left.

            The analogy that I gave is still up there. Disagree with it if you can. Don’t ignore it and pretend I said something else.

          • MarkW.

            You are beyond hope. I don’t have to go back far in these blogs but I will if I have to but didn’t you say that if it radiates it heats or something like that?

            You are just a closet climate change alarmist who hasn’t come out yet.

            CO2 DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SURFACE WARMING. NO EVIDENCE. GET THAT INTO YOUR WARMIST HEAD.

            I don’t agree with Nick Stokes but compared to him you are Diane Abbott.

          • leitmotif,

            Isn’t it just a question of definition?

            Radiation is energy, which can be measured and quantified.
            GHGs send back radiation that they catch from the surface. Thus they add energy to the surface.
            If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere, there would be a balance between incoming energy from the sun and outgoing radiation from the surface to the top of the atmosphere and beyond.
            With GHGs in the atmosphere, more energy than from the sun alone hits the surface, thus the surface warms up until the point that incoming and outgoing energy are equal again.
            Thus CO2 contributes to surface warming…

          • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

            repeating of something wrong, does not make it right.

            If what you say was right we would experience much higher temperatures than there is.

            Temperatures would be feasible on natural surfaces, but they have not been reported.

            Simply because there is no addition of energy to the surface by back radiation.

            You are still describing a process that slows cooling as warming.

          • Another Joe,

            If what you say was right we would experience much higher temperatures than there is.

            We do experience much higher temperatures than expected from the incoming solar energy, that is measured and is some 33 C higher than should be according to the solar energy alone.

            The 345 W/m2 IR is really measured back radiation that adds energy to the surface and causes higher temperatures than expected.
            In balance, incoming solar + back radiation equals outgoing IR radiation, thus no thermodynamic law is violated.

            If you would start with an atmosphere without GHGs, outgoing IR would equal incoming SW at the surface.
            Add some GHGs and in first instance there would be an imbalance at the surface: more energy is coming in (Sw + back radiation) than is going out (LW). Thus there is a real heating up of the surface. Which increases the outgoing LW until SW + BR = LW

          • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

            as long as you claim that energy is ADDED to the surface you will be wrong.

            The discourse with you will stop here. You seem to be unable to explain the effect of warming by merely a process that slows cooling.
            In order for something to cool to a certain temperature it hast to have a higher temperature to begin with.

            You fail to explain how the surface would be able to get to a higher temperature as it is now by LESS cooling.

          • Two more observations.

            Firstly, Dr, Spencer wrote that Dr. Ollila claims that the energy balance of my figure 2 violates the physical laws. By reading my story anybody can see that I said just opposite that the energy balance is according to the physical laws. What I said also was, that the GHE effect definition of the IPCC is against physical laws because 155 W/m2 absorption energy cannot alone create LW radiation of 345 W/M2 to the surface.

            Secondly, those commentators thinking that this LW radiation of 345 W/m2 by the atmosphere does not add energy to the surface has to show one more critical thing. The surface, the atmosphere, and the TOA are in energy balance because otherwise they would cool down or warm up continuously. If the only incoming energy source to the surface would be SW radiation of 165 W/m2, then “how on the Earth” the surface could emit radiation of 395 W/m2 and even release two other energy fluxes namely latent heating 94 W/m2 and sensible heating 24 W/m2? It is not a coincidence that the measured downward LW flux of 345 W/m2 fills this gap perfectly. If you cannot approve the physical explanation of the heating capability of LW flux 345 W/m2, then you really went to the dark side of science.

          • Antero 12:15am, the GH effect of the IPCC is illustrated in Fig. 1 of top post. Inspection shows the IPCC does not claim as you write: “155 W/m2 absorption energy “ alone is the GH effect. Fig. 1 clearly shows 340.3 all-sky emission to the surface NOT 155 as you claim.

            Your Fig. 2 is the same as Fig. 1 except the time and duration of observation is different as I already detailed for you.

            The issue must arise entirely due to your semantics as Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show same atm. thermodynamic physics over different observation times. Or point out a difference in basic atmosphere thermodynamics between Fig 1 and Fig. 2.

          • To Trick. What is the GH effect definition of the IPCC? You did not read but you looked at the diagram what is NOT what the IPCC says:
            “The definition of the GH effect, according to Assessment Report 5 (2013) is: “The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).

            This is simple and clear enough. The GH effect according to the IPCC is the LW radiation only = 155 W/m2. It is not the same as 345 W/m2 or even 270 W/m2 what is my definition. It looks like you have not read the text or you do not believe this cheating. Maybe you are not the only one. I have not notices any comments on this issue. Good or bad, I do not know.

          • IPCC: ” “The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).”

            In Fig. 1 the “The downward directed component of this LWR” is shown as 340.3.

            In Fig. 2 the “The downward directed component of this LWR” is shown as 345.
            The only difference is the period and length of observation between Fig. 1 & 2.
            —–
            Antero: “The GH effect according to the IPCC is the LW radiation only = 155 W/m2.” No, Antero uses different words than the IPCC, meaning a semantic difference exists not an atm. thermo. difference. I have read the text and compared the figures.

            If you want to go with Antero’s “what is my definition” as I pointed out 8:16pm:

            IPCC Fig. 1: 158.4+86.4+18.4=263.2 (263.2=340.3-77.1) defined taking out the sun load on the atm.

            Antero Fig. 2: 155+91+24=270 (270=345-75) defined taking out the sun load on the atm.

            So after reading the text and examining the Figures, I do find that IPCC and Antero have only minor observation period differences in regards multiannual “GH effect energy” recycling between the surface and the atmosphere. Any major difference I can find is only definition semantics.

            A similar semantic situation will exist if compare Dr. Spencer and Antero’s exact words and defn.s, no major atm. thermo. issue will be found there either.

      • @John Tillman

        “Yes, technically how the GHE works is to raise the effective emission height.”

        I disagree with that.
        Convection muddies the GHE concept. So to isolate the the idea, we could imagine a greenhouse on the moon (glass is mostly transparent to the downwelling solar, and mostly opaque to the upwelling LW infrared…. just like GHG’s).

        Whether the the top of the greenhouse is 2 meters high, or 20 meters high, makes no difference. The greenhouse floor warms to the same temperature either way.

        • Not only convection. An air mass that appears to us to be motionless is very far from motionless. Air at the temperature and density of our atmosphere has trillions of molecular collisions every second. The biggest misconception from the back radiation hypothesis is that it treats the atmosphere as a motionless solid with zero thermal conductivity.

          • Anyone ever wonder why thermodynamics is phrased in weird formalism and restricted definitions? Maybe to avoid the whole “everything radiates” argument. Three modes of energy transfer right? Convection conduction and radiation. Temperature is an abstraction like energy. Energy is the ability to do work yes? If system A and system B are in thermal contact and there is no observable change the two systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium. By definition they are at the same temperature. The unwritten law is “temperature difference drives energy transfer in a thermodynamic system”. If things are at the same temperature there is no observable change. That is why we don’t worry about radiation from something colder or at the same temperature. It is built into the definition of temperature.

          • Robert,

            I agree that the back radiation makes no difference. You will find that you thoughts do line up with the Standard Atmosphere calculations and radiation as seen at the TOA.

          • Easy done.

            Take a house paint the ceiling black so it kind of back radiates all your floor radiation.

            Open all the windows in the house and measure the temperatures.

            Compare with static temperatures before you opened the windows.

            Explain the temperatures

        • Convection occurs whether GHGs average 25,300 ppm or 25,400 ppm with an extra CO2 molecule per 10,000 dry air molecules. Or maybe a bit more, if the added CO2 molecule does in fact lead to more atmospheric H2O as well.

      • Raising the effective emission height also raises the surface area from which the amount of energy can be radiated. This in turn lowers the amount of energy per square meter radiated as from a larger surface area. Further diminution may occur because of SB.
        Not sure why no one can see this .
        240 W/m-2 at 100 km out is theoretically 390 at earth surface level.
        No loss of energy involved at all. Certainly not 155 W/m-2

        • @angech

          Good idea, but if you do the math you will find the difference in surface areas is negligible.

    • Undersea volcanoes. Each few years the number we find grown exponentially. 15 years ago they thought there were dozens, then hundred, then thousands. Now it’s understood there are at least 1 million. That’s a lot of extra heat being put into the system.

    • dai,

      I totally agree with this….

      “The heat accumulated in the atmosphere, and thus heating it, is proportional to the time taken for it to be transferred to space. If this is instant, then no heating.”

      …. but have reached the opposite conclusion WRT how it applies to the GHE. Here is something I wrote just the other day,

      “With no GHGs, radiation travels spaceward in a strait line at the speed of light. If you think of the atmosphere as a box, then these joules leave the box in a fraction of a second.

      When thermalized, the same quanta of energy travels at maybe 2 or 3 MPH in the direction of space. Some of the energy travels laterally (advection), and some sinks back towards the surface (subsides) or is returned as rain.
      So yes, a huge increase in residence time as a result of thermalization.”

    • Dai,
      Try to think of it this way. The surface temp of 288 C radiates upward 390 W/m^2 by SB radiation equation. O2 an N2 are transparent to IR. The 390 W/m^2 would just radiate to outer space which is 3 C. Since only 240 is warming the surface, the surface would cool down.
      However H2O and CO2 gas mixed in with that transparent N2 and O2 (and at the same temperature as the N2 and CO2) emit IR because of their temperature, back down to the surface, which is the radiative greenhouse effect keeping the surface at 288C.

      I used to have a prof who said “ calculate the radiative heat transport from a body from Q=K ( Thot^4-Tcold^4) so that you don’t make erroneous calculations that break laws of thermodynamics”.

    • Exactly, d davies. Bulk atmosphere warming includes that from heatflows in convective transfers of heat to the upper troposhere from the surface that are not significantly contributing to absorptive/ emissive activity of near surface GHG (these lower layers of the atmosphere are being bypassed – thunderstorm development in the tropics for example).

      Heated water from the tropics flowing northward in ocean currents is another source of “delayed” exit of sun’s energy back to space. The air of Scandinavia and other northerly parts of Europe are significantly warmed by waters from the Gulf of Mexico.

      Essentially any heat flows in the system travelling slower than the speed of light toward outer space has to warm up the atmosphere to the degree that this “old” sun energy still in the system is added to newly arrived sun energy.

      Scientists who even understand the warming effect grace of the presence of an atmosphere with, and even without GHGs given dry convective/advective transport (and the often overlooked ocean currents as non GHG atmospheric warmers) get tongue-tied in trying to explain it. Roy Spencer maybe could use some of this simplified explanation in future efforts to convince some of the wrongheaded.

      • Gary
        I’ve been blogging about the idea for several years, with a very luke warm reception. Nice to see I’m not alone.

        A really simple example:

        There are two little holes in a large box, through which a steady stream of bees are coming and going. Every second one bee flies in and every second one bee flies out. How many bees are in the box?

        It depends on how long, on average, each bee stays inside before leaving.

        ****
        You can think of the box as Earth’s atmosphere, and each bee as a joule.

  2. Has anybody ever put a greenhouse in a greenhouse to measure the flux? I guess that wouldn’t be fair, but working in a greenhouse might.

      • Why would it be a stupid argument?

        Did you not find a better way of introducing your finding?

        There is nothing new about the concept and its done in the opposite direction with solar collectors, that are good at absorbing light, but pretty bad at emitting infrared.

        The temperature of solar collectors can this way even exceed the temperature of 120 Deg C.

        There in no concentration or magnifying of solar light necessary to achieve this.

        Back to the topic. Can a greenhouse in a greenhouse get hotter than the greenhouse?

  3. Roy fails to mention both the adiabatic lapse rate of the troposphere in his description and the role of ozone in the stratosphere for warming with altitude. I do not understand those omissions in describing the GHGE through our atmosphere.

    Without understanding the variable troposphere’s adiabatic lapse rate (variable with water vapor content), that is that generally T decreases with falling pressure = vertical altitude, one cannot understand the GHGE in the troposphere. And it is ozone, with its strong UV absorption, that drives stratospheric warming with altitude during daylight hours.

    And it is because the lapse rate reverses in the stratosphere where there is very little water vapor and increasing ozone, the GHGE also reverses there.

    • It is a question of energy fluxes, which makes an energy balance. An energy balance is an average situation of the energy fluxes for a time period in a minimum of a year. Many of them are observation-based and therefore there no sense to argue if they are real or just academic imagination. Incoming SW insolation measured by satellites as well the outgoing LW radiation: 240 W/m2, SW radiation flux on the surface measure by the Earth-wide measurement network 165 W/m2. LW radiation emitted by the surface 395 W/m2 measured in the same way as the downward LW radiation emitted by the atmosphere 345 W/m2. LW absorption by GH gases and clouds is 367-212 = 155 W/m2. SW absorption is the difference of 240-165 = 75 W/m2. Latent ´heating is based on the yearly precipitation of about 1 m. Sensible heating is an assessment value but it can be calculated also by closing the budget.

    • An excellent point, Joel, as the upper airs have a profound effect on the weather systems below: How they form, dissipate heat, and expire. A case of the tail truly appearing to wag the dog.

      I’ve seen descriptions (which of course I cannot find right now) where people have created turbulent fluid (water covered by gas) systems based on a spinning globe or plate with/without extra thermal fluxes. These will often self-organise into a variety of quasi-stable states of turbulent/convective cells, similar to observed weather systems. A great demonstration of apparently unpredictable order-from-chaos. What struck me as more remarkable was that the pattern of these turbulent cells could be changed completely by substituting a different gas resting atop the moving liquid.

      • michael says:
        An excellent point, Joel, as the upper airs have a profound effect on the weather systems below: How they form, dissipate heat, and expire. A case of the tail truly appearing to wag the dog.

        No. The engine that drives the weather is the heated surface, particularly the tropical oceans. If you recall, the phrase “tail wagging the dog” is meant to point out absurdities.

  4. Convection removes energy from the sunlit side of earths surface. However as the air rises this energy is converted from kinetic energy to potential energy. And potential energy cannot be radiated to space regardless of green house gas. As the earth rotates the earths surface moves into darkness and the previously convected air falls back to the surface. The potential energy is converted to kinetic energy which warms the air which warms the surface.

    Thus circulation reduces IR radiation to space by converting KE into PE which cannot be radiated. This reduced IR radiation energy is then available to warm the surface.

    Given the volume of air that moved up and down ea h day, the the magnitude of energy converted from KE to PE and back to KE, it would seem that this effect t must also significantly warm the surface.

    • Any air rising during the day is offset by an equal amount of air falling at the same time. At night the air generally stabilizes and you have no convection. If you fly a light airplane it is very obvious.. very bumpy during the day with up and downdrafts until you reach the base of the clouds but smooth as silk at night.

      On a grander scale, you have large high and low pressure systems where air is net rising or falling. An extreme example is a hurricane where air is rapidly rising in the center where it spreads out and cools into cirrus clouds at high altitudes and the transported heat gets radiated out into space.

      I’m not really sure what you are saying here. Any updrafts from day heating has an associated downdraft. The air doesn’t wait until nighttime to return down.

      • The science has the same and the only explanation for the trade winds. The cause is the so-called sensible heating, which means that the warm air moves upward in the tropical zone to the upper troposphere, where this air moves toward the poles, the air cools down and starts to move back to the tropical zone. Because of the rotation of the Earth, the trade wind directions blow from north-east in the northern hemisphere and from the south-east in the southern hemisphere.

      • So how does the air rise in the first place? Does the rising air rise because the falling air is falling or does the falling air fall because the rising air is rising? Perpetual motion everybody!

        Or is it all because solar radiation causes air to rise, gravity binds it to Earth, and a portion of that energy is returned as gravitational potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy?

        • Water vapor is lighter than air molecularly and heated air also rises both operate to raise the airmass.

    • Two problems with your scenario.
      1) While adiabatic cooling does reduce the temperature of the gas, the gas is still warmer than the surrounding air and hence radiates more energy.
      2) You are ignoring the role of water vapor in the process.

      • 1) will add to the cooling effect the radiation from the gases has
        2) explain what the role of water vapor is!

  5. I am interested to note that the new CMIP6 studies will for the first time be including Solar Particle Forcing in their model comparisons. The global energy budget diagrams all ignore this aspect of solar variability. I would be interested in your opinion about this.

    https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Jackman/Matthes_2017.pdf
    “This paper describes the recommended solar forcing data set for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5. The solar forcing is provided for radiative properties, namely total solar irradiance (TSI), solar spectral irradiance (SSI), and the F10.7 index as well as particle forcing, including geomagnetic indices Ap and Kp, and ionization rates to account for effects of solar protons, electrons, and galactic cosmic rays. This is the first time that a recommendation for solar-driven particle forcing has been provided for a CMIP exercise.”

  6. Roy
    ‘So, we are left with people like me trying to inform the public on issues which I sometimes consider to be a waste of time arguing about. I only waste that time because I would like for my fellow skeptics to be armed with good science, not bad science.”

    Kudos

    Here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg&t=1s

    No matter how many times you tell skeptics that GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling, they refuse to get it.

    This Video also explains why you need a PLANET SIZED LAB to test it

    Requirements
    1. warm surface below
    2. Cold air at the top ( a negative lapse rate)
    3. Vaccum at the top so that the energy loss is via radiation ONLY.

    That’s the lab set up boys. Planet sized.

    • No matter how many times you tell an english major that the CO2 molecule is not the control knob for global warming, he just never gets it.

      • So what is the “control knob” for global warming? Or are there, in fact, many factors that contribute to warming or cooling—Milankovitch cycles, CO2, methane, water vapor, cosmic rays seeding cloud formation, volcanic aerosols, cataclysmic asteroid collisions—of which the contribution of CO2, which is accumulating rapidly in the atmosphere, is fairly significant? Logarithmic, but still significant?

        The evidence suggests that the rapid buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is a significant cause of warming but the evidence (not the computer models) also indicates that it is nowhere near apocalyptic. As global population peaks (probably) in the next 30 years, and more nations become wealthy and technologically advanced, and energy use becomes more efficient and we (likely) transition to practical, cleaner forms of energy production and storage, it’s possible or even likely that atmospheric CO2 accumulation will stabilize or diminish somewhat. And if the accumulated CO2 manages to slow or postpone the next glacial cycle, that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

        • Where is this alleged evidence that CO2 is a major factor in the recent warmth.
          Remember correlation is not causation.
          Beyond that, even with this so called rapid rise of CO2, we still have 3 to 5C to go to back to the average temperature of the last 10,000 years.

      • Weird. Right? English majors not understanding simple English, or complex climate science. Seriously though, the scientific knowledge of today’s linguistic graduates is shockingly appalling.

    • Radiative loss only, agreed. But only from the ‘top’ of the atmosphere. All methods of cooling apply at the surface and it’s surface temp. we (don’t) worry about.

    • No matter how many times you tell skeptics that GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling, they refuse to get it.

      I object in the strongest possible terms to you lumping us all into the same basket. That’s bullsh*t and you know it. How many of us have spent hours explaining the physics to the naive and misinformed while all you do is take ignorant pot shots from the effing sidelines?

      You are as irresponsible as the looney tunes sky dragon buffoons themselves.

        • I’ll do that once you go and try to explain things to the out of control alarmists.
          Oh wait, you are one of the out of control alarmists.

        • Why don’t you? You seem to believe ~3% of ~0.04% of the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to warm driving a catastrophic change in climate (Climate is made up of an average of 30 years of weather so says the IPCC).

        • Why don’t you? You seem to believe ~3% of ~0.04% of the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to warm driving a catastrophic change in climate (Climate is made up of an average of 30 years of weather so says the IPCC).

      • Simple minds are reduced to lumping everyone into a few simple categories.
        Dealing with the complexity of the real world is beyond them.

        Not to different from believing that a hugely over simplified model of the atmosphere is a valid representation of that atmosphere.

    • “No matter how many times you tell skeptics that GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling, they refuse to get it.”

      That’s a distinction without a difference. GHGs warm the planet by reducing the rate of cooling, just as I can make a cold room warmer by closing a window in the winter and preventing the escape of heat.

      And its not just skeptics that say that GHGs warm the planet. That is, after all, the ritualistic mantra coming from the mouths of the “consensus” climate academics.

      • …just as I can make a cold room warmer by closing a window in the winter…

        (not if you don’t have a heat source in the room)

        • exactly. that is the simple part most miss. You must sustain the incoming energy to make the equations work and show “warming”

          If you turn off the heat, the room can NEVER get warmer than it was when you closed the window , ever! Closing the window slowed the rate of cooling in the room.

          also missing from all these equations is the Earth is itself adding heat to the budget.

        • “(not if you don’t have a heat source in the room)”

          So? The Earth has a heat source called the sun. By making it more difficult over time for the heat provided by the sun to escape to space, we thereby warm the Earth. Trying to say that GHGs don’t “warm” the earth because they don’t independently produce heat is silly – and I think that’s the point Mosher was making – but I wouldn’t explain it as being that GHGs reduce the rate of cooling “instead of” warming the Earth.

      • Kurt, you wrote “GHGs warm the planet by reducing the rate of cooling, …” I struggle trying to interpret that statement. Isn’t a reduced rate of cooling is still “cooling?” If I ignored all the details of heat sources and heat transfer and simply posted as a stand-alone statement: “The room is cooling at a non-zero rate, and that cooling is warming the room,” wouldn’t your response be “Say What?” The stand-alone statement is self-contradictory because it implies a room is simultaneously “cooling” and “warming.” No physics, just English.

        You don’t “make a cold room warmer by closing a window in winter and slowing down the escape of heat.” If there is a non-zero rate of cooling for both an open and a shut window, the room cools in both cases.

    • “they REDUCE the rate of cooling, “

      What a totally unsubstantiated piece of anti-science garbage that statement is. !

      Utter and complete BS. !

      • Not totally wrong. The GH effect can be compared to the insulation of the Earth even though its mechanism is completely different. In this sense, you can also say that it reduces the rate of cooling as does the insulation of the house. The prerequisite of the GH effect is the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere and the GH effect, our planet would be a very cold place.

        • Is Richard Lindzen one of the benighted skeptics who doesn’t understand the Greenhouse Effect?

          First of all, the Earth’s atmosphere is chaotic, so one explanation does not fit all conditions occurring in all times and places on the Earth’s surface and surrounding atmosphere.

          With that said, the lower Troposphere is where convection occurs and convection is the preponderant mode of heat transfer along with the temperature profile (lapse rate) of the atmosphere. As you get to certain altitude, the atmospheric gets more transparent to radiation to space, and radiative effects begin to dominate.

          It’s not like there is no radiative heat transfer taking place at lower elevations of some magic altitude where heat transfer suddenly flips to radiation. There is an “effective radiative” altitude where the temperature of the air at that level happens to be the same as the temperature of a Stefan-Boltzmann black body accounting for the heat loss to space, but this is the result of describing the system in simplified terms. Much like the Greenhouse Blanket with all of its accounting of forward radiation and backscatter and atmospheric absorption and reradiation is way oversimplified because convection is not even included.

          That said, what CO2 does as “greenhouse forcing” is that it raises the altitude-of-atmospheric-transparency to CO2. The temperature at ground level is hence raised through the adiabatic (dry or wet depending on atmospheric water vapor content) temperature lapse rate. The mechanism of the lower tropospheric lapse rate is compression heating of the convecting air parcels, with latent heat effects when water vapor is added.

          Quick, what causes a meteor or a supersonic aircraft to heat up? Compression heating, not friction, although friction plays an indirect role in the formation of the shock wave where the compressing takes place. What causes the surface of the Earth to be many degrees warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Compression heating of the convecting air parcels, between ground and the effective altitude where the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium with space.

          So forget about all of those arrows singing back and forth carrying heat by radiation. What warms the Earth above vacuum conditions is compression heating, where CO2 produces warming by raising (slightly) the altitude of radiative transparency giving radiative equilibrium to space.

          Argument-by-authority: this is what atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen is saying, and if someone here wants to lump him into the kook fringe, well . . .

          • Compression heating only works during compression. Tires being inflated get hot.
            Those same tires several hours later are at room temperature.

          • “What causes the surface of the Earth to be many degrees warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Compression heating of the convecting air parcels, between ground and the effective altitude where the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium with space.”

            I don’t believe this is correct. It’s the temporal act of compressing a gas that heats it up, not it’s absolute pressure. Imagine two canisters of propane sitting on a deck, one with twice the pressure of the other, yet the propane in each tank will have the same temperature. Take a can of compressed air and blow it on your computer to dust it off, and while the air inside is rapidly decompressing, it quickly cools but it then warms right back up to the same room temperature as it was before once you stop squeezing the trigger.

            I could maybe see an argument that if you could magically raise temperature aloft and hold it there, you reduce upwardly directed convective heat transfer, which is driven by vertical temperature differential, causing the surface temperature to rise until the the temperature difference is what it was before. But I can’t see how compression would have anything to do with it.

      • fred250: “What a totally unsubstantiated piece of anti-science garbage that statement is.”
        I must disagree, it is instead a totally pedantic piece of semantic garbage. Mr. Mosher is not “anti-science”, but his language is often anti-english, sorta.

        • SM is anti-scientific, since he believes that the scientific method should be replaced by expert consensus.

      • And that argument of theirs has been squashed many times by simply asking:

        Do better insulators have high or low absorptivity?
        Do better insulators have high or low emissivity?
        What is the absorbtivity and emissivity of CO2 relative to bulk air?

    • “GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling….”
      How well does this work for daytime temperatures at hot deserts which have low levels of water vapour in the atmosphere above them?

      • That is where the CO2 driven GHE has its greatest effect.
        There and higher in the atmosphere + the poles where it is driest.

        You need to apply meteorology to the heating part.
        Deserts are hot because …..
        They absorb solar quickly (sandy soils).
        Little wind to stir turbulently.
        Have an overlying subsided atmosphere that “caps convection” and confines convection (thus heat) to to a relatively shallow surface layer.

        • “Deserts are hot because …..”

          Antarctica is the largest desert on Earth. It ain’t hot.

          • “It ain’t hot”

            Get away!
            Don’t you think that that might have something to do with Antarctica being over the South Pole, having an average height of 8000ft being snow/ice covered and actually having a -ve GHE in winter (temperature actually increasing with height)?

          • “Don’t you think that that might have something to do with Antarctica being over the South Pole, having an average height of 8000ft being snow/ice covered and actually having a -ve GHE in winter (temperature actually increasing with height)?”

            You made they blanket statement that “deserts are hot”. I proved that statement false.

        • Deserts in general lose more heat to space than they receive from the sun per years of CERES data.

    • Steven Mosher,

      You said: “That’s the lab set up boys. Planet sized.”

      Agreed. Laboratory grade science can’t be performed at a planetary scale.

      Why do Climate Alarmist Climate Scientists present their case as if they use laboratory-grade instruments, laboratory-grade processes with laboratory-grade results?

    • Weird then that non-sceptics talk about CO2 warming the planet then.

      It should be global less-cooling, not global warming.

      Looking forward to you advocating for the change.

      • From a measurement point of view they look the same, stand at the back of your running fridge or air conditioner and tell us about the cooling.

    • No matter how many times we tell the believers that CO2 is NOT the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is, they refuse to believe it.

    • “No matter how many times you tell skeptics that GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling, they refuse to get it.”

      A source of confusion here is that a single word, “cooling”, is used to describe two very different ideas.

      1) output of thermal energy
      2) getting colder

      Using the second definition: if something is getting colder at a reduced rate, it is still getting colder.

      • In twelve hours, I wonder how much is the “reduced rate of cooling”.

        CO2 substantially emits, and yet CO2 is the gas given credit for “reducing the rate of cooling”.

        Nitrogen and oxygen do NOT substantially emit, and yet they do not get any credit for “reducing the rate of cooling”.

        To review, a highly infrared-emitting gas gets the credit for “reducing rate of cooling”, while a non-infrared-emitting gas gets NO credit for “reducing rate of cooling”.

        Seems backwards.

        • Robert Kernodle

          “Nitrogen and oxygen do NOT substantially emit, and yet they do not get any credit for “reducing the rate of cooling””

          They get no credit because they deserve no credit.

          • Snape March 13, 2020 at 7:09 pm

            “N2/02 have no way to raise the surface temperature higher than what the sun would do on its own.”

            Same goes for CO2 or any other gas.

            Its the sun all along that does the warming. Air is a good insulator. It does not need less cooling due to radiation since it also has less cooling from conduction.

        • That’s because it’s not the “emitting” part that matters, it’s the absorbing part that does.
          All molecules emit based on their temperature. The emission curve for all molecules is pretty much the same.
          infra-red absorbing gasses matter because they convert infra-red photons into heat and transfer that heat to other molecules in the atmosphere.

          PS: There are no non-infrared emitting gasses.

          • @ Another Joe

            “this is exactly what I said, and it is the reason why the back radiation is irrelevant for the discussion since convection and latent heat do their bits regardless what radiation does.”

            The outer wall of the vacuum chamber reflects and infrared back to the inner wall. This happens with or without CO2 being added to the chamber.

            Infrared, emitted by the surface or atmosphere, would have a free path to space if not reflected back by clouds or absorbed by GHG’s.

        • Oh whatever, I’m about to create a new thermos that has a chamber filled with CO2 instead of a vacuum. Wish me luck.

          Sarcasm aside, yes, it is backwards, back radiation hypothesis is standing on its head.

          • @Robert Turner

            Not backwards at all. N2/02 have no way to raise the surface temperature higher than what the sun would do on its own.

          • Robert, I agree 100%–at least I think I do, I’m never sure when people are being sarcastic. Put hot coffee at the same temperature in two thermos bottles (1) a vacuum thermos bottle, and (2) an identical thermos bottle where the vacuum space is filled with CO2 gas. Put both thermos bottles in the same room at a temperature lower than the temperature of the coffee. If greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) possess the property that they reduce the rate of cooling, then the coffee in the vacuum thermos bottle will reach room temperature before the coffee in the CO2 thermos bottle. I don’t think so.

            I collaborated with Peter C who performed just such an experiment–admittedly a rudimentary experiment, but an experiment nevertheless. For a description of that experiment see https://www.dropbox.com/s/6b8j73qf34qq3ad/final_peter_reed_paper_to_Joanne_Nova_unthreaded_01_pdf.docx?dl=0

            I wish you luck; but I won’t invest in your CO2 thermos bottle company. On second thought maybe I should. It seems that there are a lot of people who think the CO2 thermos bottle will cool at a reduced rate relative to the vacuum thermos bottle, and thus the CO2 thermos bottle will outperform vacuum thermos bottles.

          • @Reed Coray

            CO2 raises the surface temperature by producing back radiation.

            A vacuum thermos works mainly by restricting convection. If you replace the vacuum with C02, then:

            a) convection is no longer restricted.

            b) backradiation is in no way enhanced, because the thermos wall already reflects and emits radiation from the hot interior.

          • @Snape 1:34 am.

            You wrote: “ A vacuum thermos works mainly by restricting convection. If you replace the vacuum with C02, then: (a) convection is no longer restricted.” Even when the vacuum region is filled with a gas, there is very little convection in a thermos bottle at rest in a room—conduction maybe, but little or no convection. In fact, if all components (interior chamber, outer wall, etc.) of the thermos bottle are spherical with a common center, a symmetry argument could be made that convection can’t exist. In particular, for heat loss via convection to occur, CO2 gas must be moving from the chamber to the outer wall. But in a closed volume, like the vacuum region of a thermos bottle, such motion cannot happen forever–at some time and at some point(s) CO2 gas must return to the thermos bottle’s chamber. At what point(s) on the surface of a spherical thermos bottle chamber and at what point(s) on the surface of a spherical outer wall does this “return” take place? By symmetry, all points on the surface of both the outer wall and the chamber are identical.

            You wrote: “ A vacuum thermos works mainly by restricting convection. If you replace the vacuum with C02, then: (b) backradiation is in no way enhanced, because the thermos wall already reflects and emits radiation from the hot interior. ” I interpret this to mean that for the vacuum case the thermos wall is providing a certain amount of “backradiation,” and the addition of CO2 gas won’t change the total amount of “backradiation”—i.e., the sum of the “backradiations” from the CO2 gas and the thermos wall won’t change. That’s hard to believe, because if true the CO2 gas must know exactly how much “backradiation” exists from the thermos wall. For example, if the presence of the CO2 gas has no effect on the rate of “backradiation” from the thermos wall to the interior, then the added CO2 gas will contribute no “backradiation.” And if the presence of the CO2 gas has an effect (say a decrease) on the rate of “backradiation” from the thermos wall to the interior, then the added CO2 gas must exactly compensate for that decrease. Since the amount of “backradiation” from the thermos wall to its interior is a function of the thermos bottle geometry, such behavior would mean “backradiation” from CO2 gas in a thermos bottle is also a function of the thermos bottle geometry.

            In any event, independent of “how it happens,” the contention is made that greenhouse gases that surround an object will “warm” the object. CO2 in a vacuum thermos bottle surrounds the thermos bottle chamber but acts to cool, not warm, the contents of the chamber. Either abandon/caveat the contention or invalidate any experimental result(s) showing the contrary.

          • Reed
            Yes, without a vacuum chamber the coffee is cooled by conduction, so I agree that limiting conduction, not convection, is the main idea.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

            Same problem though, because when you replace the vacuum with CO2, you have defeated the purpose.

            The above is beside the point WRT your experiment, because as already mentioned the outer wall of the chamber already reflects and reemits radiation very efficiently. No reason I can see for CO2 to enhance this effect.

          • Snape,

            hold that thought:

            “CO2 raises the surface temperature by producing back radiation.
            A vacuum thermos works mainly by restricting convection. If you replace the vacuum with C02, then:
            a) convection is no longer restricted.”

            EXACTLY! The emitting atmosphere and the surface are the walls from you thermos.

            But the thermos is gas filled. There is no restrictions to convection in the atmosphere. For the same reason you think this impacts on the thermos to work it impacts on the GHE.

            Simply if the GHE was to work by radiation, convection has to be ignored.

          • @Another Joe

            Adding CO2 to the vacuum chamber defeats the purpose of the vacuum by enabling heat transfer by conduction and convection.

            This situation does not parallel the atmosphere because the atmosphere is not a vacuum. It is filled with the gasses O2/N2…… so conduction/convection are already enabled. Adding CO2 changes little in this regard.

            ****
            What the atmosphere DOESN’T have is an outer wall. Without clouds or GHG’s, surface radiation would have a free path to space.

          • Snape,

            this is exactly what I said, and it is the reason why the back radiation is irrelevant for the discussion since convection and latent heat do their bits regardless what radiation does.

    • Steven
      One thing you left out of your planet size lab is time. That is geological time. I have yet to see any correlation between CO2 levels and planetary temperature in geological time.

    • SM
      “No matter how many times you tell skeptics that GHGs don’t WARM the planet, they REDUCE the rate of cooling, they refuse to get it.“

      “As we will see, much confusion arises about the greenhouse effect due to its complexity, and the difficulty in expressing that complexity accurately with words alone. “

      “The most important net impact of the greenhouse effect on terrestrial temperatures is this:
      The net effect of a greenhouse atmosphere is that it keeps the lower atmospheric layers (and surface) warmer, and the upper atmosphere colder, than if the greenhouse effect did not exist.”

      Oh dear.
      There has to be another way to put it more clearly.

      The problem, SM, is that the sun warms the planet and the atmosphere.
      Not the GHG.
      You could make the atmosphere 50% CO2 and by itself with no energy added it would radiate away its energy and turn solid like all the other gasses on a large meteorite.

      The problem with GHG is that they form multiple innumerable layers in the atmosphere of increasing amount as they are concentrated nearer the surface. The both receive and radiate the sun’s energy, the IR energy from other GHG around them and from the surface. Plus the kinetic energy of the GHG and other gases.
      This leads to them reaching the right temperature to radiate more often closest to the ground.
      More energy, more motion, more heat.
      An earth atmosphere with GHG has a temperature profile like earth.
      GHG do not warm the atmosphere, they are part of the atmosphere.
      Their warmth is due to the radiative physics and that part of their radiation that goes backwards as well as that that goes forwards sideways is absorbed and recycles the process less and less as it gets higher til it escapes at TOA

      Phew, on second thoughts it is easier to play at semantics

      • The problem, SM, is that the sun warms the planet and the atmosphere.
        Not the GHG.

        Nice . . .

    • Can someone write an article on how the fact that most warming has occurred at night and during winter fits in with all this discussion? Does cooling in regions where cooling does occur, occur only during the day and summer? Just curious.

    • Steven, it is a small proportion of sceptics that you are referring to. But to round out your thinking, too, anything that moves surface emitted heat to outer space at less than the speed of light causes warming. It isn’t only GHG. Wet convective heatflow in the tropics largely bypasses much of the GHG effect in the lower tropo, but is part of the delay in exiting heat and warm ocean currents heat northerly atmospheres, e.g. Gulf Stream heats northern Europe atmosphere by about 5C and this sun heat is what, a couple of weeks old at destination.

  7. Heat and temperature are very different and not all Long Wave radiation is good at warming anything much.

    As an Engineering student I was taught that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a body. Heat or more relevantly here, radiation energy, is not the same as temperature. For example at the top of Mt Everest there is a very large amount of radiative short and long wave radiation, but last time I checked its pretty cool up there.

    So a large amount of radiative energy but low temperature. “Trapped heat” does not necessarily mean a higher temperature.

    So why is not all long wave radiation the same? In Quantum Physics 101 we learn that electrons orbit molecules in specific bands. If there isn’t enough energy in a photon of light energy to boost an electron to the next higher orbit, that photon is bounced or re-radiated away. It is not adsorbed.

    We also know that specific molecules absorb radiation in specific bands of wavelengths. CO2 only absorbs any radiation in three specific finger frequencies. Only one cocurs at a temperature found in the atmosphere.

    Wiens law governs the temperature of a body for a given radiated wavelength. Think themometer in ear technology. Using some online calculators and manually evaluating the formula, I get that CO2’s 15um wavelength equates to -80C. Please check or let me know if this is wrong, because it looks like CO2 can only radiate when at -80C. A radiated photon of energy from a molecule at -80C does not have the energy to boost any electron on any molecule that is warmer, gas, liquid or solid.

    So there may be a large amount of radiative energy hitting the lower atmosphere and ground but only the more energetic bandwidths will be able to warm the earth and Air.

    So the explanation of what’s happening is even more complex than is admirably described above.

    • “So the explanation of what’s happening is even more complex than is admirably described above.”

      Yes, it is. I have a feeling the comments are going to show us just how “unsettled” the science of CO2 “in the atmosphere” really is.

      CO2 does something in the atmosphere, but we’re not really sure exactly what it leads to, especially when it comes to feedbacks such as clouds offsetting any CO2 warming of the atmosphere. Clouds could offset all the warming CO2 might cause.

      We don’t know enough about CO2 in the atmosphere to be spending TRILLIONS of dollars on Windmills, or turning our economies and lifestyles upside down in order to reduce some theoretical warming from CO2.

      The “science” definitely is not settled. Most of CO2 science is guesswork. Just read the comments.

    • Do greenhouses that super saturate CO2 (800 to 1000ppm) have to spend more effort to heat or cool them than those maintained at ambient CO2?

      • Jean Parisot , the effect of CO2 is only interesting over the full height of the atmosphere (up to 70 km)
        If your greenhouse was 1 km in height, filling it with 1.000 ppmv CO2 would give an increase of less than 0.1 C (Modtran calculation) at the surface…

    • “Please check or let me know if this is wrong, because it looks like CO2 can only radiate when at -80C. A radiated photon of energy from a molecule at -80C does not have the energy to boost any electron on any molecule that is warmer, gas, liquid or solid.”

      OK.
      See ….
      https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-88f8072aa9883b478027d5961f2569b6

      The Earth’s peak emission at its grey body temp (255k) is near 15 micron, a major absorption band of CO2, and note, not fully covered by H2O.

      Also read the Summary here …..
      https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072

    • There is only about 36 W available from a surface at 288 K in the 14-16 micro range for CO2 absorption. There is an equation in my heat transfer book about calculating energy available per frequency range. Or use a quick calculator at
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

      If CO2 did what is claimed then we must have a change in the specific heat of air and CO2. NIST does not mention IR in the table of info about CO2.

      If CO2 emitted at 13 or 14 micro we should see it on flir as they go to 15.

      Lastly Hoyt Hottel demonstrated that CO2 has an emissivity of almost zero below 33 C.

      • CO2 has a absorption band at 15 micron.
        That is close to the Earth’s peak emission at 255K (the level at which most LWIR escapes to space and thus the temp that anything in space would measure as the Earth’s emission temp).

        Please show me otherwise on a CO2 absorption vs Earth emission graph, or via Modtran.

      • Shhh, specific heat and heat capacity are ignored when discussing this topic. All established science can be tossed out the window when talking climastrology.

    • All someone would need to do to clear so much confusion is actually link to a study showing how absorbed and emitted radiation from gases is at all connected to the kinetic energy of a gas.

      If the only way a gas can cool down is to radiate a photon (hypothetically), yet the temperature of a gas is almost entirely due to its translational kinetic energy, then there must be some relationship but I have never seen anyone actually point to any study showing it. Furthermore, for a solid or liquid to become a gas, the intermolecular energy must become high enough for that molecule to overcome intramolecular forces. But once that molecule undergoes the phase change, all of a sudden that intermolecular energy becomes translational kinetic energy, but I have never seen any study detailing the process.

      The back radiation hypothesis involves a lot of quantum mechanics, but I haven’t seen any quantum physicist talk much about it, support it, study it, or really contribute to the field in any way – almost like they have actual applied science to conduct.

    • Rod,
      You are wrong with the -80C, CO2 does absorb and emit 15 um radiation at any temperature.
      That is exactly the difference between a non-greenhouse gas and a greenhouse gas.
      A non-greenhouse gas or any other liquid or solid material follows Wiens law. Greenhouse gases do that too, but besides that, CO2 does absorb and emit 10.6 um radiation at any temperature, completely independent of Wiens law. Other GHGs do that for their own wavelengths.

      Take a CO2 laser: operating temperature around 100C, IR beam at 10.6 um, which melts steel at over 1.000 C:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
      Impossible if you were right…

  8. Just to toss a tiny wrench, we then have variable day length ,which influences temperatures enormously. Real solar absorption time may be as little as six hours or even nothing while heat escape has the rest of the twenty four. Hence the lovely eternal conflict between summer and winter.

  9. I have run into some problems discussing the GHG effect and would appreciate some feedback on my misunderstandings if I can ask sensible questions.

    “The complexity arises because the greenhouse effect involves every cubic meter of the atmosphere having the ability to both absorb and emit infrared (IR) energy. (And almost never are the rates of absorption and emission the same, contrary to the claims of many skeptics – IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not). The emission of this invisible radiation by everything around us is obviously more difficult to describe than the single-source Sun.
    The ability of air and clouds to absorb and emit IR radiation has profound impacts on energy flows and temperatures throughout the atmosphere, leading to the multiple infrared energy flow arrows (red) in the energy budget diagram originally popularized by Kiehl & Trenberth (Fig. 1)..”

    My first problem was that of energy in equaling energy out. From the diagram.
    There is *239.9 coming in all the time. *approximately averaged from the sun input less variable albedo cloud effects
    There is only *239.9 going out, all the time. * approximately, minuscule amount of earth generated heat.

    IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not. Yes.
    almost never are the rates of absorption and emission the same. Yeeess.
    This seems to imply though that heat in may temporarily not equal heat out when you have fluid dynamic changes in the surface layers [air, water, ice , clouds earth forests] though it will always return to balance.
    This relates though to the different rates of conduction through water earth air clouds etc
    Willis may be describing this concept in “The Hot And Cold Of Space” talking about the thermal conductivity of substances.
    While there may be lags or lapses in different substances heating up to their thermal emission points the fact that input will equal output suggests that at near equilibrium [Thermal mass concept?] a slow response in one substance is probably balanced by quicker responses in other substances.

    Is the time frame for these temperature variations Billionths of a second atomically [is almost immediately felt], minutes with atmospheric convection. Days with ocean heat content, months with ice delay in melting and freezing and centuries with the so called deep ocean currents?
    How do we input that into global temperature.

  10. There is one place where I am sure the alarmist analysis violates energy conservation and that is Dr. Hansen’s feedback analysis. link

    By the time Hansen et al wrote the above linked paper, feedback analysis was well understood and taught even at the high school level. When Bode published the book referenced in Hansen et al, he was describing vacuum tubes and wasn’t clear about a couple of things, in particular the reference level. It was usually assumed to be ground (0 volts). (and, yes, I realize there were differential tube amplifiers but I don’t see them in the chapter on feedback. ie. pages 31 – 43 A balanced input AC coupled circuit is not the same thing.) Later, with cheap operational amplifiers, the reference level was always explicitly mentioned.

    It has been objected that, if you know the black box gain of the circuit, the reference level doesn’t matter and the output delta is the input delta times that gain. The trouble is that if you’re calculating the gain of the circuit, you have to know the reference level. If you’ve got the reference level wrong, you’ve got the gain wrong. That’s thing one.

    In equation 8, Hansen et al state that the overall temperature feedback is the sum of all the temperature feedbacks. That’s a linear assumption. The radiative loss from the planet is based on the fourth power of the temperature, not at all linear. That’s thing two.

    The feedback analysis given by Bode assumes an infinite power supply. That certainly isn’t the case with the climate. The energy necessary to increase temperature is limited. When faced with a limited power supply, a feedback system’s output is limited and the system ceases to be linear and the feedback equations no longer work. As far as I can tell, Hansen et al ignored that. That’s thing three.

    I have seen the accusation (if I recall correctly) that Hansen assumes a constant relative humidity with his feedback augmented warming. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t account for the energy it would take to evaporate the water necessary to keep the RH constant with rising temperature. Anyway, he posits his positive feedback as the result of extra evaporation due to a small CO2 induced warming.

    Hansen et al talks about energy but then uses a feedback analysis that ignores it.

    • +1000
      but way above any regular non-science/engineering person’s ability to grasp why the climate change scam is a scam.

      • “But the atmosphere’s radiative blanket reduces the rate of IR cooling from the warmer lower layers of the atmosphere to the upper cooler layers.”
        There is no such thing as a “radiative blanket.” IR moves at the speed of light, molecules cannot reduce the rate that IR moves. Convection and conduction do.
        After the IR hits a CO2, more CO2 does not make that IR stick around longer. Convection and conduction of all the molecules in the atmosphere do. Actually, more CO2 increases the speed of radiation to outer space. I know, CAGWs say the IR radiates at a higher altitude. Think about it…the IR says there’s lots of co2 molecules nearby, so I’ll violate the laws of physics and stay around until it gets colder?
        When you make analogies about blankets, a layman is going to visualize what is virtually a perpetual motion machine, with IR bouncing around for years trapped under the CO2 blanket, making the air warmer and warmer and warmer with each bounce.
        When truth be told, IR isn’t even heat.

        • You really need to spend some time to try and understand the arguments of those you disagree with, it will make you look a bit less like a fool.

          Nobody ever said that the IR photon slows down, what they have said is that each IR photon gets absorbed and re-admitted. The more times this happens, the longer the path it takes from the ground to space.

          I really don’t know where you going with this CO2 makes IR stick around nonsense. Once an IR photon is absorbed by a molecule, it no longer exists, so it can’t “stick around”.

          IR doesn’t get trapped by a physical blanket. I’m really at a loss to try and figure out what it is that you are trying to say, other than your over the top efforts to prove that you haven’t the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

          • MarkW.

            I really admire your persistent way to teach some basic facts of climate change issues. But as you have noticed, those who disagree, they never come back and say, now I learned something, now I understand. They are stick to their own strange physics.

          • At the speed of light, your hypothetical “longer path” makes zero difference. The few billionths of a second a co2 holds a photon makes zero difference. Besides, as you say yourself, the photon doesn’t even take your hypothetical longer path because there is a collision first. And I think you are agreeing, there is no such thing as an IR blanket. It conveys a false image, and I wish the author did not use that word. CO2 is not a blanket. It is not insulation. It is a door. It is the way IR of a specific bandwidth enters the climate system. When that happens, CO2’s work is complete. What “reduces the rate” (which you call nonsense, but those are the author’s words) is the complex motion of the atmosphere. Nothing to do with CO2. Until the TOA, where co2 facilitates radiation to space. That’s CO2, now, not H2O.
            I am not disagreeing with anybody, I attached my reply to the wrong post. I object to the blanket analogy. But now I need to also object to your flawed “longer path” hypothesis. Which is saying what, that the farther a photon moves the more warmth it causes? I have a perpetual motion machine I’d like to sell you.

          • MarkW,

            for me it seems you have to read correctly what is being said.

            Maybe note the quote marks and that accordionsrule argues against the “blanket”.

          • Accordionsrule,

            As said already by MarkW, once a photon is catched by CO2 or another GHG, it doesn’t exist anymore and the re-emissions is a matter of mircoseconds, not only enough to slow down the speed of emission to space, but also the re-emissions is in all directions, including back to the surface where the photon is absorbed again, thus adding energy to the surface.

            Besides that, the time between absorption and re-emission is long enough to allow the collision with other molecules, mainly O2 and N2, which means that the extra energy from catching the photon is redistributed to other molecules and the whole layer of the atmosphere gets warmer. With the same lapse rate, the surface gets warmer too…

          • Correction,

            the process of adding energy is what we call heating.

            A photon from the atmosphere does not ADD energy to the surface.

        • Antero Ollila

          If you are praising MarkW then you have just lost the argument. He thinks radiation and heat are the same thing so I assume you do too.

          Don’t give up the day job.

          • On the contrary. Me and MarkT make a difference between the heat transfer by convection and conduction and radiation. Every material in the universe emits radiation according to Planck’s law. That is why energy has been transferred from a cold object to a hot object.

          • “On the contrary. Me and MarkT make a difference between the heat transfer by convection and conduction and radiation. Every material in the universe emits radiation according to Planck’s law. That is why energy has been transferred from a cold object to a hot object.”

            It’s MarkW. What else have you got wrong?

            You still don’t understand the difference between radiation and heat, do you?

          • leitmotif

            seems that the concept heat and energy are hard to grasp for some.

            While it is used most of the time in the same context, the difference is so much more important when talking about heat transfer by radiation.

        • As I understand it, the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (N2, O2), is on the order of 1 nanosecond. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, 99.9999999% of the time, this energy will be transferred to other gas molecules as kinetic energy, not emitted as another photon. If the kinetic energy of a gas increases, the temperature of a gas increases, by definition. So this GHE should be evidenced by increased atmospheric temperature. The claimed value of the energy imbalance driving global warming translates to several degrees of potential atmospheric temperature rise per year. Why don’t we see this?

          When CO2 does re-emit a photon, it does so in a random direction in 4π steradians – meaning spherically. Because the CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere above the Earth, the probability of the photon being emitted in a direction that can strike the Earth is < 50% by a small amount. Visualize a CO2 molecule above the Earth and a plane tangent to the Earth bisecting the molecule. A photon emitted in the 2π steradians (hemisphere) above the plane cannot intersect the Earth. Because the molecule is above the Earth, it can also radiate a few fractions of a degree below the plane and not strike the Earth. So the chance it will return to Earth is 95% of the claimed energy imbalance gets into the deep oceans (OHC), according to CliSci?

          Can anyone offer any corrections or challenges to this?

          • MODS – any chance to delete or strikeout the above-botched post?

            Sorry – This is a repeat post as something went wrong in the original above. Perhaps an erroneous cut and paste clobbered 2 paragraphs. Below is the corrected text.

            As I understand it, the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (N2, O2), is on the order of 1 nanosecond. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, 99.9999999% of the time, this energy will be transferred to other gas molecules as kinetic energy, not emitted as another photon. If the kinetic energy of a gas increases, the temperature of a gas increases, by definition. So this GHE should be evidenced by increased atmospheric temperature. The claimed value of the energy imbalance driving global warming translates to several degrees of potential atmospheric temperature rise per year. Why don’t we see this?

            When CO2 does re-emit a photon, it does so in a random direction in 4π steradians – meaning spherically. Because the CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere above the Earth, the probability of the photon being emitted in a direction that can strike the Earth is < 50% by a small amount. Visualize a CO2 molecule above the Earth and a plane tangent to the Earth bisecting the molecule. A photon emitted in the 2π steradians (hemisphere) above the plane cannot intersect the Earth. Because the molecule is above the Earth, it can also radiate a few fractions of a degree below the plane and not strike the Earth. So the chance it will return to Earth is 95% of the claimed energy imbalance gets into the deep oceans (OHC) according to CliSci?

            Can anyone offer any corrections or challenges to this?

          • 3rd time posting this – a formatting problem is combining paragraphs and deleting text. My sincere apology for the repeated posts. I’m hoping it works this time.

            As I understand it, the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (N2, O2), is on the order of 1 nanosecond. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, 99.9999999% of the time, this energy will be transferred to other gas molecules as kinetic energy, not emitted as another photon. If the kinetic energy of a gas increases, the temperature of a gas increases, by definition. So this GHE should be evidenced by increased atmospheric temperature. The claimed value of the energy imbalance driving global warming translates to several degrees of potential atmospheric temperature rise per year. Why don’t we see this?

            When CO2 does re-emit a photon, it does so in a random direction in 4π steradians – meaning spherically. Because the CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere above the Earth, the probability of the photon being emitted in a direction that can strike the Earth is less than 50% by a small amount. Visualize a CO2 molecule above the Earth and a plane tangent to the Earth bisecting the molecule. A photon emitted in the 2π steradians (hemisphere) above the plane cannot intersect the Earth. Because the molecule is above the Earth, it can also radiate a few fractions of a degree below the plane and not strike the Earth. So the chance it will return to Earth is less than 50%, but 50% can be used for general discussion. Any re-emitted photon that strikes the Earth must be re-radiated in the correct direction and not be absorbed by another CO2 or H20 molecule in its path.

            Most of the energy captured by CO2 goes to atmospheric temperature increase. A small fraction gets re-emitted as radiation. Less than half of the re-emitted photons are available to warm the surface of the Earth, due to the geometry of radiation. So how is it that greater than 95% of the claimed energy imbalance gets into the deep oceans (OHC) according to CliSci?

            Can anyone offer any corrections or challenges to this?

    • I’ve never bothered with this whole line of argument – seems a waste of time to me. So I’m changing the subject – more about Justin Trudeau and his batsh!t-crazy little gang of Marxists:

      The Trudeau Liberals continue to exceed their mandate – they are a minority government that has repeatedly deceived the public – their covert intention is to destroy the Canadian economy and establish a Chinese-style dictatorship. The current economic chaos in Canada, the blockade of rail lines by a tiny group of paid agitators, is part of their plan – that is why the Libs have done nothing about it.

      Trudeau’s latest boondoggle is to ban single-use plastic by declaring it toxic. Like the CO2 endangerment finding, this is an utter debacle concocted by imbeciles. It will not end well.

      Canada is finished unless Trudeau and his covert Marxists are voted out and soon.

      CANADA SET TO DECLARE PLASTIC ‘TOXIC’:
      Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Moore calls plan ‘Orwellian & false’ – ‘Plastic is not toxic, it is used to keep our food safe. Wood, concrete & steel are more toxic than plastic’
      https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/03/12/canada-set-to-declare-plastic-toxic-greenpeace-co-founder-dr-moore-calls-plan-orwellian-false-plastic-is-not-toxic-it-is-used-to-keep-our-food-safe-wood-concrete-steel-are-more-to/

      https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-set-to-declare-plastics-as-toxic-substance/

      • We’re in the middle of a coronavirus pandemic and they want to ban single use plastic. Single use plastic is more hygienic than the alternatives. link I don’t want to die because of Dances-with-Unicorns’ virtue signalling.

    • °Right on the button! As temperatures get warmer, a larger and larger percentage of wattage goes into latent heat rather than sensible heat, Those IPCC climate models have a doubling of CO2, increasing surface wattage flux by an average of 4 watts or so, increasing temperatures roughly 1° C.

      That 1° C increase supposedly increases water vapor, and I remember an article by Eschenbach indicating water vapor increases, increasing the flux by about 1.8° Watts/meter², I presume that water vapor increases increase the wattage flux logarithmically, the same as CO2.

      From Trenberth’s figures, about 78 watts² goes into the latent heat of evaporation, If a 3% increase in water vapor leads to a that increased wattage figures, it means an additional 3 % of 78 watts would have to go into the latent heat of vaporization for that increase in water vapor and 1,8 additional watt per meter squared feedback . My assumptions lead to an additional .03*78 = 2.34 watts going into the latent heat of vaporization to get an additional 1.8 watts/meter² feedback,
      A strong NEGATIVE feedback on temperature. That’s an obvious reason why CO2 always lags temperature in Vostok ice core records, why over the long run of geological history, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and why the IPCC figures on water vapor feedback are wildly exaggerated,

        • CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
          by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
          Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

          ABSTRACT

          Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

          Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

          The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

          The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

          The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

          Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

          Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

          There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

          Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

          Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

          Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

          “Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

          There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

          Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

    • CommieBob makes an excellent point about

      “I have seen the accusation (if I recall correctly) that Hansen assumes a constant relative humidity with his feedback augmented warming. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t account for the energy it would take to evaporate the water necessary to keep the RH constant with rising temperature. Anyway, he posits his positive feedback as the result of extra evaporation due to a small CO2 induced warming.”

      The energy required to maintain a constant relative humidity with rising temperature would constitute a huge negative feedback.

      If we posit 1 m3 of air at 25 C (77 F), 1013 mb pressure, and 80% relative humidity, initially in thermal equilibrium over 1 m2 of tropical ocean at 77 F surface temperature, then suppose that some external influence (such as absorption of IR re-radiation by excess CO2) causes its temperature to be raised to 78 F.

      At 77 F, the heat capacity of air (assuming 78 mol% N2, 21 mol% O2, and 1 mol% Ar) is about 6.66 cal/gmol C, and 1 m3 of air at those conditions contains 40.895 gmol (this can be calculated from the ideal-gas law), it would take 40.895 * 6.66 = 272.4 calories to warm the air by 1 C, or 272.4 / 1.8 = 151.3 calories to warm the air from 77 F to 78 F.

      Saturation humidity at 77 F is 3.1243 mol% water vapor, so 80% relative humidity is 2.4995 mol% water vapor. At 78 F, saturation humidity is 3.2295 mol% water vapor, or 2.5836 mol% water vapor. In order to maintain the 1 m3 of air at 80% RH, the mole fraction water vapor has to be increased by 0.0841 mol% (841 ppm), requiring the evaporation of 40.895 * 0.000841 * 18.02 = 0.620 grams of water.

      The heat of vaporization of water at 25 C is 583.4 cal/g, so that the heat required to vaporize the extra water to maintain 80% relative humidity would be 583.4 * 0.620 = 361.6 calories, or MORE THAN TWICE the heat required to raise the temperature of 1 m3 of air from 77 F to 78 F.

      This example, using perfectly reasonable initial conditions for the tropical ocean, shows that the assumption of constant relative humidity ignores a huge negative feedback. In reality, of the heat assumed to be added to the air to raise its temperature, if relative humidity remained constant, about 58% of the heat would be lost in evaporating water, and the actual temperature rise of the air would be about 42% of the theoretical temperature rise assuming constant ABSOLUTE humidity (mole fraction water vapor).

      Any climate model that assumes constant relative humidity to have additional water vapor in the air capture more IR radiation needs to also take into account the heat required to vaporize the additional water, which will likely greatly outweigh the warming effect of the additional water vapor in the air. The assumption of constant relative humidity is extremely unrealistic, and needs to be abandoned for a more realistic assumption based on kinetic heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean.

  11. The reason Earth supports life as we know it, and were not a Barron rock like our neighbouring planets, IS because of the electrical resistance created from within, without this dynamo effect, there would be NO magnetic fields to protect us from the solar wind. When Earth flares like we see on the sun, a low pressure system forms from the surface and creates through electrical resistance clouds and fowl weather.

    “The field exists because of an ocean of superheated, swirling liquid iron that makes up the outer core. Like a spinning conductor in a bicycle dynamo, this moving iron creates electrical currents, which in turn generate our continuously changing magnetic field. ”
    http://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/There_s_a_jet_stream_in_our_core

    Until so called Climate Scientists step into the now, including the IPCC and recognise the importance of the Global Electric Circuit then we will be NO closer to understanding how the atmosphere works in another 20 years. Maybe they don’t want people to know how the atmosphere works electrically, because of the terrawatts of electricity we pump continually into the atmosphere 24/7 from wireless comm’s and remote sensing . For wireless information to propagate through the atmosphere there has to be a lot of photon action going on. Information is constantly raining down on us day and night and it’s all creating atmospheric heat.

    • re: “IS because of the electrical resistance created from within”

      Quite mindless; you have nary a clue, jmorpuss. (“Electrical resistance” is a characteristic exhibited by a conductor, it is not “created”.)

      jmorpuss, just curious, what do you do for a living? Noting involving electricity and public safety, I trust?

      re: “Maybe they don’t want people to know how the atmosphere works electrically,”

      The characteristics of the ‘atmosphere’ are quite well known. Charts and graphs exist for the purpose of understanding and calculating both radio and microwave link “budgets” for nigh onto at least 80 years now (check out the MIT “Rad Lab” series of books for instance) using the atmosphere as “the transmission medium”.

      re: “For wireless information to propagate through the atmosphere there has to be a lot of photon action going on. ”

      Vacuous; I’m surprised you can ‘draw breath’ unassisted.

      jmorpuss, I think I can state this with certainty and confidence: You are one bold, confident idiot, underscoring once again what Dunning and Kruger’s research demonstrated: The D-K effect: cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.

    • There is no “Global Electric Circuit”.
      Outside localized impacts of lightning, electricity plays no role in the climate.

        • There is a huge electric current flowing in the Earth’s outer core. It’s responsible for the magnetic field that makes the planet habitable. link As for Svensmark’s hypothesis, I will not comment. 🙂

          • That there is a huge electric current flowing in the Earth’s outer core is true.
            That is not evidence that this current plays a role, much less a major role in climate, geology or vulcanism.

        • MarkW
          We have created this special top-ten series to highlight the most compelling evidence for the dominant role of electromagnetism at all scales throughout the cosmos. The experimentally proven ability of high energy electrical discharges to produce craters and countless other planetary features offers an entirely new perspective on planetary science and the solar system’s history. In this episode, we explore why the high-energy electrical scarring of bodies in our solar system is the eighth of ten reasons why the Universe is Electric.
          https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/05/31/top-10-reasons-the-universe-is-electric-8-electrical-planetary-scarring-space-news/

    • through electrical resistance clouds and fowl weather

      Fowl weather? Is that what they mean when they say “nice weather for ducks”?

  12. Given that “there would be a nearly infinite number of red arrows, both upward and downward, connecting every vanishingly-thin layer of atmosphere with every other vanishingly thin layer. Those are the flows that are happening continuously in the atmosphere.”
    this simplified picture of the average energy flows between the Earth’s surface, atmosphere, is for the whole sphere not just one day side part of it.

    Using the concept of thermal mass again , that is the energy a heated object has to contain to radiate energy out at the rate of the energy radiated in.
    Is there any need for any extra energy to go to keeping the earth warm enough to radiate as it does, or is the earth quite simply and sufficiently happy to be at the temperature it is? With the energy from the sun merely going in and out keeping it there?

    The answer is important.
    You have explained one important half of the GHG theory.
    The other half relates to the concept of retained heat and heat accumulation and TOA imbalance.

  13. Seems to me (who does not understand these complex ideas) that no one knows what the hell goes on in the atmosphere but some don’t know it in a more complicated way.

    • Mike March … 12:23 am
      no one knows what the hell goes on in the atmosphere but some don’t know it in a more complicated way.

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      First chuckle of the day.

  14. Here’s one of my problems with the catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Start with the following factual assertion from the post, which I believe to be accurate and which I think Dr. Spencer presumes to be accurate:

    “Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“

    In the GHG hypothesis, their “forcing” occurs at the surface boundary, i.e. “forcing” is expressed as changes in energy flux at the surface, irrespective of the source, whether it is changes in solar radiation, changes in GHG concentrations, changes in aerosol’s etc. And certainly the Earth’s surface has no way of differentiating whether the change in energy comes from the sun or additional molecules of CO2. To the Earth, it’s all just energy.

    But the IPCC says that the sum total of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial age is on the order of a mere 1.8 or 1.9 W/m2. That’s means that in over 200 years, the input to the Earth’s surface has only changed a meager 0.3-0.4%. In engineering school, we’re taught that this is a rounding error – something so small it doesn’t even have to appear in your calculations.

    The idea that such a pitifully insignificant change in energy flux at the Earth’s surface, gradually applied over 200+ years, is now suddenly going to introduce sudden and sweeping changes to climate patterns is ridiculous.

    • “The idea that such a pitifully insignificant change in energy flux at the Earth’s surface, gradually applied over 200+ years, is now suddenly going to introduce sudden and sweeping changes to climate patterns is ridiculous.”

      Yet there are some sceptics who maintain that it’s Solar variance of 0.1% that is the cause. It isn’t, because it is cyclical – yet a temperature response can be seen within it.

      Why would you think that ~ 2W/m2 is not significant? That the Earth’s balance of water in it’s 3 forms at triple-point is not affected by that change?
      The surface temperature reflection of that is a 3x greater warming in the Arctic FI.
      We do know(?) that the deltaT between a glacial and an interglacial is of the order of 6C.
      Cause and effect.
      Feedbacks of atmospheric GHGs and Albedo.
      The Earth system is in fine balance.

      • Why would you think that ~ 2W/m2 is not significant?

        Because changes in ice albedo from glacial to interglacial is 10 times that. That alone would reduce ECS to 1°C. And if there happens to be other causes of warming from glacial max to min, then ECS is even lower than that. (and there are other causes)…

        • “Because changes in ice albedo from glacial to interglacial is 10 times that. ”

          Indeed, ….. over thousands of years.
          At what rate of change did solar TSI at 65 deg north change during those thousands of years?
          That 2 W/m2 of forcing has occurred inside of 150 years and only since around 1970 did it significantly overcome negative forcings (aerosols), sufficient to instigate warming beyond NV.
          And to boot we don’t have kilometres thick ice sheets over northern latitude lands and cold oceans to warm.

          • We don’t have any idea what kind of prehistoric changes might have occurred over given time frames. Proxies just aren’t good enough to tell us that on small time scales.

          • But how confident are we that the last 150 years are different than, say, 100,000 years ago? I have not much confidence in data conjured from tree rings or from ice cores. IMO those are guesses, educated or not.

      • Not balance. Homoeostasis due to multiple negative feedbacks. 4 billion years is a good test of stability.

      • When you have to lie about what your opponents are saying, then you are admitting that you can’t win an argument honestly.

        There isn’t a single skeptic that argues that the 0.1% variance in total radiation is the only way in which the sun influences the climate.

      • “Why would you think that ~ 2W/m2 is not significant?”

        Because it is only about 0.3% variance in the input. It’s the same reason why we stop expressing pi at 3.14 and why the speed of light is expressed as 3.00 x10^8 m/s^2. The three significant digit rule means that you can discard values that don’t reach a threshold of 0.5% change as being a rounding error. So the difference in the amount of radiation received at the Earth’s surface between now and pre-industrial times so small a value as an input that it can be ignored.

        “We do know(?) that the deltaT between a glacial and an interglacial is of the order of 6C.”

        No, we don’t know that. The only way we could possibly know that would be to experimentally trigger glacial and interglacial episodes by controlling the Earth’s climate. Words published in mere theoretical papers and based on proxy measurements that cannot be demonstrated as reliable cannot be the basis for “knowing” something.

        And you’re also assuming that it’s the temperature controlling the glaciation instead of vice versa.

  15. Dr. Spencer,

    I have no reason to doubt what you presented or the standard concept of the GHE. However, I do question the related claim that the Earth is currently experiencing an “energy imbalance” of 1W/m2. I know Hansen used 0.65W/m2, but with the stated range of uncertainty and other claims of now > 1W/m2, I use 1W/m2 for the simplicity of the math. Can you comment on the validity of the following or help me see where it is incorrect?

    1W/m2 is a measurement of power, but we can easily calculate the excess energy the Earth would experience over one year using this figure. Using the surface area of the Earth (5.1E14m2) and the number of seconds in a year (3.15E7s/yr), we can calculate that the Earth receives an excess 1.6E22J/yr. The consensus claim in climate science is that 95+% of this energy goes to ocean heat content (OHC). I have a difficult time accepting that claim as I have not seen a physics-based explanation supporting why this would be so.

    Of course, this excess energy does not act exclusively to warm the atmosphere, melt the ice sheets, or increase OCH, but it is instructive to look at what the potential impact would be if it did act exclusively. 1.6E22J is enough energy to raise the entire mass of the atmosphere by 3.1°C/year (31°C in 10 years). This is calculated using standard values for the atmosphere’s mass and specific heat. The currently accepted rate of atmospheric temperature rise is ~0.1°C/yr (surface). 1.6E22J is enough energy to melt a mass of ice that would raise sea level by 90mm in 1 year. Most studies I am aware of attribute 0.35mm/yr of SLR to ice mass loss.

    The GHE is an atmospheric effect. Therefore, the 1.6E22J/yr should reside in the atmosphere and have a significant impact on the atmospheric temperature. As I understand it, the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (N2, O2), is on the order of 1 nanosecond. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, 99.9999999% of the time, this energy will be transferred to other gas molecules as kinetic energy, not emitted as another photon. The CO2 will re-emit the photon (in a random direction – so not destined to warm the Earth) in only one time out of a billion. The increased kinetic energy of the atmospheric gases should have a significantly increased temperature – far more than is observed.

    I’m not suggesting that the GHE is not happening but suggesting that the claimed imbalance cannot be anywhere near 1W/m2. Lacking a good physics-based explanation for why this heat ends up as OHC, I’m dubious. The oceans are the perfect place to hide imaginary excess heat energy because measuring this heat is extremely difficult (due to large mass and high specific heat). Without digressing, I’m wholly unsatisfied that the ARGO floats have been engineered to meet the challenge, and therefore reject ARGO as supporting evidence. OHC reconstructions are numerous and quite varied. I have on file several reconstructions that claim 50% of the increased OHC is coming from the deep ocean – cold water from the LIA is pushing up warmer water from earlier warm periods (so they claim). Other reconstructions find today’s OHC on par with 1,000 years ago. So, I’m reluctant to accept the claims that this excess energy is going 95% to OHC.

    What is a good physics-based explanation for why the GHE – an atmospheric effect – seems to have such a small impact on the temperature of the atmosphere? With its low mass and low specific heat, the atmosphere should be the “canary in the coal mine,” indicating conclusively with significant temperature rise to such a large amount of energy.

    • Fully agree with this statement.

      I have three points to support it:

      1. Energy balance

      The only source of energy we have on Earth is Sun, it radiation in visible and UV emission, and solar energetic particles. The solar UV radiations is absorbed by all the molecules of terrestrial atmosphere and redistributed between different sources. Some of it goes to the Earth producing heating as described. However, from the energy conservation law, the total energy involved in all this process cannot exceed that obtained from the Sun. If they generate some energy in the lower layers as IPCC scientists claim, they make somewhere an error violating the conservation of the energy. Basically they found the ‘eternal engine’, which the alchemists of the medieval ages failed to do.

      2. Radiative transfer

      If we assume that this infra-red (IR) radiation reflected from the Earth is so strong as the AGW models suggest, than this radiation will not be simply absorbed by the overlying molecules. The reflected photons of this IR radiations will undergo radiative transfer (RT) process when IT photons are absorbed and emitted many-many times and not necessarily in the same frequencies as absorbed.

      What the difference this RT will make to the radiation emitted back tot he Earth?

      It will lock the IR photons within the media of radiative transfer, they cannot drop all these photons back to the Earth. Instead, the RT layer will be emitting only a small bit from the level in the lower atmosphere where optical thickness (number of absorbing atoms multiplied by the absorption coefficient) is equal to unity.

      Hence, the IR emission will be constant and much smaller that the IPCC predicts (who drop all the photons back to the surface.

      3. Furthermore, the solar forcing is not constant as the IPCC models assume.

      I wish to point out that the current models of solar forcing does not include the extra solar radiation coming from the fact that currently the Sun moves closer to the Earth orbit in its solar inertial motion.
      This motion from 1700 to 2010 made the Sun to emit extra solar irradiance of 2-3 W/m^2 (that is close to that measured by the current instruments), than will be 4 W/m^2 by 2100 and 7-10 W/m^2 by 2700 when the Sun will be closest to the Earth. This motion, consequently, increases the terrestrial temperature by >1.2C (1700-2000), >1.5C (1700-2100) and about 3.0-4.0 C in 2700 (like it was during Roman’s empire when grapes grew in Scotland).

      The AGW people were so scared by this missing solar forcing mechanism we reported in our paper that they made the Editor to retract our paper from Nature Scientific Reports on some made up reason not stating that they object the fact that the S-E distance changes with a period of 2100 years https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.

      We placed the author’s protest below the Editor’s note. We also provided the archive paper showing the updated paper with the correction of the S-E distance which do not change the paper figures, text, conclusions or abstract.

      Then my university site was brought down on the basis of ‘revision’ (of what?) so people could not see our reply and the papers with calculations demonstrating our points.
      We created a new web site and moving the stuff there. But the protest note with the links is working on this site https://solargsm.com

      This extra solar forcing mechanism is additional blow to the IPCC idea of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere.

      To support the solar forcing in our planet heating may I suggest to have a look at other planets.

      Planet Mars had it polar ice caps melting in 1999-2001 at the same time when the Arctic and Antarctic ices were melting
      https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA03179

      https://www.google.com/search?q=martian+ice+images+in+1999+and+2001&sxsrf=ALeKk01Y2WvpSp75W3l4dpd0P9RX6Gb6Pw:1584022280940&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=RM1LWYNuikMHuM%253A%252Cg8_XxUn-cgFu9M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRot820iBWgw4X5Y6lno_R_5025aA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjn_zqjpXoAhWGFMAKHb4jD40Q9QEwAXoECAcQBw#imgrc=RM1LWYNuikMHuM:

      The same was applicable to the Jupiter typhoons and expansion fo red spot, which currently is reducing its area. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/science/jupiter-great-red-spot.html
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter

      We believe this is because the Sun goes into the grand solar minimum 2020-2053
      https://nam2015.org/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo.

      • Valentina Zharkova,

        Thanks for your reply and for the information about your research. I’m sorry to hear about the experience with your editor. I was able to find all of your links, including the rebuttal provided to the editor. I’m interested to read more about the solar background magnetic field. I’m glad the paper is still available to read even if “retracted.”

          • Anthony,

            Thanks for your reply and words of caution. I have not read the paper or criticisms yet. Valentina took the time to reply to me with sincerity. My comments back were in appreciation of that. If you have read any of my posts then you know about my detailed application of math and physics. I’m completely unsatisfied with how the science adds up to support the standard global warming narrative. As such I’m interested in novel explanations that could shed light on the discrepancies. Valentina’s paper claimed to offer novel explanations, hence my interest, but in the end, everything must stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. If I take the time to read further, be assured that I will thoroughly consider the critique as well as the paper itself. I’ll add your link to the sources of critique. Again, thanks.

            Not having read the paper, or any of Valentina’s previous works (or her colleagues), I have no reason to approach her with hostility or disrespect. I tend to not laugh at things I disagree with, I try to develop a thoughtful case against them.

    • Many climate establishment scientists have shown that there would be an energy balance below 1 W/m2 like Wild et al. (2013). The IPCC has used this energy balance in its latest report AR5 showing an energy balance of +0.6 W/m2 on the surface. I am pretty sure that this “show” is needed because the surface temperature has not increased during the pause as it should have increased, and the reason has been that in some strange way this energy has gone into the deep oceans without any effects on the mixing layer. At the same time all these energy balance presentations like the one of Stephens, which I keep the best beside my own, show that the uncertainty of individual radiation fluxes is typically about +/- 5 W/m2. According to the basic mathematics and physics, it is against the science to conclude that the energy balance would be so accurate that it would be possible to find out the real imbalance to be something like +0.6 Wm2. We do not know if this balance is negative or positive or is there any imbalance. This is just a violation of science.

      • Antero, you note AR5 IPCC showing 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance at the surface without specifics as to the published report & claim aa violation of science. The satellite radiometers uncertainty (several W/m^2 as you note) has to be calibrated to more precise surface thermometers.

        If you are interested to dig into the radiometer calibration specifics, a recent ref. is CERES Team Loeb et. al. in Journal of Climate Volume 31 15 Jan. 2018 p. 904. This publication details the several satellite radiometer calibration papers arriving at 7/2005 to 6/2015 mean net TOA flux 95% confidence level at 0.71 +/- 0.1 W/m^2. Argo data is the bulk of it at 0.61 +/- 0.09 W/m^2 with added contributions of .07 +/-.04 W/m^2 from deeper ocean and 0.03 +/-0.01 W/m^2 from ice warming & melt and atm./lithosphere warming.

        They concede 0.1 W/m^2 uncertainty is the low end of other published ranges up to 0.2 to 0.4 in given cites.

        • Trick,

          Refer to the paper: Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications

          By James Hansen Et al.

          http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

          Quotes from the paper (starting page 32):

          “The required measurement accuracy is ~0.1 W/m2, in view of the fact that estimated current (2005-2010) energy imbalance is 0.59 W/m2.”

          “There are two candidate measurement approaches: (1) satellites measuring the sunlight reflected by Earth and heat radiation to space, (2) measurements of changes in the heat content of the ocean and the smaller heat reservoirs on Earth. Each approach has problems.”

          “The difficulty with the satellite approach becomes clear by considering first the suggestion of measuring Earth’s reflected sunlight and emitted heat from a satellite at the Lagrange L1 point, which is a location between the sun and Earth at which the gravitational pulls from these bodies are equal and opposite. From this location the satellite would continually stare at the sunlit half of Earth. The notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth’s energy imbalance to 0.1 W/m2 is prima facie preposterous. Earth emits and scatters radiation in all directions, i.e., into 4π steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions? Climate change alters the angular distribution of scattered and emitted radiation. It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it. There is also the difficulty of maintaining sensor calibrations to accuracy 0.1 W/m2, i.e., 0.04 percent. That accuracy is beyond the state-of-the-art, even for short periods, and that accuracy would need to be maintained for decades. There are many useful measurements that could be made from a mission to the Lagrange L1 point, but Earth’s radiation balance in not one of them.”

          End Quotes

          Unfortunately, Hansen then goes on to support his paper by using ARGO data. ARGO has been discussed many times on WUWT. My assessment is that ARGO was not engineered to measure the < 1W/m2 imbalance any better than from space. Using Hansen's words, using ARGO to support the claimed imbalance is "prima facie preposterous."

          • William, in the link you posted that passage starts p. 44 sec. 13.6.1. The paper distinguishes between the 1) poor accuracy of satellite radiometers , 2) the much better accumulated accuracy of Argo near surface thermometers.

            As you can find in the Loeb 2018 paper, it is well known 1) satellites measure the net imbalance from the standard CERES data products at 4.3W/m^2 while the actual Earth’s energy imbalance ranges between 0.5 and 1W/m^2 (von Schuckmann 2016). To get the satellite data to that range of accuracy is what Hansen labels as “prima facie preposterous” and NOT the Argo data as you incorrectly write.

            The paper you link uses the same sources as Loeb 2018 for the accumulated 2) Argo data which allows calibrated measurements to 0.1 W/m2 to bring Earth’s energy imbalance within the needed accuracy “as is now feasible with Argo data” per Hansen paper (p. 45) and Loeb 2018.

            It is unclear what you base your own assessment on and why you apparently disagree on Argo accuracy vs. both the CERES Team and Hansen papers.

          • I do not disagree with the technical accuracies of the ARGO or satellite measurement devices. I think that the major source of error of a global radiation flux (like an LW radiation flux upward into space) comes from the fact that these measurements do not cover the whole globe all the time. These measurements just take samples of the fluxes, which vary locally and timewise.

          • Trick,

            Thanks for the follow-up. What I wrote about ARGO should have been understandable based upon the context. However, I was not clear with the last sentence, and I left an opening for misunderstanding. Thanks for the opportunity to clear it up.

            First, I just found out that Hansen’s paper by that exact title is available in at least 3 versions. Version 1 is 52 pages long – and it is the one found at the link I provided in my original post. I’m sorry for the error – that version has been superseded by version 2, which is 39 pages long. I used version 2 to back up my thoughts and I provided quotes from version 2 (pages 31-32). I had version 2 on my HDD, but when I searched for the link, I didn’t catch that it was a different version.

            Version 2 can be found here:

            https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140v2.pdf

            A lot of the information was removed between versions 1 and 2, as there are 13 fewer pages. I have not studied the differences.

            In my original post, I provided a quote from the paper which referred to the use of a satellite at L1 to measure the Earth’s emitted heat as “prima facie preposterous.” I concur with Hansen based upon my engineering analysis.

            I then go on to state that Hansen justifies the claimed Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) through the use of ARGO floats. I stated that the dependence upon ARGO was “unfortunate” and stated that *my* assessment was that ARGO was *not* engineered to measure the small ∆OHC being claimed. I borrowed the phrase from Hansen: “prima facie preposterous” and applied it to the use of ARGO. Meaning, I’m afraid I have to disagree with Hansen. He thinks ARGO is fit-for-purpose, and I do not. He supports his EEI theory on ARGO. Without ARGO, he has no proof.

            My belief that ARGO is not capable of the claimed performance is rooted in my background as an electrical design engineer with a focus on data acquisition and signal analysis. I don’t believe the ARGO system is capable of accurately resolving the small ∆E accumulated over the ARGO’s 10-day cycle. The challenge is with creating a stable voltage reference for the Analog to Digital converters and with controlling electrical and thermal noise while undergoing the pressure, temperature, and humidity changes over the 2000m rise. A common problem in CliSci is the claims of laboratory-grade results over a global scale in conditions that are extreme, relative to a lab environment.

            Beyond calibration, there is a much larger issue of characterization. There are 5-6 models of ARGO floats, with their unique designs. A proper engineering study would need to be done to compare these floats to each other and a control reference. I’d suggest there would need to be calibrated instruments tied to anchor lines, with laboratory-grade power supplies at the surface in temperature-controlled housings. Multiple dive runs would need to be done with each float model, over varying conditions, such as battery charge and battery age, to see how they all compared to the control reference. It would need to be run over the actual production tolerance variations expected with each float model. I doubt these instruments can reliably resolve 0.1°C over the full range of required conditions, but even if 0.01°C is achievable, this is not acceptable, as ~0.0001°C is required.

            Another significant issue, which is a common problem in CliSci, is ignoring the fundamental requirement of signal analysis to comply with the Nyquist Sampling Theorem. The floats take a sample every 10 days. This can only be accepted if we are confident that the signal frequency is slower than 1 cycle per 20 days. This is something that could be studied with the control reference setup I described. Until I see a detailed study showing that 1 sample every 10 days doesn’t introduce aliasing, I’ll assume the data is corrupted. With requirements to resolve 0.0001°C differences, this system is very susceptible to aliasing. Do we have data that shows the temperature at the depths measured is stable to 0.0001°C for over 20 days? How is it that CliSci gets away with violating such fundamental laws of math and science?

            Finally, I look at OHC reconstructions. The results of such studies vary widely. Several reconstructions claim that OHC today is similar to 1kyrs ago. Others claim 25-50% of ∆OHC in the last century is from warm water rising from 1kyrs ago. I’m not confident that we have a good measure of OHC, and I would need much convincing to buy into ARGO.

            The increase in atmospheric temperature is several orders of magnitude too small to support the claimed EEI. The polar ice mass loss is orders of magnitude too small to support the claimed EEI. Without ∆OHC of the magnitude claimed, the EEI theory is dead – unless they want to revise the figure down by 10x or more to match observations.

          • ”I would need much convincing to buy into ARGO.”

            Maybe so William; then your best source with which to do that is not any version of Hansen paper or Loeb 2018.

            You need to then cite, or link to, the Argo experts. Both Hansen and Loeb 2018 cite “analyzed following” Lyman and Johnson (2008) et. al. papers. In addition, Loeb 2018 p. 904 cites for their latest EBAF product (as of 2018 paper): “In the current version, the global annual mean values are adjusted such that the July 2005-June 2015 mean net TOA flux is 0.71 +/- 0.10 W/m^2 , as provided in Johnson et al. (2016).”

          • “You need to then cite, or link to, the Argo experts.”

            Doing signal analysis while violating Nyquist, claiming 4,000 battery operated floats can dive to 2000m and accurately capture temperature to 0.0001°C, or claiming a single satellite at L1 can accurately measure IR scattered spherically in the atmosphere means you lose your expert card.

          • William, assertions are easy to write. There is convincing evidence of that in comments around here. You need to get to work to be heard and convince the Argo community of the accuracy in your assertions. Please cite & then demonstrate where the many Argo papers are so inaccurate that the whole CERES EBAF data product satellite radiometer calibration cannot be relied upon for EEI.

            You may be able to so. Until you successfully do that in a community convincing manner, it remains thru early 2018: “In the current version, the global annual mean values are adjusted such that the July 2005-June 2015 mean net TOA flux is 0.71 +/- 0.10 W/m^2 , as provided in Johnson et al. (2016).”

          • “You need to get to work to be heard and convince the Argo community of the accuracy in your assertions.”

            Trick, if there were interest in the “scientific truth,” then there would be a long line of people in front of me vying for that job. Other engineers have raised the same issues on WUWT about ARGO. I doubt you can find an engineer with real-world experience who thinks a network of instruments can be deployed in the oceans to meet the requirements required to capture ∆OHC accurately. There is a Climate Alarmism Industry that includes government, academia, and commercial ventures. Scientific truth would destroy that industry.

            This is not a battle over science. It’s a political and social battle that has co-opted and corrupted scientific truth. I offer my thoughts on the subject to provide others with things to consider as they do their explorations on the subject. It offers them something to use to argue against the onslaught of claims that science fully underpins the claims of CO2 caused AGW.

            The complexity of climate doesn’t suspend the validity of the most basic physics that is repeatably verified in a laboratory. There is no need to argue about the value of energy flux vectors. The law of conservation of energy and equations defining specific heat are the most fundamental and can be used as a sanity check. In other posts I made in this discussion, I provided a case that no one tried to refute. Fundamental physics and the claimed EEI can be used to calculate the total ∆E in Joules that the Earth would contain in a year. It is easy to calculate the effects in temperature that energy would have on the atmosphere, ice, or oceans. The peer-review process shouldn’t be necessary for this.

            I offered up what I believe to be non-controversial scientific facts about the mean decay time for CO2 to re-radiate a photon vs. the mean collision time between gas molecules. From that, we can calculate that most of the energy captured by GHG molecules via upwelling radiation is transferred as kinetic energy to other gasses (non-GHG). AGW advocates have not explained why the atmosphere doesn’t show more evidence of the EEI. I explained (via probability and geometry) that re-radiated photons have a less than 50% chance of being emitted in a direction that can warm the surface. No one has shown how or why that is not correct. There is no need to battle whether the GHE is true or not. The easy path is to show that the claimed imbalance can’t be supported or justified by an application of fundamental physics.

            AGW advocates can’t explain why 95-98% of the EEI ends up as OHC. It is not controversial that the UV and visible light received from the sun penetrates the oceans (based upon wavelength) to a depth of up to 200m – and therefore warms the oceans at a depth. 40-50% of the incoming solar energy is in the IR spectrum, although shorter wavelength than what the Earth emits. That IR heats the surface. If there is an EEI, whatever its value, there is no proof that the EEI doesn’t just come from variability to how incoming solar radiation is stored in the oceans. There is no physics-based requirement that the amount of incoming solar radiation that enters the oceans must equal the amount that exits the oceans on a daily, monthly, yearly or decadal basis. If the 0.7W/m2 (insert number du jour) EEI is correct, it is more easily explained by variability to incoming solar radiation being stored in the oceans at depth. It doesn’t have to be from back-radiation from the GHE.

            Thinking that there is a PR paper that can be written to convince the Climate Alarmism Industry surrender is folly. Like it or not, this is a purely political battle now. Both sides are using science to convince their side. I don’t think additional CO2 presents a problem for the climate, *and* I believe advanced (safe) nuclear (and other technologies) are already on a glide-path to replace fossil fuels by the end of this century. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 will largely cease. It is happening quietly, behind the scenes, hidden by all of the noise about “green energy.” Since “green energy” doesn’t have a prayer to reduce CO2 emissions in this timeframe significantly, I’m highly opposed to activists using a false scientific claim to drive us to solutions that will fail. So, I have no interest in convincing the “experts” who have no interest in being convinced.

  16. I think there is a very simple solution to all conrfusing radiation diagrams.

    Assume that radiation flux is proportionl to the difference in radiation pressure (similiar to many physical laws).

    Consequences:
    1) Radiation flux will be proportional to T^4 (Boltzmann showed that radiation pressure is proportional to T^4)
    2) Radiation will flow if there is a pressure difference. E.g. no radiation flow in a cavity in thermal equilibrium.
    3) Emission will be effected by external radiation field, since that has a radiation pressure. An illuminated body will radiate less than a non-illuminated body.

    If one accept that the radiation pressure is the driver for the radiation flux – all these back-radiation disappears. No strange arrows going back and forth. The flux follows the pressure gradient.
    It will also have a big impact on the calculation of earths equilibrium temperature. Today models have full emission from the sunny parts of earth. If one accepts that the sunshine will reduce the emissions (due to the radiation pressure in the sunshine), then it means that todays models overestimate earths emission losses = no green house effect.

  17. There are three basic objects involved – 1. the Sun, 2. Earth as composed of land and ocean, 3. the atmosphere (including clouds).
    All three radiate as per their temperature. Ignoring reflection, the basic rules are:
    – Some sunlight is absorbed in the atmosphere and the rest is absorbed by Earth.
    – Radiation from the atmosphere is either lost to space, or absorbed by Earth.
    – Radiation from Earth is either absorbed by the atmosphere, or is lost to space.
    – Any net absorption or emission of radiation by either object (Earth or atmosphere)’ affects its temperature and therefore in turn affects its rate of radiation.
    – The entire system is kept unbalanced by Earth’s movements (orbit, rotation) relative to the sun.
    – All net radiation at any point in time works towards re-balancing. (2nd law of thermodynamics).
    – Adding GHGs to the atmosphere, say, changes its absorption of radiation from Earth, and hence changes its temperature. This changes its rate of radiation, and hence changes the radiation reaching Earth, and hence changes Earth’s temperature.
    – That last item is the “greenhouse effect” and it bears no relation whatsoever to a greenhouse.

    Reflection has no direct effect on temperature, its only effect is that takes some of the radiation out of the system or takes it to a different part of the system.

    Getting working formulae for everything is trickier, of course, but they aren’t needed in order to understand the greenhouse effect.

  18. Many thanks for taking your time for explaining these topics over and over again.
    This is the first explanation which really helped me understanding this GHE topic better.
    I never thought about just subtracting the “LW atmospheric back in” and “LW surface out” fluxes to get the net negative flow of (~50 W/m²) in space direction, which – at least for me – explains the slower cooling rates we experience with GHGs.
    I hope I am not mixing up things again, as I’m just a layman on these topic 🙂

    • To Dietmar.

      I will mix up a little bit of your conclusion. According to my figure at the beginning of the blog story, one should notice that all three elements are in energy balance: the surface, the atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere. So, what is the real rate of cooling, if the Earth emits the same amount of radiation as it receives from the Sun?

      What can be said is that the surface releases energy together 510 W/m2 (not only radiation) and the energy flow into space is 240 W/m2. Thus, the cooling rate is 510-240 = 270 W/m2. This happens to be the same amount that the surface absorbs radiation energy from the atmosphere because of the GH effect.

      One thing is sure. The surface is in energy balance, which means that incoming and outgoing energy fluxes are the same. Otherwise, the surface would continuously cool down or warm-up.

  19. There was once that very clever scientist who opined that if you cannot explain a theory to a six year old clearly then you probably do not understand it yourself.

    I get the idea that if I cover myself with a blanket I am going to lose energy less quickly than I would do without the blanket but I am still having to generate energy to keep my body (and the blanket) warm, and, without that energy, the blanket and I would soon be very cold. I know this from experience.

    On very clear days and nights there is greater contrast between maximum and minimum temperatures but in more humid weather the loss of heat is much slower. Short spring and summer nights may be insufficient to cool to reasonable levels hence increasing day time heat to uncomfortable levels. In winter the reverse occurs and short day time hours are often unable to lift the temperature to comfortable levels meaning the nights become colder still.

    I am sure there are many explanations to fit the climate paradigm but I just cannot be moved by the idea that gases can somehow add heat rather than simply appear to delay cooling as long as the heat source continues to provide heating.

  20. IPCC’s GH effect definition

    I thank Dr. Spencer that he has used his time for commenting on my research paper, which has been published on two other webpages (as far as I know) and WUWT for publishing it. I noticed that on many points he agreed with my presentation but there were also some points he disagreed. I will comment on the main points in different reply comments.

    The objective of my paper was to show that the IPCC’s GH effect definition. This issue is not just a theoretical issue of academic scientists, because enhanced GH effect is the basis of the AGW theory. The IPCC’s definition and it is really their own from the very assessment report. The latest version is from AR5 / p. 126 (Ref. 1):
    “The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).”

    I have found another definition by Hartmann (Ref. 2) in his book and he summarizes the final details of the GH effect almost in the same way but there is one essential difference. He writes that it is the atmosphere that emits radiation and not only GH gas molecules. I have the same opinion that all material in the universe emits radiation according to Planck’s law.

    I think that most of the people have noticed that Wikipedia descriptions are always in line with the IPCC’s science. Her is a clear exception and I think that there is a very good reason and it is covering the defective definition of the IPCC: The GH effect definition of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) is like this (combined from the different parts of the text):
    “Because the Earth’s surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it. The atmosphere also gains heat by sensible and latent heat fluxes from the surface. The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere’s temperature and on the concentrations of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains. The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate.”

    This definition is practically the same as my definition (Ref. 3) and it is not the same as the IPCC’s definition. It is not just about how to use words – the content is different. The downward radiation depends on the temperature of the atmosphere and there are three energy fluxes maintaining this temperature which is sensible and latent heating, and the LW radiation absorption by GH gases and clouds.

    Now it is time to show the reason for the IPCC’s wrong definition. It is not just a theoretical statement because it has been used for calculating the portions of different factors in the GH effect. According to the IPCC, the measure of the GH effect is LW absorption by GH gases and clouds and it is 155 W/m2. This has been the calculation basis in the study of Schmidt et al. (Ref. 4). They have used the absorption effect of 21,7 W/m2 and the results is 100*21,7/155 = 14,0 %. However, they calculated the average of minimum and maximum effect of CO2 (otherwise as anybody else), and their final result was finally 19 %. Because Kiehl & Trenberth have used a wrong atmosphere in their calculations (50 % less water) the portion of CO2 is 26 %.
    By using my definition the contributions of different factors are:

    – water 33.6 %
    – latent heating 33.6 %
    – clouds 13.3 %
    – sensible heating 8,9 %
    – carbon dioxide 7.4 %
    – ozone 2,6%
    – methane & nitrogen oxide 0,7 %.

    It turns out that carbon dioxide is a weak GH gas and its effect on temperature in the present atmosphere is only 2.5 C. This result has further effects on the climate models approved by the IPCC, because they cannot be fitted into this figure.

    One further comment on Wikipedia definition. I said that the text is the same as my definition. In a simplified figure, Wikipedia shows that the overall absorption by GH gases is totally 350 W/m2. By using this figure, the contribution of CO2 would be even smaller than my figure but that is the point where Wikipedia does not show any calculations or results of calculations. The contributions can be found on another webpage of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect. There you can find the contributions of different elements but no calculation basis, because it is not the same as in the simpler presentation.

    References
    1. IPCC. The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.1. Working Group I Contribution to
    the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2011.
    2. Hartmann DL. Global Physical Climatology, Elsevier Science, USA; 2015.
    3. Ollila, Antero. The greenhouse effect definition. Physical Science International Journal, 23(2): 1-5, 2019. http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30149
    4. Schmidt GA, Ruedy RA, Miller RL, Lacis AA. Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J Geophys Res 115,D20106:1-6, 2010.
    5. Kiehl JT, Trenberth KE. Earth’s annual global mean energy budget. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 90:311-323, 1997.

  21. The ability of air and clouds to absorb and emit IR radiation has profound impacts on energy flows and temperatures throughout the atmosphere, leading to the multiple infrared energy flow arrows (red) in the energy budget diagram originally popularized by Kiehl & Trenberth (Fig. 1).

    Trenberth’s original heat budget diagram had all the input and output arrows exactly balance. A few years later he revised the diagram to show an imbalance i.e., “Net Absorbed 0.9Wm²” It’s pretty obvious that there was a realization that the original diagram with the exact balance of in and out was at odds with “Global Warming Theory” It’s amazing that all those arrows were measured accurately enough to add up to that 0.9Wm².

  22. I am sorry that a few words are missing in my sentences but it is impossible to correct the original text and I hope that it does not make those sentences impossible to understand.

  23. Hi Roy.
    Thank you.
    You seem to be right as long you combine the „Greenhouse“ effect with the atmosphere (air) as such: mainly water vapor.
    But the IPCC is not talking about reducing greenhouse gas as such, but CO2 in special. And that’s the never ending nonsense.
    And since we can’t reduce water vapor (the effect of CO2 is too tiny as to be relevant), the IPCC is on the wrong track.
    But what I am missing here:
    What, if it is not the so called „Greenhouse“ gases, but THE AIR AS SUCH? Huge masses. Pressure. Pressure is warming air.

    You are aware of the work of Nikolov/Zeller?

    • I see that Dr. Spenser didn’t answer. So I will. He is aware of their work and has been a strong critic.

      There was a huge kerfuffle here on WUWT a few years ago about the way their initial report was released; initially Nikolov and Zeller spelled their names backwards to hide their identities. WUWT was not amused. Beyond that, Dr. Spenser and others here had some scathing remarks about their work.

      One criticism revolved around compression, in that while a gas is being compressed heat is generated but once the compression stops no new heat would be generated. This is true enough in an enclosed tank. Many here dismissed their work on this basis alone.

      However, the underlying assumption in that dismissal was that gravity itself is not work. I’m willing to admit I could be full of it but, I’m not convinced that’s actually true. If an object is falling then no work is generated. But is not work generated if an object is countering gravity simply by being held up from falling? I’m not convinced that Nikolov and Zeller are right. But the arguments against their work were weak in my opinion.

      • JWSC, Willis Eschenbach had an excellent rebuttal of the Nikolov & Zeller theory at WUWT:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/

        So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.

        Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere. If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.

        But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.

        And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives. This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.

  24. But where is the albedo effect?
    We know that it is the change in short wave radiation out that has warmed the earth.
    Not any “trapping” of infrared.
    Why has Ollila reduces incoming solar radiation with 100W/m2?
    So where is the changing albedo radiation?

    • Do not worry about the total energy balance presentation of the Earth because I simplified the figure to show only the net effects of SW radiation. I have shown the details including the reflected SW fluxes in one of my papers including even the fluxes for clear sky, cloudy sky, and all-sky. In all-sky conditions the incoming solar insolation is 340 W/m2, a totally 100 W/m2 has been reflected with the following effects: reflected by the air 16, by clouds 60, by the surface 24, a totally 100 W/m2.
      http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520

    • I still don’t think albedo has as much of an effect as claimed.

      A few times over the last decade, much of the northern hemisphere has been covered with snow. Yet there was no deepening of cold as a result. No lapse into a glacial advance. It just didn’t seem to make any difference.

  25. I am continuously amazed and amused at the pompous tone taken by those who carry out the ‘calculations’ in these matters. They seem to think that their solemn recitation of differentials of ‘watts per meter’ give them some authority in the argument. The truth of course is that the earth’s systems are far too complex to ‘calculate’.
    Where, for example is the ‘top of the atmosphere’? What is the significance of all the layers, lapse rates, inversions and convective processes between it and the surface?
    What is the relevance of a recorded ‘temperature’ at some point near the surface of ocean that possess different salinity gradients and are constantly flowing, circulating and overturning?
    What calculations could encompass the effects of say: clouds, rain, or hail? Or; day, night, winter, spring, summer and autumn across all the latitudes landscapes and sea surfaces?
    Did I mention, cities, agricultural land native vegetation or mountains…?
    The list of variables is long and makes a mockery of the simplistic generalisations that the ‘climate scientists’ use in their arguments.
    As with so many areas in science from quantum physics to cosmology ‘mathematics’ fails to offer a coherent or comprehensive description that can be used as the basis for prediction.
    That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to measure and understand the physical world. We should just be a little more honest and humble and acknowledge that really we have no profound understanding of the Climate.

    • This one of those comments that people do not understand at all, what is the energy balance presentation. They mix it continuously to the events with timescales of minutes, hours, day-time, night-time, days, weeks.

      • I am interested to note that the new CMIP6 studies will for the first time be including Solar Particle Forcing in their model comparisons. The global energy budget diagrams all ignore/omit this aspect of solar variability. I would be interested in your opinion about this.

        https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Jackman/Matthes_2017.pdf
        “This paper describes the recommended solar forcing data set for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5. The solar forcing is provided for radiative properties, namely total solar irradiance (TSI), solar spectral irradiance (SSI), and the F10.7 index as well as particle forcing, including geomagnetic indices Ap and Kp, and ionization rates to account for effects of solar protons, electrons, and galactic cosmic rays. This is the first time that a recommendation for solar-driven particle forcing has been provided for a CMIP exercise.”

        Ionization rates chemically titrating the atmosphere would send dependent variables cascading through the system, added to photo ionization. In these discussions people need to embrace the power of ‘and’.

    • charles nelson March 13, 2020 at 2:32 am
      I am continuously amazed and amused …

      Yes, and there’s this quote from the IPCC’s 3rd Assessment Report:

      14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles

      In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

      A while back, Kip Hansen, I think used the example of a double pendulum to illustrate the point:

        • Exactly. Just think about the “three body problem” where it is impossible to determine the result of three celestial bodies orbiting each other. Then think about a 10 body problem, and I think you start to get the kind of complexity in our climate.

          What amazes me is that it is so stable.

  26. In my mind a thermal works as a pump, the hot air rises until it looses heat energy. The loss is by more than one process, water condensing and forming a cloud, radiation. Once cooled the air falls and warms in a Process similar to a chinook warming. This warming is a conversion of Potential Energy into heat energy. Again my mental picture has a build up of Potential Energy during the day and it being converted to heat at night. With the caveat that both processes are operating virtually continuously.

    Then I have to add UHI creating columns of rising air for longer than rural land. The energy of each photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength so each Conversion produces less, not necessarily fewer, energetic photons.
    I’m left wondering who and how all the other inputs to the system are assigned “values”. So add in all the phases of warm and cold in this inter glacial, are we discussing angels on a pin head

  27. The first problem with “greenhouse effect” is the morons who still insist on calling it that in any form.

    Atmospheric Thermodynamic Insolation Gain is the correct term.

    ATIG makes a nice acronym too.

    • Exactly, pls. refuse to use wrong language dictated by alarmists.

      We need reeducating camps for wormunists where they do hard labor in greenhouses.
      The megaphones should loudly repeat: all the heat you feel is because of lack of convection.

    • It suits me but it is too difficult to start using your own terms, no matter how bad the old terms or names are.

  28. Extra energy and the GH effect on the surface

    Dr. Spencer writes like this: “The latest installment of what I consider to be bad skeptical science regarding the greenhouse effect comes from an emeritus professor of environmental science, Dr. Antero Ollila, who claims that the energy budget diagram somehow violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., conservation of energy, at least in terms of how the greenhouse effect is quantified.”

    I have been reading two, three times this comment and the comments following further in the blog story and I think that Dr. Spencer mixes up two matters. I do not write anywhere that the diagram violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. On the contrary, I write that everything in this figure is in place and according to physical laws.

    But what I write about the GH effect definition of the IPCC, is like this (a quote): As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2. According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.”

    I write it clearly that I talk about the GH effect of the IPCC – not about my own definition. Dr. Spencer does not express the main point of my study that the GH effect definition of the IPCC means that the only reason for the GH effect is the LW radiation absorption by GH gases and clouds and its numerical values according to Figure is 155 W/m2. Exactly the same value as used by Schmidt et al. as I already have shown in the comment above.

    As simply as possible: the GH effect of the IPCC means energy flux of 155 W/m2 and I have shown that it is 270 W/m2, which does not violate physical laws.

    Another quote from Dr. Spencer: “But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.”

    I agree with “the extra energy due to the GH effect” originates from the sun. It is not created from the void, but it is a result of the GH effect and the diagram in the figure shows it in an illustrative way. This energy comes originally from the sun. Totally four energy fluxes maintain the temperature profile of the atmosphere and one of them is just a portion of direct SW radiation 75 W/m2 absorbed by the atmosphere and then reradiated back to the surface not being a part of the GH effect.

    The total energy of the atmosphere is like in a trap in the atmosphere: huge energy fluxes are coming in all the time and there must be a way for outgoing fluxes. The only way for the atmosphere to get rid of these energy fluxes for maintaining the balance is to radiate them downwards 345 W/m2 and into space 212 W/m2 which makes the total energy balance of the atmosphere to be 557 W/m2. The incoming energy fluxes into the atmosphere are 367 from the surface 75 from the insolation, 155 from LW absorption, sensible heating 24 and latent heating 91, a totally of 557 W/m2. It should be noticed that 28 W/m2 transmits through the atmosphere and that is why the total LW radiation flux into space is 212+28 = 240 W/m2.

    The GH effect is a real thing. Although the physical phenomena creating the GH effect are complicated, the results are pretty simple. The GH effect works like the insulation of the house, but its physical basis is different. I make an example of a house with 100 m2 in a cold climate having a constant outside temperature of -20 C. We could put a heating source having a heating capacity of 5 kW without a thermostat into this house having the temperature of -20 C and (it may happen in many cottages in Finland in the wintertime). After a day when we go into this house, its inside temperature would be something like +20 C. It means that the incoming and outgoing energy fluxes have come into balance. The same has happened with the Earth. The incoming energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere, in the atmosphere and on the surface have come into the balances, which are amazingly stable. The energy balance depends on both the incoming and the outgoing energy fluxes, and they finally determine the temperature.

  29. (try with my ‘spare/main’ email addy – The Money Grubbing Powers that be stopped my old one)

    We have GOT to get this thing clear.

    Firstly – go to the wiki and run their temp formula with REALISTIC values
    Especially for Earth Albedo – use a value of 0.1 (value 0.3 comes AFTER a climate has been created)
    Next, use a realistic value for the emissivity of the atmosphere, that is =0.02 (or even less)

    THEN you get an Earth Temp close to that of Venus
    Does this not make sense, water does everything it can to raise Earth albedo – from creating clouds/ice to growing plants (green plants have albedo= 0.4 and even higher when fed lots of nitrogen fertiliser)

    Water Cools The Planet.

    Read what Stefan said…
    An object radiates according to its temperature and emissivity – it matter not what other objects are in the vicinity
    Read what he said about Radiation Pressure – try to grasp what that might be
    (It is not easy – firstly we need to know why a vacuum has ‘properties’ how DOES a place of Completely Nothing manage to have electric/magnetic ‘properties’
    I suspect a Nobel awaits anyone who figures it out

    Thus, A Warm Object can NOT absorb the radiant energy coming from a Cold Object.
    Never mind where it goes – it is in all probability reflected – confusing the unthinking observer that the cold object has in fact warmed up.
    Remember, the wavelength (indicative temperature) is ONLY connected to the radiated power via the emissivity

    First exercise, work out how much energy the atmosphere, at emissivity 0.02 and Temp= 288 Kelvin actually radiates.
    Notta lot is it?

    Doc Spencer says the returning energy ‘replaces’ previously lost energy
    It can not do that because it is coming from the atmosphere and ANY POINT in the atmosphere is ALWAYS COLDER than anywhere below it.

    No It Does Not
    Radiant energy CAN NOT flow downwards in the atmosphere – Stefan said that by using the term “Radiation Pressure”

    The analogy with the Sun is nice.
    The troposphere has water (vapour) in it. That pretty well defines it.

    This water vapour makes it, to all intents and first approximation, utterly opaque to the radiations coming off objects at 288K plus/minus 100K
    Yes OK, CO2 does in fact make it slightly blacker but we’re talking specks of pepper on a velvet jacket. Immeasurable – as it actually is – HAS ANYONE recorded yet this downwelling radiation?

    Of course, water by having high absorption must also be a good emitter.
    But it is all happening inside something with the transparency of a lump of coal.

    Similar to inside the sun. As soon as any radiation sets off, it is intercepted and turned back into sensible/actual heat

    THUS, the only way that heat can escape Earth’s surface (the dirt you’re standing on) is via conduction or convection
    A double whammy thus occurs, oxygen/nitrogen has VERY low thermal conductivity

    Right, using radiation to account for heat flow in the troposphere is a fools errand -shine a torch into a brick then use a radiation model to see the light coming out the other side.

    Now, convection get the heat energy to the Tropopause.
    Above it is the Stratosphere – by definition of a wet troposphere, the stratosphere is Bone Dry

    Thus, the water building at the top of the Troposphere can now use it high emissivity to radiate away the Earth’s energy.
    Of course, being warmer than the stratosphere, this radiant energy will be intercepted by cold molecules in the stratosphere – they will then radiate at their temp and emissivity – which is VERY low.

    But the stratosphere is transparent, thus it appears to a distant observer to have layers like an onion.
    Each layer emits at it temp but is energy can get through the layers above it – UNLIKE what happens in the troposphere.

    Bingo!!
    We now have no need for convection any more and so it is – hence how the stratosphere got its name

    Now think about it.
    The Strat will act like a Perfect Gas – its size will depend upon temperature and the amount of radiation it emits will depend upon its size.
    Thus, if Earth tries to cool, the strat will shrink and reduce its energy output
    DO remember again, the radiant flow in the Strat can ONLY be upwards – as per what Stefan said

    So not only de emergent phenomena and the ‘iris effect’ maintain temps – so does the stratosphere

    Now then, because the Strat is the Earth’s radiator and depends upon its low emissity – what would happen if some high emissivity ‘stuff’ got in there?
    Would it not cool?

    Is THAT not exactly what’s happening – the Stratosphere is cooling exactly because CO23 is getting into there
    What about volcanoes and sulphur?
    Would SOx not also have high emissivity and cool the Stratosphere/Earth – EXACTLY what happens.
    Maybe the Aerosols are a Red Herring?

    And the Strat IS REPORTED as cooling

    Yet brain dead energy conservationists say this is because the heat is trapped in the (warmer) Troposphere

    Have you EVER heard such garbage – they’re saying that CO2 is making the Thermal Gradient (Trop vs Strat) steeper and LESS energy is flowing down that steeper gradient.

    Complete Insanity4
    Once you’ve got the hang of emissivity you can then explain the temperature inversion as you first rise into the Strat.
    (Use the fact that in (say) water, that the high energy/temp, molecules escape first. If high energy molecules escape the Trop and get into the Strat, they are In Heaven. No convection, little conduction & very low emissivity – so they maintain their ‘above average temps’

    Also perfectly explains the Chromosphere around the sun – a very high temp layer of very low emissivity molecules – oxygen, nitrogen, aluminium, silver etc etc

    There you go – why DOES a vacuum have properties.
    Light travels at a certain defined speed – NOT just because it has to go at one speed or the other.

    • Fat fingers & not paying attention – I could be a really good Climate Scientist at this rate.
      Suspect not tho
      Quote:….. the unthinking observer that the cold object has……

      I did intend that to say the HOT object.
      Yes?

      The impartial distant observer sees the radiation from the hot object, but ALSO sees/measures the REFLECTED radiation that started off from the cold object

      He thus sees more energy coming from the hot object and if he doesn’t account for its wavelength=temperature (Wien’s Law) he will wrongly conclude that the presence of the cold object has warmed the warm one.
      No No NO

      The Take-Away from this rave?

      Do NOT assume emissivity of Unity (=1) for ALL your Earth objects
      That is The Main Fail in everyone’s thinking.

      Because an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere has an emissivity that is so low as to be impossible to measure accurately generally taken to be 0.02
      Your calcs will be out by a factor of at least 500

      We all know that objects change colour depending on The Light
      Thus, Take 3 objects – hot, cold & middling (just right)

      The hot object will see the warm and cold objects as being =black (absorbing)
      The cold object will see the warm and the hot as both being= white (reflecting)
      But the warm (middling) object will see the cold one as black and the hot one as white.

      Worse than a Hall Of Mirrors innit
      That ‘Radiation’ for ya!

      Then we record temps down to (how many) decimal places without being able to get a good handle on emissivity
      sigh

      Makes the counting of Dancing Angels look like a worthwhile pursuit

  30. Yes non radiative heat transfers of latent and sensible heat contribute to downwelling Radiation. But an equal amount of surface absorbed downward radiation is used up to generate the non-radiative transfers and thus does not add anything to surface upward radiative flux, ie surface temperature. So latent and sensible heat should therefore not be counted as part of the greenhouse effect.

    • Quote: “But an equal amount of surface absorbed downward radiation is used up to generate the non-radiative transfers and thus does not add anything to surface upward radiative flux, ie surface temperature.”

      This is very confusing. In which way non-radiative transfer happens from the atmosphere to the surface?? No energy balance diagram shows these kinds of energy fluxes.

      • Thanks for replying. It is not confusing, it’s just energy transfer. When latent heat is released in the atmosphere, the gases must heat up – including the greenhouse gases, resulting in the increased long wave radiation that we see KT97 add to back radiation. That’s why it is referred to as an energy budget, not a radiative budget. Best regards.

        • This is nonsense. You could say as well that the solar insolation does not add any energy to the surface because the surface emits the same amount.

  31. Moving air leads to speed gradients and obviously friction. Which results in heat no matter the sign and direction of speed sheer.

    Then, somewhere deep down, Earth has another source of heat. Neutrons from radioactive decay of naturally present radioactive elements pushing their way through matter. Yes, in a way, our planet doubles as a gigantic radioactive elements “cooling pool”.

    Now, all mixed together, including the “initial heat” contained in the core, various turbulence and sheer air frictions, gas law P.V temperature variations, all, then, OK,I wish the best to anyone who claims accurate modelling.

  32. Fully agree with this statement.
    I have three points to support it:

    1. Energy balance

    The only source of energy we have on Earth is Sun, it radiation in visible and UV emission, and solar energetic particles. The solar UV radiations is absorbed by all the molecules of terrestrial atmosphere and redistributed between different sources. Some of it goes to the Earth producing heating as described. However, from the energy conservation law, the total energy involved in all this process cannot exceed that obtained from the Sun. If they generate some energy in the lower layers as IPCC scientists claim, they make somewhere an error violating the conservation of the energy. Basically they found the ‘eternal engine’, which the alchemists of the medieval ages failed to do.

    2. Radiative transfer

    If we assume that this infra-red (IR) radiation reflected from the Earth is so strong as the AGW models suggest, than this radiation will not be simply absorbed by the overlying molecules. The reflected photons of this IR radiations will undergo radiative transfer (RT) process when IT photons are absorbed and emitted many-many times and not necessarily in the same frequencies as absorbed.

    What the difference this RT will make to the radiation emitted back tot he Earth?

    It will lock the IR photons within the media of radiative transfer, they cannot drop all these photons back to the Earth. Instead, the RT layer will be emitting only a small bit from the level in the lower atmosphere where optical thickness (number of absorbing atoms multiplied by the absorption coefficient) is equal to unity.

    Hence, the IR emission will be constant and much smaller that the IPCC predicts (who drop all the photons back to the surface.

    3. Furthermore, the solar forcing is not constant as the IPCC models assume.

    I wish to point out that the current models of solar forcing does not include the extra solar radiation coming from the fact that currently the Sun moves closer to the Earth orbit in its solar inertial motion.
    This motion from 1700 to 2010 made the Sun to emit extra solar irradiance of 2-3 W/m^2 (that is close to that measured by the current instruments), than will be 4 W/m^2 by 2100 and 7-10 W/m^2 by 2700 when the Sun will be closest to the Earth. This motion, consequently, increases the terrestrial temperature by >1.2C (1700-2000), >1.5C (1700-2100) and about 3.0-4.0 C in 2700 (like it was during Roman’s empire when grapes grew in Scotland).

    The AGW people were so scared by this missing solar forcing mechanism we reported in our paper that they made the Editor to retract our paper from Nature Scientific Reports on some made up reason not stating that they object the fact that the S-E distance changes with a period of 2100 years https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.

    We placed the author’s protest below the Editor’s note. We also provided the archive paper showing the updated paper with the correction of the S-E distance which do not change the paper figures, text, conclusions or abstract.

    Then my university site was brought down on the basis of ‘revision’ (of what?) so people could not see our reply and the papers with calculations demonstrating our points.

    We created a new web site and moving the stuff there. But the protest note with the links is working on this site https://solargsm.com

    This extra solar forcing mechanism is an additional blow to the IPCC idea of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere.

    To support the solar forcing in our planet heating may I suggest to have a look at other planets.

    Planet Mars had it polar ice caps melting in 1999-2001 at the same time when the Arctic and Antarctic ices were melting
    https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA03179

    https://www.google.com/search?q=martian+ice+images+in+1999+and+2001&sxsrf=ALeKk01Y2WvpSp75W3l4dpd0P9RX6Gb6Pw:1584022280940&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=RM1LWYNuikMHuM%253A%252Cg8_XxUn-cgFu9M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRot820iBWgw4X5Y6lno_R_5025aA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjn_zqjpXoAhWGFMAKHb4jD40Q9QEwAXoECAcQBw#imgrc=RM1LWYNuikMHuM:

    The same was applicable to the Jupiter typhoons and expansion fo red spot a decade ago (google for images from the previous decades, because google hides the previous research in favour of AGW). Currently, the area of red spot (typhoon?) is reducing https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/science/jupiter-great-red-spot.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter

    We believe this reduction or the red-spot area is because the Sun goes into the grand solar minimum 2020-2053
    https://nam2015.org/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo.

    The same is expected to happen on the Earth, the temperature has shown the signs of reducing and will continue doing so for the next 2 decades as the Sun is going into a hibernation https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689.
    I believe, the AGW will be squeezed to the back seat because of the growing needs for heating and food can be the main issues in these few decades.

    • Reply to Valentina Zharkova’s comments

      1. Energy balance.

      The downward LW radiation of the atmosphere is a scientific fact because it has been measured by the ground-based network. It is an undeniable fact.

      2. Radiative transfer

      I have calculated tens of times what happens to the radiation flux emitted by the surface (not reflected as Dr. Zarhova writes) according to its temperature per Planck’s law. Miskolczi has shown in his papers in which way the upward and downward fluxes behave in the atmosphere. I have used as validation two absorbed flux value in comparison to the model calculated fluxes of my spectral analysis with the global average atmosphere. Stephens et al. have calculated the average value of 13 different energy balance models which is 314.2 W/m2 for the downward flux from the atmosphere. My calculations give 310.9 W/m2, a difference being of 1.0 %. NASA CERES values for the outgoing LW flux into space for 2000-2019 is 266.4 W/m2. My calculations show 266.4 W/m2. It should be noticed that I have carried out calculations using the global average atmospheric temperature, pressure and GH gas concentration profiles up to 70 km (absorption is ready 98 % after the troposphere) and the calculations are based on the interactions between photons and GH gas molecules taking into account absorptions and emissions between the GH gases. The calculation equations have been tested in laboratory conditions and the absorption of CO2 even in nature, and the accuracy is below 1 %.

      2. Solar forcing

      Now we talk about the different subject and it is what has possibly caused the warming of the Earth since 1750. I agree that the role of the Sun may have a much bigger effect than calculated by the IPCC. When I consider the “climate optimum” periods of the Roman empire 2000 years ago and the Viking period 1000 years ago, the best and imminent explanation is the Sun and probably it is the main cause also in the present warming period. According to my studies, the warming effect of CO2 is only 30 % of the official figure of the IPCC, which means that the TCS is only 0.6 C and not 1.8 C. I have shown in my original research paper that the TCS value of 1.8 C cannot be fitted into the correct GH effect definition of my (270 W/m2) but my warming effect of CO2 fits perfectly. I have sent this story to WUWT but they have not published

    • “The only source of energy we have on Earth is Sun”

      That’s not true. The earth itself is relatively warm–it has energy.

      • While true, the amount of heat being emitted by the earth is less than the rounding error of the other numbers.

  33. How much energy you think would come through the oceans which cover 70 % of the Earth’s surface and which temperature in the bottom of the ocean is about +4 C degrees and the surface temperature (mainly the mixing layer of the ocean) is +15 C degrees. Think it over.

  34. [I still maintain that the simplest backyard demonstration of the greenhouse effect in action is with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky at different angles, and seeing the warming of the thermometer’s detector as you scan from the zenith down to an oblique angle. That is the greenhouse effect in action.]

    Increasing the angle from zenith you are just measuring atmospheric temps at lower mean altitudes.

    Little to do with a “GHE in action”.

    • “Increasing the angle from zenith you are just measuring atmospheric temps at lower mean altitudes.
      Little to do with a “GHE in action”.”

      No, that is everything to do the “GHE in action”.
      If it wasn’t then the IR thermometer would read the temperature of outer space (3K).
      The atmosphere is ~99% transparent to outgoing terrestrial LWIR.
      IF the 1% of it that is opaque (H20, O3, CH4, N2O) were not present there would be no GHE.
      It is measuring back radiated LWIR from that “1%”.
      The GHE.

      • No, if a target is colder than IR thermometer,
        you are measuring radiation leaving the IR thermometer.

        • This comment comes from a known person with her very own ideas that the LW radiation cannot be even measured. NASA is just cheating everybody by measuring these fluxes by satellite observations.

          • So, your answer is she is wrong because she disagrees with NASA.

            Ms. Phin shows quite clearly that the mathematical model of the GHE as written online in a Harvard Book ( http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html ) has a gross error that does not represent the physical world.

            For those interested you can find Ms. Phin’s analysis of the GHE here:

            https://phzoe.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/
            https://phzoe.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/
            https://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

            I, too, grew up hearing about the GHE and assumed it to be logical and correct. GHGs are a blanket on the planet and a thicker blanket traps more heat. Finally though after years of reading I now see the unbelievably foolish lie, and complete lack of physical reality. A) you can not heat something with something cooler B) physics tells us if you add more GHG to an atmosphere you INCREASE the LWR emissions thereby INCREASING COOLING. This is basic physics. The utter lunacy of CO2 driving atmospheric temperature change is truly breath taking in it’s blind stupidity.

            Show me a valid mathematical explanation for the GHE.

          • Antero,
            It’s a known fact that satellites can’t measure IR moving away from it!

            I don’t know why you can’t understand that labelling something “downwelling” doesn’t make it so.

            Thanks, JP66

          • That how it goes. If I write that the downward LW radiation has been measured by the ground-based network, some people write that I wrote that satellites are doing it. That is why it does not make sense to argue with these gues.

          • Ground based stations measure upwelling-from-the-instrument IR. That’s why they don’t report it, otherwise you’d see it’s the same as “downwelling” IR.

            As for satellites, how else does NCEP/NCAR have a ~18,000 grid cells for “downwelling” IR covering every place on Earth?

            How does NASA’s ISCCP project have ~6,600 grid cells covering every place on Earth?

            There are no ground based stations ALL over the Earth. Many places, sure, but not all over.

            Do you not think the measurement device has a temperature and will emit?

            Why isn’t that emission reported?

            Because that upward emission is already called “downward”.

            Try to think beyond the labels.

          • A comment for measuring downward LW flux emitted by the atmosphere. I know that CERES satellite system has been used to measure this flux but the results have been checked and calibrated by the ground-based measurement stations- a totally 81 stations. That is how we know that it is a real thing and not just an image that this flux really exits and we know its magnitude.

  35. Roy,
    It is simple to set up a physical experiment to show a blanket initially makes it seem warmer below it, but colder above.
    You can put your apparatus in a bigger box and wait. Over time, the blanket imbalance evens itself out because the bigger box does not add or subtract heat and within it, all objects tend to a common temperature.
    What aspect of the atmosphere is different? I suspect it is Earth rotation, that prevents the big box stability. However, I have never liked the blanket analogy for this reason. It has an often-neglected time element, in theory. Geoff S

    • “What aspect of the atmosphere is different?”

      Unless I’m misreading you ….
      The fact that the Earth is continually receiving solar energy.
      The “box” isn’t.

        • “ The sun doesn’t shine 24/7.“

          Yes, I say that to my Australian cousin every time I ring her at 3am (sarc).

          At any one time half of the Earth is sunlit.
          Solar TSI is absorbed by the Earth’s climate system 24/7.

  36. This one of those comments that people do not understand at all, what is the energy balance presentation. They mix it continuously to the events with timescales of minutes, hours, day-time, night-time, days, weeks.

  37. In a way, I am not surprised about the comments what I have seen so far on this webpage and on the other webpages. It has been a common experience that people do not comment on the issue under discussion but more or less they show their own thoughts. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE COMMENT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY DEFINITION AND THE IPCC’S DEFINITION AND THE OUTCOMES OF THESE DEFINITIONS.
    The surface temperature of the Earth is much higher than it should be without the atmosphere and the GH effect. The GH effect provides more radiative energy to the surface and the surface reacts to this energy. Not energy found at the top of the atmosphere or in the atmosphere itself. They are prerequisites for the LW radiation emitted by the atmosphere and its magnitude is well-known inside some W/m2 in all published energy balance presentations.

    What has not been observed in the comments, is the GH effect definition of the IPCC and what it means as the calculation basis for calculation, for example, the contribution of CO2. That is the hot spot of my study. Somehow you seem not to notice it and somehow also, Dr. Spencer mixes up my definition and the IPCC’s definition.

    • So in other words what you are saying is that back radiation is higher than what IPCC assumes and if so the contribution from CO2 must logically also be lower than assumed? In fact, you don’t have to be many % right before CO2 effect is minuscule.

      Yes, that would have been a much more interesting discussion.

      • To MrZ

        Quote: “So in other words, what you are saying is that back radiation is higher than what IPCC assumes and if so the contribution from CO2 must logically also be lower than assumed?”

        Well, well. This is almost hopeless. I have drawn a diagram of the story showing all the essential energy fluxes connected to the GH effect. I show in the figure and by the means of the text in which way I conclude that the basis of the GH effect is 270 W/m2 and not the 155 W/m2 of the IPCC. I use the same downward LW radiation flux 345 W/m2 as the IPCC. Why I have written that the GH effect definition of the IPCC violates the physical laws. Once more: the IPCC definition says it a univocal way that 155 W/m2 can emit 345 W/m2 radiation to the Erth’s surface. It is against physical laws. I show which elements are needed to sum up this 345 W/m2 and one of these four fluxes (75 SW radiation absorption) is not part of the GH effect.

        • “Why I have written that the GH effect definition of the IPCC violates the physical laws. Once more: the IPCC definition says it a univocal way that 155 W/m2 can emit 345 W/m2 radiation to the Earth’s surface. It is against physical laws.”

          It does not violate any physical laws. Assume as a thought experiment that the atmosphere and the ground were separated by a thin region of vacuum preventing any exchange of heat from the surface to the atmosphere, other than by radiation. Also assume that the GHG concentration were high enough and wide enough in spectra that all the radiation from the Earth’s surface was captured by the atmosphere. Finally, assume that the atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation so that all radiation from the sun hits the Earth’s surface.

          Then I draw a boundary around the top of the atmosphere and equilibrium physics tells me that energy in equals energy out, meaning that the radiation escaping outwards from the atmosphere has to equal the radiation crossing inward through the boundary from the sun. But the radiation from the atmosphere can’t be exclusively directed outwards; one half of what goes out must also be directed down to the Earth’s surface, adding to what the surface receives from the sun.

          Now, it’s true that because each of the assumptions regarding the vacuum layer separation, the transparency of the atmosphere to solar radiation, and its complete opacity to outgoing long wave radiation is not true, that the added heat flux at the surface is not as much as what it would be in the hypothetical. But you cannot say that physical laws prevent the atmosphere from providing additional radiation to the surface beyond that already provided by the sun.

          • Kurt.

            Two comments.
            1) Quote: “the transparency of the atmosphere to solar radiation”. Look at figure 1. The atmosphere is not transparent to solar radiation, because about 30 % will be absorbed.
            2) No matter how long an explanation, the absorption energy of 155 W/m2 cannot create the downward flux of 345 W/m2 or 270 W/m2. I think that you are the only one who thinks so.
            3) The downward LW flux from the atmosphere has been measured all the time. It is an observation based fact.

          • “The atmosphere is not transparent to solar radiation, because about 30 % will be absorbed.”

            Like I said above, even though some of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, that doesn’t refute the fact that the atmosphere radiates energy towards the surface, and this gets added to the portion from the sun that hits the Earth. The physical laws you refer to are ones that have to be simultaneously satisfied at the atmosphere/space boundary the atmosphere/surface boundary. The temperature of both the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere will keep changing until these equilibrium boundary conditions are satisfied, and there is no upper limit the flux across either of those two boundaries that is a function of only the flux across it coming from one of two sources crossing it.

            Focusing only on the portion coming from the sun in the final equilibrium state (155 W/m2) and treating that as some kind of variable that sets a limit on the total amount that can be “caused” from it is a fallacy.

            And I think that there are many people on this post who agree with me.

    • Antero, I did get your point and agree that others seem to be missing it. I play with thermohydraulics and related at work on projects involving $B. I also have to deal with mgmt of not just the process energy balances but also the $ budget. Successful projects (success being defined as profitable) have one very common attribute: semantics are clear and consistent across all phases and all aspects of a project. This allows for effective communication and effective critical problem solving when reality diverges from the Project Model (aka The Budget & Schedule). Other projects tend to resemble the Tower of Babble and those never make money in a competitive market place and can even result in fatalities in the extreme cases. So, until there is a clear, standard, universal definition of a concept and range of concepts then babble ensues. This can be very entertaining to the casual observer but is counterproductive if one is wants, has, or needs to get something done. I think most of us recognize that an energy balance is just that, a balance to characterize a complex system as a starting point or a paradigm for critical thinking. A balance is (by definition?) a not a transient! Communication between humans is much more complex than understanding the GHE in my world. Keep up the good work!

      • Thanks. I am basically an Engineer myself and it seems to be so that the have their feet on the ground.

  38. On the one hand, I think such arguments that Spencer is addressing get too much play here in the comments. The GHE slows the transport of energy outwards to the TOA. Then the equilibrium is reached.
    Spencer uses the example of heating of your house. If you can’t understand that, give up. You haven’t discovered anything and there is no conspiracy, stop making Watts and the rest of us look bad.
    On the other hand, Watts doesn’t ban such arguments or comments as far as I know. There is no conspiracy here to silence your great discovery. None is needed.
    Focus on winning. Be a winner.

  39. Boiled down to a few words it would see that the greenhouse effect is from the re-radiation of IR from the water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere which warms the surface of the earth, be it ocean or land.

    Yet that warming *should* increase the radiation from the surface of the earth by the fourth power of the temperature. This would tend to keep daytime temperatures from soaring to destructive levels.

    What it *would* seem to cause to happen is that nighttime cooling would be interfered with thus raising the nighttime minimum temperatures. This is exactly what my 24/7/365 data since 2002 shows is happening in the central part of the US.

    My conundrum is why the AGW alarmists think this is a bad thing. Higher nighttime temps mean longer growing seasons, increased nighttime growth of plants, and more food availability for the world. Continued record global grain harvests every year for the past twenty years would seem to confirm this (there are a few outlier years but the trend is record harvests every year). Coupled with this is the huge increase of green areas on the earth since 1980 (estimated to be anywhere from 10% to 15%).

    The Earth seems to be far from turning into a cinder from the greenhouse effect. And average temps going up only serves to hide this fact allowing the AGW alarmists to extort money from the common man. I still maintain that climate studies should be based on regional heating and cooling degree-days and not on global average temperatures. This would provide far more useful information as to what is happening with the climate and it would be far more understandable to the common man.

    • Zoe Phin,

      I don’t see the problem: if the instrument only measures its own outgoing IR and not the incoming IR, why would there any change at all if the instrument temperature doesn’t change no matter for skies with/without clouds, different humidity, etc.?

  40. Why is is that on a dry, cool day, when I am working outside, if a small cloud passes in front of the sun, blocking this 160 W/m2, I suddenly feel MUCH colder? When I close my eyes, I don’t feel this 340 W/m2 baking me from every direction. Yet, when the sun is out, same conditions except I am in a box surrounded by walls with no roof, I suddenly feel very hot? When I close my eyes, I can feel an intense 160 W/m2 blasting me from above? Where is this evidence that these energy flows are correct (the internal flows are much larger than the total input from the sun)? My experience working outside tells me different.

    • This is easy – 160W/m2 is an average over day&night, it includes cloud fraction and losses in air, if you measure the flux under clear sky, you will probably have something around 1000 W/m2.
      This small cloud in your example makes sensible difference, to have similar situation with this 340 W/m2, you just have to remove the atmosphere for a moment and expose yourself to the 3K cosmic environment.

  41. The thread here and at Dr. Spencer’s blog show the various notions concerning the energy transfers within the climate system. And the IPCC has contributed to the confusion (intentionally?) by putting out a variety of explanations. The main point is that the earth surface temperature is warmer because its atmosphere, and less variable because of its ocean. So the pertinent discussion is around the theory that this atmospheric thermal effect is enhanced by rising CO2. The claim is that the Effective Radiating Level at top of atmosphere is elevated to a colder altititude, thus requiring the surface to warm to emit more to dissipate the incoming solar energy. This diagram from the literature shows the theory:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/greenhouse-mechanism.png?w=730&h=465

    However, so far the enhanced effect from CO2 does not appear in the relevant datasets.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/09/14/global-warming-theory-and-the-tests-it-fails/

  42. Because all of the arrows in Figs. 1 & 2 are in fact spectral irradiances, I maintain that making simplistic arithmetic calculations of totals is invalid.

  43. Fact 1: By reflecting away 30% of the ISR the albedo & atmosphere that creates it together make earth cooler not warmer. RGHE has it wrong.

    Fact 2: Because of the significant non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules, BB LWIR upwelling “extra” energy from the surface for GHGs to “trap” is not possible. RGHE has it wrong.

    Fact 3: No “extra” energy for GHGs means they cannot create any terrestrial warming. This hypothetical GHG warming loop also violates conservation of energy, perpetual motion and cold to hot without work. RGHE has it wrong.

    Fact 4: Zero RGHE = Zero GHG terrestrial warming = Zero man caused global warming or climate change.

    I don’t explain acronyms. If you have done the homework you know what they mean. If you haven’t done the homework – sit quietly during class participation.

    The K-T diagram is junk. The numbers don’t even add up. Anybody who can balance a check book can trash this graphic.

  44. Because the albedo/atmosphere reflect 30% of the incoming solar energy the earth is cooler with that albedo/atmosphere than without. Without an atmosphere the earth would receive 30% more kJ/h becoming a barren rock much like the moon, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark.

    This observation is easily confirmed by comparisons with the moon as Nikolov, Kramm suggest and UCLA Diviner mission observes. This refutes the RGHE theory which postulates just the opposite, that the earth sans atmosphere would be a -430 F ball of ice or 288 K w/ – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler. (Rubbish!)

    Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules, 396 W/m^2 of BB LWIR upwelling from the surface is not possible.

    As I demonstrate in the grand science tradition of performing experiments: https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

    Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR there is no net 333 W/m^2 for the GHGs to “trap”, “back” radiate or warm anything anywhere.

    There is no radiative greenhouse effect and the so-called GHGs do not “warm” the terrestrial surface.

    • “Because the albedo/atmosphere reflect 30% of the incoming solar energy the earth is cooler with that albedo/atmosphere than without.”

      That statement is not self-evident. Since a large amount of Earth’s rotational period (50% on a yearly average for any latitude) is spent facing deep space with NO incoming solar radiation, on has to factor in how effective the atmosphere (including clouds) is in reducing Earth’s radiation losses over this time period.

      Since you also state ” . . . 396 W/m^2 of BB LWIR upwelling from the surface is not possible”, I’m curious as what temperature and equivalent BB radiation flux you think the average surface temperature of Earth has during nighttime.

      • Gordon,

        Energy moves from the terrestrial surface to ToA using ALL heat transfer processes: 1.0, i.e. ALL of it = conduction + convection + advection + latent + radiation. Until the molecules run out at 32 km.

        BTW this is clearly demonstrated by my experiment.

        Surface emissivity = radiation / (conduction + convection + advection + latent + radiation)

        This, too, was demonstrated.

        The ONLY way a surface radiates BB is into a vacuum, i.e. no contiguous participating media.

        This, too, was demonstrated when 1.5 “Hga was produced in the box.

        The “extra” 396 W/m^2 upwelling in the K-T and assorted clones is a theoretical “what if” calculation with no reality.

        Zero “extra” 396 & Zero “extra” 333 = Zero RGHE

        Thermodynamics does not allow for any “extra” energy.

        BTW^2: per Q =U A dT earth’s hot dT lit side loses energy to ToA much faster than the cold dT dark side.

        The atmosphere is a second year HVAC engineering class.

        I have several clarifying posts on my LinkedIn page with PPT graphics.

        • It appears that you
          — didn’t read, or
          — didn’t understand, or
          — didn’t want to address
          the issues I raised in my reply above.

          Oh well.

          In parting, I will just note that any ongoing processes of convection, conduction, advection, and phase change happening at the surface (land or sea) of the Earth at any given temperature DO NOT increase or decrease the instantaneous thermal radiation flux emitted by that surface at its given temperature, assuming a constant surface emissivity.

  45. I have a basic question for those of you more knowledgeable on this subject than me. It seems to me that the entire equation using energy in TOA and energy out TOA can never be in equilibrium at the levels of energy being discussed. Consider this. The ocean according to these models is constantly receiving 240W/m2. Yet, the emission of LW from the ocean is dependent on the ocean sea surface temperature. From what I hear and read from you guys, is that LW as emitted by GHG cannot penetrate the ocean, thus its effect on SST is purely at the ocean/atmosphere interface. GHG itself also emits based on its own temperature. Thus, the SST is determined by two sources, heat coming from below, and heat coming from above. As it is said by many, all of the increase in LW from the increase in CO2 is used up in the evaporation process, and converted to latent heat.

    Given that the SST is NOT a reflection of the constant 240 W/m2, but rather a function of internal handling of the scarce energy it receives, then, … why do all these atmospheric models use this 240W/m2 solar input as an input to the atmosphere? It would seem to me that an atmospheric model should be limited to input sources to the atmosphere, with those being, LW emission from the ocean + direct input from solar + LW emission from land. ….. OR ….. we need to include the ocean itself with its massive heat capacity as part of the atmosphere.

  46. It would be much simpler to understand if we started from the concept of greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the earth cools. We have two simple paradigms, day time heating by the sun followed by nighttime cooling slowed by greenhouse gases. Averaging the two sows confusion.

    ….the atmosphere’s radiative blanket reduces the rate of IR cooling from the warmer lower layers of the atmosphere to the upper cooler layers.

    Fig. 1. Global- and time-averaged (day+night and through the seasons) primary energy flows between the surface, atmosphere, and space (NASA).

  47. ” Much of the first part of Dr. Ollila’s article is just fine. His objection to the diagram is introduced with the following statement, which those who hold similar views to his will be triggered by:

    “The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 W/m2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“

    But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more [“New”] energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.

    As shown in Fig. 2, the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. And, as previously mentioned, all energy fluxes at the surface balance.

    And this is what our intuition tells us should be happening: the surface is warmed by sunlight, and cooled by the loss of IR energy (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.)”


    Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“ Yes
    the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. Yes
    Plus (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.)” = 165 W/M-2 The surface absorbed solar radiation] Yes

    So far I agree with both of you?

    But Ollila” The difference between the radiation to the surface and the net solar radiation is 510 – 240 = 270 Wm-2. The real GH warming effect is right here: it is 270 Wm-2 because it is the extra energy warming the Earth’s surface in addition to the net solar energy.”

    This is the magical energy from nowhere step you are referring to? Because , as you say, The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more [“New”] energy to the surface.
    Ollila actually acknowledges this in his article ” According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.” but ploughs ahead.

    “The final step is that we must find out what is the mechanism creating this infrared radiation from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC’s definition, the GH effect is caused by the GH gases and clouds which absorb infrared radiation of 155 Wm-2 emitted by the surface and which they further radiate to the surface. This same figure has been applied by the research group of Gavin Schmidt calculating the contributions of GH gases and clouds. As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2.”

    Here I go off the rails.
    “If we were to represent these infrared energy flows in Fig. 1 more completely, there would be a nearly infinite number of red arrows, both upward and downward, connecting every vanishingly-thin layer of atmosphere with every other vanishingly thin layer. Those are the flows that are happening continuously in the atmosphere.”

    I presume that the ” net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy.” which is all that is left over when “moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.” is removed from the “initial surface absorbs totally 165 (solar)” is actually doing far more than rebounding just once and going off into space. There would be a limiting factor at 345 W/M-2 which is how much energy bounces back repeatedly until it can escape?

    Dr Ollila’s summary of heat sources
    ” it is easy to name the two other energy sources which are needed for causing the GH effect namely latent heating 91 Wm-2 and sensible heating 24 Wm-2, which make 270 Wm-2 with the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2. When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2.”
    explains why it is a little more complicated than that in that some of the IR comes from the effects of the IR radiation from other parts of the atmosphere but I am not sure where he gets the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2.

    Ah.
    It is the fact that the surface emission is higher than the TOA radiation to space so energy [quite a lot] must somehow be be being trapped in the atmosphere.

    “Now, I have spent at least a couple of hours trying to follow his line of reasoning, and I cannot.”

    Dr Ollila’s reasoning “Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.”

    “The Role of Earth Radiation Budget Studies in Climate and General Circulation Research“ Ramanathan
    The greenhouse effect. The estimates of the outgoing longwave radiation also lead to quantitative inferences about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. At a globally averaged temperature of 15°C the surface emits about 390 W m -2, while according to satellites, the long-wave radiation escaping to space is only 237 W m -2. Thus the absorption and emission of long-wave radiation by the intervening atmospheric gases and clouds cause a net reduction of about 150 W m -2 in the radiation emitted to space. This trapping effect of radiation, referred to as the greenhouse effect, plays a dominant role in governing the temperature of the planet.”‘

    Dr Ollila has a point. the surface emits about 390 W m -2, the long-wave radiation escaping to space is said to be only 237 W m -2. [where ??TOA or earth’s surface vitally important]
    How can anybody say this ” a net reduction of about 150 W m -2 in the radiation emitted to space.”
    The earth has had Greenhouses gases for over 2 billion years, possibly 4 billion.
    How hot should we be if our planet can keep trapping 150W/M-2 for 2 billion years?

    • To Angech.

      A quote: “How hot should we be if our planet can keep trapping 150W/M-2 for 2 billion years?”
      It is even “worse”, The Earth has received 240 W/m2energy from the sun for billions of years. It looks like that you did not understand the basic feature and the message of the energy balance: What comes in, must go out; otherwise the Earth heats up or cools down. There is a balance also in the atmosphere even though it receives the energy of 345 W/m2 from four different sources according to the 1st Figure. But it releases it to the surface and thanks to this we have a habitable planet.

  48. I promised to write one comment for those commentators who think that there is no LW radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface and if there is it has no effect on the surface temperature or “Heat cannot flow from a cold object to the hotter object”. Heat cannot but radiation can heat a hotter object. . This is a long explantation including a real test.

    Cars under carports have clear windows – why? Introduction for the roles of clouds In Scandinavian countries carports are popular, because
    1) They are cheaper than garages.
    2) They keep temperatures lower than in garages, which keep corrosion rate lower (they use a lot of salt on our roads).
    3) They prevent snow covering the car.
    4) They keep the windows of the car clear without ice and frost and the driver does not need to scrape windows.

    This last advantage is a great mystery for a layman. Why do the windows not get frozen and covered by frost and ice, when the car nearby without a carport can have totally frozen and icy windows? Seemingly exactly the same conditions, but a very different result. There are wild guesses in the net sites and the real reason may not be believed.

    The roof makes a difference: it prevents cooling by radiation

    This is a real example. I have not a carport, but my neighbor next door has. The outside temperature was -17 degrees, it had been a cloudless night, my car’s windows were covered by frost and the neighbor’s car had clear windows in the morning. The surface temperatures of the tops of the cars measured by infrared thermometers were: my car -35 degrees, the neighbor’s car -20 degrees.
    Radiation flux of any surface can be calculated from the eq. (1). This eq. (1) can be used for calculating the temperature of the radiating body as well, if the radiation flux is known.

    I = εσT4 (1)

    where I is radiation intensity (W m−2), ε is emissivity coefficient (black body =1), σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant (σ = 5.670373×10−8 W m−2 T−4), and T is the temperature of the radiating body (Kelvin=K).
    We can use the equation (2) developed by Goforth et al. which is more accurate in the atmospheric conditions for calculating downward radiation from the sky:

    Idown = (1 +K*C)* 8.78*10^-13 * T^5.852 * RH^0.07195 (2)

    where K is cloud height parameter(0.34 for 5 km), C is cloud cover (0 for clear sky and 1 for total overcast), T is temperature in Kelvin, RH is relative humidity. Emissivity of the car is about 0.95, snow and frost 0.8 and the night sky 0.74.

    In this example the car’s upward radiation flux value is according eq. (1) 232 Wm-2 assuming 50 % RH. In the same conditions, the clear sky radiates downward according to eq. (2) 145 Wm-2. This means that my car cools down with the flux rate of 232-145 = 87 Wm-2. The temperature of the car surface decreases and in the temperature -26.8 degrees it starts to get frost cover because it is the dew point of the air. When the car’s surface temperature has reached -35 C, its upward radiation rate is 146 Wm-2 (I have used snow’s emissivity 0.8). Now there is about the thermal balance (145 versus 146) in the radiation fluxes upward and downward and my car does not cool down anymore. Note that the measured temperature of my car’s surface in the morning was -35 degrees. Nothing is so practical and handy as the right theory. Do you know that water in a bucket under the clear night sky in Sahara can be frozen in the morning even though the ambient temperature is above 0 degrees? The explanation is above. The cloudless night sky represents space, where the real temperature is close to the absolute zero in Kelvins. It is about -270 C.

    Back to basics. the Stefan-Boltzmann law can be written also in the form, which can be found in many textbooks of physics

    P = e σ A (T^4 – Tc^4), where (2)

    P is net radiated power, A is net radiated area, emissivity (1 for ideal black surface, the Earth is very close to 1), σ Stefan’s constant, T is the temperature of the hot radiator, Tc is the temperature of a cold radiator of the temperature of surroundings.

    The question is, why there is the term Tc? It is therefore that the colder object emits radiation all the time according to Planck’s. The photons emitted by this colder object hit the surface of the hotter body and they will be absorbed. Is there a law, which says that a hotter object cannot absorb certain kinds of photons? No, there is not. A black surface absorbs all the SW and LW radiation photons. Will the energy of photon originating from a colder object disappear in the absorbance process? According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, the energy cannot disappear but it will be transformed into heat.

    I cannot help those who do not accept these explanations. It is hopeless because they have their own laws of physics. On the Finnish webpage, one man used five pages to show that the atmosphere cannot radiate LW radiation to the surface and in the end he also said that it cannot even be measured.

    • Antero,

      The frosting differences are due to the psychrometric properties of moist air. wet bulb and dew point.

      Evaporation to saturation and moisture dew points below freezing.

      It’s that frosty costing from pouring a cold beer into a beer stein out of the freezer.

      No IR need apply.

      • The only difference between these two cars in the roof above another car which has no frost on windows and its temperature is higher than the other car. your explanation does not apply but my physics and mathematics work well.

        But I do not continue this discussion because you belong to that group with your own physics.

      • “The frosting differences are due to the psychrometric properties of moist air. wet bulb and dew point.”
        “The frosting differences are due to the psychrometric properties of moist air. wet bulb and dew point.”

        Dear, oh dear!
        No they are not.
        You speak of deposition of rime.
        Deposition of hoar frost is due to the surface falling below the frost point of the air, the RH of the air does not matter other than the surface is cold enough to reach the air’s FP.
        This can only happen via radiation to space (otherwise it cannot get colder than the air temperature).
        Should a cloud come over then (quite often) in marginal conditions the frost will melt.
        It staggers me that you have not observed that or noticed that only surfaces open to a clear sky are/have been effected.
        BTW: I have observed this many, many times in a professional capacity and indeed provided forecasts to authorities of such conditions on their roads. ….. the surface temperature of which I was required to monitor (in their 10’s), so I know precisely how they behave in all overnight meteorological conditions.
        Try observing!
        It can commonly be seen that Ci cloud at temperatures well below -30C will cause a road temperature to pause falling or even rise a little when at sub-zero temps.
        And it isn’t some magical heat transference, it is the ground heat flux being maintained whilst the surface emission is slowed.
        The GHE.

    • Just 3 questions.
      Why do CO2 molecules NOT accept Radiation photons at any other than their “frequency” Bands of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)?

      ie why do they not absorb (and heat up) by absorbing all Radiation photons for all Frequencies?

      What do you call a gas that prevents heat from escaping the Atmosphere?

      What do you call a Gas that assists heat to escape the Atosphere?

  49. Dr. Spencer, who I highly respect, clearly cautions that calculating the energy flows and energy “balance” in the Earth-atmosphere system is very complex.

    However, he then goes on to state: “Given any rate of energy input into a system, the temperature will continue to increase until temperature-dependent energy loss mechanisms equal the rate of energy input.”

    Unfortunately, by this statement, Dr. Spencer reveals that he has overlooked the latent heat (enthalpy) that is involved with the phase changes of water: liquid water going to ice (and vice versa) and liquid water going to water vapor (and vice versa). Both of these processes take place at CONSTANT, albeit different, temperatures (neglecting ambient pressure-induced variations) and both involve a considerable amount of specific enthalpy (334 J/gm at ~ 0 C for water freezing/melting, and 2500 J/gm for liquid water at 0 C to 2460 J/gm for water at 17 C vaporizing/condensing, respectively). These are not “energy loss” mechanisms, but instead can be considered as energy “reservoirs”.

    Processes involving the latent heat of fusion of water and the latent heat of vaporization of water take place continuously within the normal range of temperatures and pressure occurring seasonally across Earth’s surface (e.g., poles versus equator). These thermophysical aspects of water, which comprises about 71% of Earth’s surface, effectively decouple energy exchange from temperature variation on global Earth and introduce a significant time phase-shift that invalidates any “equilibrium” energy balance calculation, such a those of Trenberth et. al. Notice that energy inflows and outflows for water phase changes are not considered in these so-called “energy balance” diagrams.

    And it would be incorrect to say that the energy flows into and out of these energy “reservoirs” cancel out over a year’s—or even longer—time period because that would be tantamount to saying cloud cover, atmospheric humidity, GLAT and total ice extent on Earth remain constant year-after-year, which clearly they do not.

    It is surprising to me that so many scientists overlook these critical aspects of water as it governs Earth’s climate.

  50. “…the atmosphere both absorbs and emits IR radiation in all directions.”

    Prove it!

    • CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
      CO2 emits IR.
      CO2 doesn’t care which direction the radiation it absorbs is coming from.
      CO2 doesn’t care which direction the radiation that leaves it is going.
      CO2 and other green house gases are part of the atmosphere.

      Consider it proven.

        • MarkW’s statements (although anthropomorphizing CO2 for simplification, and considering the words “absorb” and “radiate” to refer to CO2’s specific spectral bands) are scientific FACTS. They are not handwaving.

          That you do not understand the difference is a pity.

  51. “I have often called this a “radiative blanket” effect.”

    A blanket obeys Q = U * A *dT just like the insulated walls of a house and NOT sigma * epsilon * A * T^4

  52. [I still maintain that the simplest backyard demonstration of the greenhouse effect in action is with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky at different angles, and seeing the warming of the thermometer’s detector as you scan from the zenith down to an oblique angle. That is the greenhouse effect in action.]

    The Instruments & Measurements

    But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured. (and by extension downwelling.)

    Well, no it’s not.

    IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/calibration/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface emissivity can be less than 1.0.

    That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected emissivity of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.

    This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.

    Pointing an IR thermometer at the sky and claiming downward energy flow violates thermo and is generally clueless.

    • If an IR thermometer pointed into a clear night sky reads any higher than -270C then that is due to a GHE.
      Energy back-radiated from somewhere/thing between the thermometer and space.
      If it were not then space is not, as we are told, at 3K.
      Are you at least prepared to believe that bit of empirical science?

      • Anthony,

        All the IR sensor “sees” is the surroundings out to about 30 m. And radiation demands a surface. What’s the sky’s surface?
        Space around the earth is, in fact, NOT 3K.

        Space – the Hotter Frontier

        One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.

        Greenhouse theory says that without an atmosphere the earth would be exposed to a near zero outer space and become a frozen ice ball at -430 F, 17 K. https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
        (slide 14)

        Geoengineering techniques that increase the albedo, the ISS’s ammonia refrigerant air conditioners, an air conditioner in the manned maneuvering unit, space suits including thermal underwear with chilled water tubing, UCLA Diviner lunar data and Kramm’s models (Univ of AK) all provide substantial evidence that local outer space is relatively hot.

        But outer space is neither hot nor cold.

        By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the void & vacuum of outer space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined. Same reason there is no sound in space – no molecules.

        However, any substance capable of molecular kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the path of the spherical expanding solar photon gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. The ISS HVAC engineer even remarks on dealing with this in keeping folks cool.

        Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.

        This intuitively obvious as well as calculated and measured scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory which postulates the exact opposite even incorrectly claiming the naked earth would be a -430 F ice ball.

        Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

        • re: “But outer space is neither hot nor cold.”

          It doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what your “IR thermometer” reads (or measures).

          BTW, what __does__ it read (or measure)?

          • _Jim,

            IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/calibration/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface emissivity can be less than 1.0.

            That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected emissivity of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.

            This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.

        • “ All the IR sensor “sees” is the surroundings out to about 30 m. And radiation demands a surface. What’s the sky’s surface?
          Space around the earth is, in fact, NOT 3K.”

          Nick:
          You still do not get the concept.
          The IR sensor seems what it is pointed at.
          It is directional.
          If pointed at the sky it sees the sky.
          You say “the space around the Earth is not 3K”
          CORRECT
          BUT the IR thermometer can only see that it is “not 3K”
          WHEN GHGS ARE PRESENT TO RE-RADIATE LWIR BACK TO SAID THERMO.

          That is the entire point right there!!
          The GHE.
          The GHE comes from the presence of GHGs.
          If they were not there then the thermo would “see” space at 3K.
          Ergo you have the GHE as the thermo sees “space around Earth, NOT 3K”

          YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST YOURSELF AND FAIL TO SEE IT.

          Your conceptual fail is blinkering you, and you alone here – the world’s scientists are not and have not been these last 150 years since Arrhenius ‘discovered’ the GHE.
          Why are you special in that?
          You’re not.
          There’s a name for the syndrome you know.

  53. My biggest problem with the greenhouse theory is that the conductive transfer and adiabatic transfer of energy to the upper atmosphere and re radiation by all atmospheric particles isn’t counted whereas the relatively tiny interception / re-radiation energy budget of the CO2 molecule will have a vast effect on the difference between Stefan Boltzmann calculations and our actual temperature. Even Trenberth shows 5 percent of solar energy being conducted into the atmosphere and basic physics says all of this energy may be re-radiated by any particle. The basic ability of the CO2 particles to absorb energy is more than 2 magnitudes smaller in budget when conductive intercepted energy is considered. Turning water to vapour and then having it deposit large amounts of energy through conductive processes to neighbouring molecules in the atmosphere when condensing is also something CO2 doesn’t do.

    • That’s perhaps the biggest laugh in their hypothesis. As if the atmosphere magically stays in place between updrafts and downdrafts, no thermal conduction taking place between gas molecules like they themselves are magically fixed in place and radiating/absorbing like a solid.

  54. I’m ROTFL reading all this nonsense about the U.N. IPCC’s fake physics hoax called CO2-driven global warming. There is one magic bullet that kills all attempts to save it, namely, that CO2 is the wrong gas for global warming because its radiation absorption/emission wavelength has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, about the same temperature as dry ice, which can’t melt an ice cube. If it were more like +40C, a blizzard of words might make it plausible, but not -80C. Cold photons can’t increase the temperature of a hotter object, period, end of story.

    Read my lips: Dry ice in the sky can’t cause global warming. Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

    – T.L. Winslow (TLW)
    “World’s Greatest Genius” (WGG)

  55. My big problem with the graphic is that the atmosphere appears to radiate more heat to the ground than space:
    345 vs. 212 if I’m reading that right. Sorry, for a sphere the surface area is greater on top than inside. Also, at altitude there is a less than 50% probability that radiation will strike the Earth than go to space.

    This seems like a massive error, so I must be interpreting the graphic wrong.

    TL; DR: if the atmosphere is emitting 212 W/m2 to space, what it emits to the Earth must be less due to geometry.

    • They seem to ignore the optical depth of a photon emitted greatly increases as you increase in height due to the decrease in density. Very few photons emitted from GHGs above 100 m reach back to the surface.

  56. Good Lord, what a bunch of amateurs, including our author. “Returning a portion” is not a concept we learn in engineering school.

    Rod has it partially correct, although his spelling is not very good. John Tillman is spot-on.

    The Sun emits radiation at a temperature of 5,778 K. It hits the rotating Earth, which has an atmosphere. The atmosphere absorbs some, the clouds and the surface reflect some, and the surface absorbs the rest.

    The surface and the atmosphere radiate too, both, all the time.

    CO2 absorbs radiation emitted from matter at around -80 C, or 153.15K. Of course there is a Plank spectrum, so CO2 absorbs a bit from matter at other temperatures too.

    Radiative heating is proportional to the 4th power of the difference in temperature between the two bodies involved. This is a concept difficult to understand, and if you never had to pass an exam on this concept, good luck.

    The energy flow diagram is ludicrous, simply because the Earth Rotates!

    Bottom line is, CO2 absorbs essentially all the radiation from the surface that it can, at an altitude of less than 10 meters from the surface, and immediately thermalizes this radiation. This is most of the greenhouse effect. Thermalizes means converts the 15-micron longwave IR to atmospheric heat. How it does this involves an induced dipole moment, another concept about which you must have needed to pass an exam to understand.

    ‘Way up high where the atmosphere is thin and there is not much water vapor at all, CO2 absorbs and re-radiates, not thermalizes, radiation emitted at -80C. This re-radiated IR goes in all directions, half of which goes down. More CO2 in the atmosphere raises the height at which this happens, lowering the temperature at which this happens, increasing the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere.

    All matter radiates all the time in all directions. CO2 only absorbs radiation emitted at a temperature lower than the surface of the Earth, and only emits radiation at this same temperature.

    Photons emitted at a lower temperature than the receiving body are not received, but reflected, as the 2nd Law tells us that a cooler body can never raise the temperature of a warmer body by transferring heat, whether conductively, convectively, or by radiation.

    The atmosphere cannot heat itself, not the surface of the Earth. The Sun does that. The atmosphere affects the way the Earth radiates back to space.

    Professors Smith and Wang at the glorious U of Michigan told me so, and they know whereof they speak.

    • Michael,

      Even if CO2 could actually do what you say (I have my doubts.) 0.04% has insufficient mass to warm anything of substance.

      • Schroeder Fitting, not Hansen,

        The atmosphere radiates to space. CO2 up high changes the altitude at which the atmosphere freely radiates to space, affecting the rate at which the atmosphere radiates to space, affecting the amount of energy NOT radiated to space hence retained in the atmosphere.

        I did not say that CO2 warms anything. By absorbing and thermalizing outgoing long-wave IR close to the surface, energy is retained in the atmosphere. By absorbing and reradiating outgoing long-wave IR up high, energy is retained in the atmosphere.

        Is retaining energy the same thing as Warming? No. Does a blanket warm you? No, it slows cooling.

          • AC/DC,

            Yes. All matter above Absolute Zero radiates all the time in all directions. The ice cubes in your freezer are radiating. Since the atmosphere is gaseous it does not radiate much compared to, say, a utility boiler, but yes it radiates, at the Plank frequencies corresponding to its temperature.

          • The top of the atmosphere radiates freely to space.
            As you go deeper into the atmosphere, the radiation is more indirect.

            If the atmosphere didn’t radiate to space, then the planet would heat up until it vaporizes.

        • Michael,

          For a given Q increasing the thermal resistance with a blanket, R = 1/U, increases dT, (Tme – T cool bedroom).

          The heat flow rate doesn’t change but Tme increases and I feel warmer.
          For the same dT my heat loss, Q, decreases.
          Or a combination of the two.

          The greater the resistance the greater the dT potential needed to move energy through.

          Suppose an R6 house is 70 F inside with 30 F outside, dT = 40.
          Increase R to 12 and for a given furnace setting the dT goes to 80 and inside goes to 110 F.
          Instead the thermostat cuts Q in half.

          The atmosphere behaves in much the same way.

          1) the earth is cooler with the atmosphere.
          2) “extra” BB LWIR energy upwelling from the surface is not possible.
          3) No “extra” BB upwelling means no “warming” GHG “extra” energy loop.
          4) No RGHE no CAGW

          All other topics and discussions are moot.

        • You have a good point. If the absorbed sunlight is not quickly thermalized then O2 and N2 have little effect in the atmosphere. Little effect means convection is primarily handled by H2O and CO2. Their temps would have to be very high to cause strong updrafts. This just doesn’t make any sense.

          In my opinion to many have fallen into a radiation hole and can see nothing else. Thermalization of the whole atmosphere and associated effects on convection, heat transport, and water vapor are much larger than appreciated.

      • But it’s not 0.04% of radiative forcing via the GHE.
        The atmosphere contains >99% gases that are transparent to terrestrial LWIR, so it is actually >40%, up from 28% pre-industrial and together with the other GHGs radiative forcing has risen 41% since 1990 (in 2018).
        I don’t suppose you have any problem with CO2 not being sufficient to green the planet?
        And that is a 2D effect – the GHE takes place in 3D within the depth of the atmosphere.

        https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-levels-atmosphere-reach-new-record
        https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/atmospheric-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-6/assessment-1

      • The mass ratio doesn’t matter. Each molecule of CO2 is capable of converting millions of photons of IR into heat, per second.

        • MarkW,

          how would that work?

          CO2 is busy radiating away the energy that it received and can convert all the phone energy in heat? This is truly amazing and we should stop building solar panels, power plants and all and convert the free atmospheric energy into work.

          Anyone aver pointed out that you have a very wrong grasp of simple physics?

        • “Each molecule of CO2 is capable of converting millions of photons of IR into heat, per second.”

          The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. The mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (N2, O2), is on the order of 1 nanosecond. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, 99.9999999% of the time, this energy will be transferred to other gas molecules as kinetic energy, not emitted as another photon.

          Photons that are re-emitted are in a random direction. Probability and geometry dictate that less than 50% of the time, can this re-emitted photon intersect the Earth. If it does, it adds molecular energy, which by definition, increases the temperature of the surface.

          There are two essential things to consider.

          1) Most of the energy transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere. Convection moves heat from the surface to the atmosphere. Radiation primarily moves heat to the atmosphere – with a tiny fraction of that radiation returning to the surface.

          2) A photon can only be in one place at a time! If it is energy at the surface, then the surface experiences increased molecular motion and therefore increased temperature. When the photon is emitted away from the surface, it is no longer a part of the surface energy, and consequently, the temperature decreases. If the photon goes to space, then that energy has left the Earth system forever. If a GHG captures it, then the temperature of the atmosphere increases while that energy exists in the GHG or is transferred to the gas as molecular motion. If it returns to the surface, then it adds to the energy of the incoming solar radiation for the time it exists at the surface.

          To the energy of the incoming solar radiation, we must add the small number of photons that return to the Earth. But, what percentage of photons return? How long do they persist? How many times do they go back and forth before escaping to space, or residing in the atmosphere before escaping as radiation?

          Remember, Watts is Joules/s. These effects are on the order of seconds. An integration over time will show the net energy at the surface. These photons that return will increase temperature.

          For those who promote GHE base AGW, the challenge is to:

          1) Explain how more than a minuscule fraction of photons return to the surface.

          2) Explain how the atmospheric temperature doesn’t indicate the magnitude of energy imbalance claimed.

          3) Explain how the ice sheets escape all but a minuscule quantity of this back-radiated energy.

          4) What property of physics explains how 95-99% of this imbalance makes its way to the deep oceans – especially considering that IR only penetrates water to a few microns.

          • You would be correct with most of your statement.

            One addition to the photons. Its not the amount of photons but the energy level of the same. This energy level is determined by the temperature at which the photon was emitted.
            On that this means that regardless how many photons you might count, if they coming from a source with a lower temperature, they will not matter for the receiver.

            This is why a colder body will not be able to warm up a warmer body through radiation.

    • Adding a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules over the past century of course hasn’t raised effective emission height by much, considering that on average Earth’s atmosphere has about 250 water vapor molecules, the far and away most important GHG.

      Enriching the air with a fifth and sixth CO2 molecule wouldn’t move it much higher either. It’s still going to be in the middle of the troposphere, around five klicks up.

    • Quote: “Bottom line is, CO2 absorbs essentially all the radiation from the surface that it can, at an altitude of less than 10 meters from the surface, and immediately thermalizes this radiation. This is most of the greenhouse effect.”

      Most of the greenhouse effect. Really? Have you ever heard that water vapor is the most important GH gas even according to the IPCC? I think this enough for commenting this comment.

      • Of course I have heard that water vapor is a far more effective “greenhouse” gas than CO2, I was a little sloppy there. Up higher, where more CO2 actually does something, there is little if any water vapor.

        • @Michael Moon

          “ Up higher, where more CO2 actually does something, there is little if any water vapor.”

          Why do you think CO2 only does something up high?

          By absorbing and thermalizing outgoing long-wave IR at 500 meters altitude, energy is retained in the atmosphere. By absorbing and reradiating outgoing long-wave IR at 500 meters altitude, energy is emitted to lower layers (just like “up high”).

        • I am not the only one who has carried out the spectral analyses and found out the in the altitude of 1 km the absorption of CO2 is 90 % complete, in the altitude of 2 km, it is 95 % complete. Even though the CO2 concentration is almost the same up to the altitude of 80 kilometers, it does not help, when the energy provided by the surface emittance has been absorbed in the wavelength zone of the CO2. Above the troposphere, there is almost no absorption except the absorption by ozone.

          • @Antero

            90% complete? You must be talking about the infrared emitted by the surface?

            Every layer of the troposphere, top to bottom, also produces an upwelling flux.

            And this flux is absorbed, shared, and reemitted…. just as if it had come from the surface.

          • To Snape.

            Yes; I am talking about the absorption of LW radiation absorbed by the GH gases in the atmosphere. Yes, I am aware that only 28 W/m2 of LW radiation passes the atmosphere without a single absorption event.

          • @Antero

            I was replying to what you wrote here,

            “I am not the only one who has carried out the spectral analyses and found out the in the altitude of 1 km the absorption of CO2 is 90 % complete, in the altitude of 2 km, it is 95 % complete.”

            The spectral analyses gave you the percentage of SURFACE IR that had been absorbed at those altitudes, right?

            Well, there is also a continuous upwelling flux emitted from lower layers of the atmosphere, and then adsorbed by higher layers. These fluxes are just as important as the one that originates at the surface.

            Consider the upwelling infrared emitted by a 100 meter thick layer of atmosphere located at an altitude of about 1 Km. Much less than 90% would be absorbed by the layer directly above it.

            This flux is bound for space too, and when absorbed by CO2 or water vapor, the energy is instead shared or reemitted….. just as though it had been emitted by the surface.

          • “Even though the CO2 concentration is almost the same up to the altitude of 80 kilometers, it does not help, when the energy provided by the surface emittance has been absorbed in the wavelength zone of the CO2”
            The concentration Co2 may or may not be the same to 80Km but the amount of CO2 molecules is very substantially less at that height. Most of the idealized CO2 radiation directly to space comes from layers far below which is diluted in weighting by the increase in the TOA surface area at the idealized TOA say 100 km

          • Sorry for mixing the CO2 absorption and the total absorption by all GH gases. The absorption by CO2 is finished below 1 km because the CO2 is so strong GH gas in its own wavelength zone. The total absorption by all GH gases goes like this_ 90 % in 1 km , 95 % in 2 km, 98 % in 11 km (troposphere). After the troposphere, ozone only increases the total absorption.

          • Antero,
            This is nonsense,

            “The absorption by CO2 is finished below 1 km because the CO2 is so strong GH gas in its own wavelength zone. The total absorption by all GH gases goes like this_ 90 % in 1 km , 95 % in 2 km, 98 % in 11 km (troposphere). After the troposphere, ozone only increases the total absorption.”

            There is continuous absorption and remission of GHG’s throughout the lower troposphere. A continuous upwelling flux.

            You seem to be fixated on the singular flux that originates at the surface.

          • To Snape. I am not the only researcher who has carried out these spectral calculations. We all have the same results. I have validated my results with the real observations.

          • Antero

            I am not doubting the numbers! I am saying that those figures refer only to the flux originating directly from the surface.

            What is the total upwelling LWIR flux at 1 Km altitude? Could you show me using MODTRAN?

            A large portion is NOT directly from the surface, but rather was emitted by lower layers of atmosphere.

          • To Snape. What happens to the emitted LW radiation by the surface is a complicated process. It looks like you are not familiar with spectral calculation applications. They calculate the whole process and you can calculate the absorbed, transmitted and upward LW flux at any given altitude.

            You write like this: “A large portion is NOT directly from the surface, but rather was emitted by lower layers of the atmosphere.” That is not correct. As I wrote, these calculations calculate the whole situation, because otherwise, the results would be totally wrong. But they are because they can be validated against the real observations on the surface and at TOA.

          • Antero

            “As I wrote, these calculations calculate the whole situation, because otherwise, the results would be totally wrong. But they are because they can be validated against the real observations on the surface and at TOA.”

            I think I see your confusion.

            You need to explain to yourself how the total upwelling flux at 1 Km could be observed/measured when viewed from the surface or TOA – if it is subsequently absorbed and reemitted by neighboring layers?

            ********

            An analogy:

            From the balcony of a tall building, you could look down and point an IR thermometer at the canopy of a tree. You could perhaps conduct a spectral analysis, and determine that only 5% of the flux originated from the surface, meaning the lion’s share was emitted by the tree’s leaves and branches.

            The 5%, however, does not represent the total surface emissions, it only represents the flux that could be viewed from above the tree.

            The instr

          • More simply:

            Viewed from the TOA, you cannot see the total upwelling IR flux emitted by the surface, all you can see is the portion emitted from the atmospheric window.

            Agreed?

            The same holds true for the total flux emitted by a layer at 1Km. Only the atmospheric window is visible from a vantage point at TOA.

  57. I believe that it’s a far more complex issue than how all sides frame it and far too complex to model and get any result of any use to anybody apart from politicians. What I do know that makes me doubt the accepted wisdom is that I can calculate the temperature of a body on the earth’s surface with no reference to downwelling radiation only incoming UV and material properties, I can calculate the temperature profile for the atmosphere with no reference to radiation and, if this downwelling radiation can heat the surface by 33C then surely we can use this immense heat source for something useful? Surely we can measure the magnitude of the downwelling IR if it is real? If we can measure it, it is real and if not then it is imagined. I also know that as you descend from the tropopause, temperature rises and it does so with no reference to radiation. It continues underground where there is none. Jericho is hotter than Jerusalem, the floor of death Valley is hotter than the rim and the snow line is quite high. This seems to indicate that gravity and bulk properties are key issues rather than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? I believe that to dismiss it out of hand is as wrong as saying that GHGs slow heat release from the atmosphere. I believe that, in the troposphere, conduction and convection completely dominate radiation but I’m not clever enough to understand what happens at the Quantum level

  58. “Climate models use the relevant physical processes at every point on three-dimensional grid covering the Earth, with day-night and seasonal cycles of solar illumination.”

    Are you telling me that we have such data available for EVERY POINT on a three-dimensional grid covering the Earth and that we have computers that can handle that much data.

  59. For those people who have no idea (or do not approve the fact) on that the energy balance fluxes are based on the observations, I quote a few sentences from the paper of Kato et al. (2018) “Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product”.

    Direct quotations from this paper: “TOA and surface irradiances are derived nearly independently. We use surface observations to evaluate EBAF-surface irradiances. The geographical location of surface buoy and land-surface sites used in this study’s validation is shown in Fig. 9. The caption of Fig. 9 is like this: Location of 46 buoys (blue diamond) and 36 land-surface sites (white diamond) where downward irradiances used in validation were taken (after Rutan et al. 2015).”

    This is a simple piece of evidence that there is an encompassing network of ground and sea surface measurement stations totaling 81 together, which do measure the downward LW radiation from the atmosphere.

    But I know from the experience that those people with their own physics this is no proof at all. Why do I bother?

  60. Dear Dr Spencer,
    Perhaps we could get somewhere in this discussion if there were actually an article written that addressed the main arguments instead of red herrings and tangents. Our primary objection to back-radiation hypothesis is that it is standing on its head according to basic laws of physics. We’re saying B-R hypothesis claims that the tail wags the dog, and the only rebuttal we keep getting is that the tail is moving, the tail has momentum, and the tail is connected to the dog, ergo we must be right because we can prove that the tail is exerting a force on the dog.

    Start with the kinetic theory of gases, which I would guess most readers here are familiar with. We know that when we measure the temperature of a gas, the energy involved in that thermodynamic relationship between the gas and thermometer is almost entirely due to the translational kinetic energy in the gas. A very tiny fraction of that energy which causes the mercury to rise in the bulb is from the other partitioned energies of the total kinetic energy – the vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom of the individual gas molecules colliding with the thermometer. So where does this leave the contributions from the IR emissions of the surroundings? There seems to be a major disconnect between back radiation hypothesis and established physics here.

    Also, many know that the heat budget diagrams are averages and that the GCMs use local physical variables over time, but what I keep saying is that the heat budget diagrams are using erroneous concepts and thus the GCMs must be as well.
    1st – Is the atmosphere frictionless? Obviously not. Where is the frictional heating of the atmosphere covered in the heat budget estimates? All sediment transport except from gravity is due to energy that was originally derived from solar heating. In rivers alone this is in the order of petagrams annually. At all times everywhere on Earth the wind is exerting a force upon the surface and everything on it, and it is far from negligible. Like the force needed to sway a 30 meter oak tree back and forth is not negligible, and the wind is doing this on entire forests all day long – until 94 mph where nearly all trees start snapping due to thermal expansion at the flexure point.
    2nd – It’s our understanding that the back radiation is estimated by the difference of the estimated temperature using the S-B equation and the measured temperature – assuming that the +33 is entirely due to back radiation. This is flawed because the surface area used to figure the number is abstract. In an academic exercise the area of a 10X10 lawn is 100, but in reality the absorbing and emitting surface area of that 10X10 lawn is much higher than 100 because of the rough texture of that surface – whether it is blades of grass, a forest canopy, or cobbled rocks.
    3rd – Thermal density. This is another problem between abstract theory and reality. The Earth is not a hollow shell with zero heat capacity. Water itself acts as a much closer analogue to a real greenhouse gas than the atmosphere because solar energy enters a three dimensional area but can only emit from a 2D surface. All of the terrestrial surface too has thermal mass. The heat budget diagrams act as if the solar energy irradiates a surface and the only place for that heat to go is to radiate back out.
    4th – The atmosphere at the surface can be at a higher temperature than the ground below it and heat it via conduction. This happens quite often from late winter to early summer as the ground warms from the low point of winter. Advection fog is a clear example of when there is a large inversion of temperature. Where is thermal return to the surface covered in the heat budget?
    5th – Geothermal and photosynthesis – where are they covered in the heat budget estimates?
    6th – Thermal updrafts and latent heat transport gas to the upper atmosphere and downdrafts replace that gas at the surface, but what happens to the gas between these vertical moving bundles of air? Do they fall due to gravity – no. Do they float off in to space because they aren’t massive enough to be bothered by gravity – no. This brings me back to the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Air that is seemingly at rest is not at rest at all, there are a huge number of molecular collisions occurring and all contributing to thermodynamic equilibrium. The BR hypothesis conceptualizes the atmosphere as a mass with no motion outside of the updrafts and downdrafts with the primary thermodynamic factor being radiative emission, completely ignoring the Kinetic Theory. The lower atmosphere is heated via conduction with collisions at the surface and that heat it transferred upwards via collisions between molecules regardless of whether that gas is in an updraft or not.

    According to BR hypothesis, an atmosphere with no GHGs at all would not recycle any solar heat back to the surface regardless of how massive it was – which of course is utter nonsense. The atmosphere is a heat reservoir that retains thermal energy on the planet almost entirely via mechanical physics. And last, the BR hypothesis paradoxically claims that the atmosphere is there in the first place because of IR absorption from the surface, which of course you can’t receive energy from something if you aren’t there in the first place. The atmosphere is the fractional gas partition of this planet that received the energy to overcome intramolecular forces in order to become a gas in the first place from direct solar heating and retains this energy from the physical processes described above.

    • Robert,
      “…assuming that the +33 is entirely due to back radiation.”

      288 K (assumed average) – 255 K (assumed 0.3 albedo) = 33 C (complete garbage)

      Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.

      That is just flat ridiculous.

      NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball.
      https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
      (slide 14)
      That is just flat ridiculous^2.

      Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

      The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.11, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.

      And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 27% to 43% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 19 to 33 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.

      With 30 % albedo: 957.6 W/m^2, 360.5 K, 87.5 C, 189.5 F (by 4, 239.4 W/m^2, 255K)

      With 11% albedo: 1,217.5 W/m^2 (27.1%), 383.2 K, 109.8 C (22.3), 223.8 F (by 4, 304.4 W/m^2, 270.7 K)

      With 0% albedo: 1,367.5 W/m^2 (42.8%), 394.0 K, 121.0 C (33.5), 250.0 F (by 4, 341.9 W/m^2, 278.7 K)

      • Okay ignore the hypotheticals with scenarios with no atmosphere or 100% N2, what do you think of the +33 C as it is calculated with our atmosphere and the estimated albedo? Is the absorbing/emitting surface of Earth in reality not much higher than the 5.101×10^8 km^2?

        Vintners have understood for centuries that just a slope alone increases the surface area for irradiance. And what is the surface area for irradiance on the Amazon Jungle canopy alone? Then consider the additional surface area that isn’t ever receiving direct sunlight but is still emitting surface.

        +33 becomes much smaller when you consider the real surface instead of an abstract concept of surface. How much smaller I do not know, but the difference left can easily be explained with the Kinetic Theory of Gases and other gas Laws, no special gas radiation physics needed.

    • ”So where does this leave the contributions from the IR emissions of the surroundings? There seems to be a major disconnect between back radiation hypothesis and established physics here.“

      You may have forgotten the mercury for a moment?
      The mercury is extremely dense and is already saturated with energy to be at the temperature that it is and is radiating to the surroundings as well.
      It has a lot of thermal mass.
      When the temperature goes down it actually radiates a lot of IR to the surroundings for quite a while as it shrinks.
      When the air gets hotter that IR goes into the mercury.

      Translational energy works both ways as well. While small amounts of air molecules are generating energy from extra movement large amounts of mercury are generating equal and opposite energy back at equilibrium.
      Putting hotter air in introduces more IR ( if containing GHG) and more kinetic energy in the gas. It is not a back radiation problem here, both modes of energy transfer coexist and do not deny each other

    • Robert W Turner March 13, 2020 at 1:35 pm re: “Perhaps we could get somewhere in this discussion if there were actually an article written that addressed the main arguments instead of red herrings and tangents. Our primary objection to back-radiation hypothesis is … ”

      Spent ANY time playing around with an IR thermometer Mr. Turner? WITH a variety of ‘sky’ and meteorological conditions (clouds, low clouds, fog, clear sky, cirrus, etc)? CARE to explain any of the ‘readings’ you see?

      BEAR in mind these devices (IR thermometers) like the MLX90614* sensor “receive” 8 to 14 um LWIR energy and employ a “thermopile” within the device to convert the LWIR to an electrical signal for measurement purposes.

      .
      .

      * MLX90614 – https://www.melexis.com/en/product/MLX90614/Digital-Plug-Play-Infrared-Thermometer-TO-Can#

  61. Dr. Roy Spencer,
    “If the Earth had no atmosphere (like the Moon), the surface temperature at any given location would be governed by the balance between the rate of absorbed solar energy and the loss of thermally-emitted infrared (IR) radiation”.
    Atmosphere is a key word in this sentence. The whole atmosphere (not “greenhouse gases”) absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface. And let’s remember that heat radiation and infrared radiation are not identical (see, for example, Van Nostrand Scientific Encyclopedia, 2007: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471743984.vse4181.pub2 )
    Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infrared radiation, but they absorb heat according to their values of heat capacity.
    “…any gain or loss of an IR photon by a GHG is almost immediately felt by the non-radiatively active gases (like nitrogen and oxygen) through molecular collisions”. In physics, there is no experimental or theoretical evidence for this statement. A molecule of a “greenhouse gas” absorbs and emits photons with energy that corresponds to energy difference between allowed vibrational and rotational quantum states of the molecule. So, each molecule can absorb only restricted amount of energy, and this absorbed energy does not change the kinetic energy of the molecule, hence, the temperature. No one observed a change in the temperature of carbon dioxide in the cuvette of the infrared spectrometer, because it could not be. Moreover, greenhouse gas molecules cannot transfer excess kinetic energy (which they do not have) to nitrogen and oxygen molecules. An air purified from water vapor and carbon dioxide, with an equal amount of absorbed heat, will heat up to about the same temperature as ordinary air: a slight difference is determined by the mass and specific heat.

    • It is not about what the air will heat up to, it is about what the air will do to energy coming and going from different heated sources like the ground and sun. Air lacking GHG will not heat up as much. much more radiation [mostly IR will go straight back to space] and much more quickly. The air will warm but as the surface will be colder in average the air can only warm to that schematized earth temperature at the surface. It will not have an equal amount of absorbed heat.

  62. One benefit of Covid-19 is that it has concentrated people’s minds on a real problem for a change and forced them to act urgently in their own interest. It has also closed or postponed many useless talkfests on Climate Change/Global Warming and many of the Warmistas are now down at the supermarket panic buying toilet paper and emergency food supplies. Apart from the severe health hazards, we all benefit.

    • Good point. They Green blight enthusiasts and progressive taxation socializers will have to wait to chew their cud another day. Meanwhile, Covid19 and Gaia’s Choice (e.g. Planned Parent). Also, an ad for Planned Parenthood soliciting donations to fund operation of their reproductive chambers and Mengele clinics. Progress.

  63. Maybe that most of the readers are even more confused about the GH effect after these comments. Maybe they do not even know if there is a GH effect and what is the driving force of this effect as W/m2. For me, it is very clear, as I have written that it is 270 W/m2 and not 155 W/m2 as defined by the IPCC. No complicated calculations- just basic mathematics and the basic laws of physics.

    The purpose of the IPCC in this wrong definition is to make enough room for the warming impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations. The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 6.3 C according to the IPCC’s definition and according to my definition, it is only 2.5 C in the present climate. The warming impact of 560 ppm is 1.8 C per the IPCC, and it cannot be fitted into the correct GH effect definition but fitting into 6.3 C goes just fine.

  64. One sentence of pure bullshit.

    (And almost never are the rates of absorption and emission the same, contrary to the claims of many skeptics – IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not).

    Dr roy the Greenhouse effect gatekeeper in one sentence slips in cold really really can warm hot….
    What an asshole.

    • … IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not.

      TRANSLATION: “A body of higher temperature can absorb IR from a body of lower temperature, just as a body of lower temperature can absorb IR from a body of higher temperature.” … or … as G Ashe translates it, “Cold really really CAN warm hot.”

      VERDICT: Wrong.

      CORRECTION: A body can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation at the same energy or at an energy below its own temperature. Thus the energy of outgoing radiation can only be less than or equal to the energy of incoming radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body, simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience an energy already higher than that radiation’s energy, thus, for gases, that radiation will be scattered.

  65. Descriptions of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect are unavoidably incomplete due to its complexity, and even misleading at times due to ambiguous phrasing when trying to express that complexity.

    Yes it’s very complex.
    Which means 99% of people affirming belief in trace gas back radiation warming, and affirming it aggressively and condescendingly, actually don’t know what they’re talking about. In fact no-one knows what they are talking about unless they are able to write line by line computer simulations of atmospheric heat exchange.

    To most believers it’s “CO2 is a blanket stopping heat escaping from the atmosphere”. This is what Arrhenius proposed. All oversimplified and wrong.

    The vast complexity of the CO2 global warming conjecture makes it vastly vulnerable to being wrong due to the myriad possible unknown processes and feedbacks. Or complexity emergent behaviours and phenomena.

    Due to this complexity and uncertainty it’s a million miles from being settled science.

    Roy’s acknowledgement of this complexity is welcome and extremely important. Accusations of stupidity from either side are inappropriate. It is a very real and very hard – and very interesting – scientific problem.

    FWIW, I think the most fruitful path to an answer is something along the lines of Heisenberg’s S-Matrix.

    • Your website says Albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/
      I did not see you provide proof or quotes as to where this actually occurred other than you saying so?

      • It’s a figure of speech. No, Einstein did not say the words “No to greenhouse CO2 warming”. But he did explain that transfer of heat from radiation to gas is NOT dominated by absorption-emission phenomena, but by momentum transfer interactions similar to the way gas molecules exchange heat with each other.

        CAGW is built on the assumption that practically all heat exchange in the atmosphere is radiative. Einstein explains that this is false. He did this in advance of CO2 global warming being a political issue. He refuted it in advance.

        Read the article, it’s short, clear and obvious.

      • Here are Einstein’s words from 1917:

        “During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

        kT / 2

        this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

        “Regardless of the nature of the molecules”. How can it be any clearer than that?

        There is nothing whatsoever different about CO2 relative to any other gas in how it gets heated by radiation.

        • Thanks for clarifying re figure of speech.
          Ok with that.
          CO2 nothing different?
          I would like to think that as well but when it has dominated discussions for years I think you could reassess.
          CO2 can absorb energy at what are quaintly called GHG temperatures.
          There are spectrum effects due to different absorption wavelengths.
          When there are a lot of different parameters involved theories can relate to macroscopic, ie pressure, microscopic ie quantum theory, radiation, energy and temperature all of which might be correct in their own setting.
          Try to broaden the horizons, think like a back radiation or a warmist and then reevaluate.
          What would you do if you had to use satellites in some way to measure temps. Could you do it better?
          IR is real however it works.

        • Thanks
          Someone upthread commented that the main absorption frequency of CO2 corresponds to a temperature of minus 80 C – is that the “GHG temperature”?

          • Phil Salmon,

            The minus 80 C is the Wien’s peak wavelength at 10.6 um for any material at that temperature.
            Nothing to do with the absorption or emission of IR at the same wavelength by CO2. whatever its temperature.
            The first is what any molecule of any material does emit above zero K.
            I am not familiar what that is caused by (maybe from the whole-molecule vibrations or collisions between molecules), that is what Einstein is talking about.
            The second is a change in energy within a molecule, completely independent of the Gaussian curve of energy emitted by any object. That is nicely explained by Barret & the late Bellamy at:
            http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page12.htm

            Some part of the energy absorbed by CO2 or other GHG molecules is immediately transferred to other non-GHG gases like N2 and O2 by collisions and then again obey Wiens law, others loss their energy by sending an IR photon in all directions.
            Which one of these two possibilities happens is a matter of density of the gas, with higher density, more collisions and less emissions and reverse for less density.

            Thus there is no “greenhouse specific” peak temperature, there are only greenhouse specific wavelengths that have nothing to do with temperature or Wiens law…

            As an example I have posted a link to CO2 lasers: they operate at maximum 100 C, give a beam of 10.6 um that can melt steel at over 1000 C…

  66. There are so many comments which claim that there is no GH effect and the radiation emitted by the surface cannot warm up anything. Could you answer what happens to the LW radiation of 395 W/m2 emitted by the surface, because into space is emitted only 240 W/m2? Or do you say that nobody knows but you have a good answer? If this lost radiation of 155 W/m2 has been lost, could it warm up the atmosphere? Or can latent heat of water warm up the atmosphere? Or can the sensible heat warm up the atmosphere?

    If you say that YES or yeees, it is possible that they do warm up the atmosphere, then you confess that it happens all the time. Then you have to find the answer, why the atmosphere has a constant temperature profile? Any comments?

    • “Could you answer what happens to the LW radiation of 395 W/m2 emitted by the surface,..”

      This is a theoretical “what if” calculation that assumes the surface radiates as a 1.0 emissivity BB at 16C or 289K.

      It
      Does
      Not
      Exist!!

      Surface emissivity is: 63/396=0.016 or 63/160=0.39.

      • Nick, inexpensive hardwares tore IR thermometers usually use a fixed emissivity setting of 0.95.

        If what you write were correct, they would display a different brightness temperature than a thermometer stuck in the natural earth surface. Yet that is not the case, IR thermometers pointed at earth surface display the same brightness temperature as the surface thermometer temperature. If they didn’t, then IR thermometers would not be as useful as they are in practice.

    • I think that is one of the big errors in the model. 395 W/m2 is not emitted. The number is a theoretical number based on an erroneous use of Stefan-Boltzmanns law. It is not a measured value.
      in addition, the number is based on a cloud free atmosphere. Earth does not radiate 395 W/m2 from cloudy areas.

      I think this is the main point in all radiation discussions. What is really emitted from earth ? My view is that it is far less than 395 W/m2 -> the equilibrium temperatur is higher than -18C

      • To Jonas Rosen. The emitted LW radiation value´ of 395 W/m2 is based on two facts. It is the value according to Planck’s law – the Earth’s surface obeys this law as any material in the universe. Do you know an exception? It has been measured all the time by the global international network.

    • “Could you answer what happens to the LW radiation of 395 W/m2 emitted by the surface, because into space is emitted only 240 W/m2?”

      Since I am a member of the group that has my own physics, I can say anything I want. So here goes.
      Number one, you have to accept my theory that radiation is not heat.
      Then number two, you have to accept my wild guess that the 395 number is a measure of IR, not heat. Somewhere along the line it must have gotten converted into watts.
      My hypothesis is that the 395 is multiple readings of the same photons bouncing like pingpong balls between H2O molecules in the sea or earth. You are detecting the same pingpong balls over and over again as they whiz back and forth.
      I go back to accordionsrule theory of physics #1. Radiation is not heat, so it doesn’t matter that the same pingpong ball gets counted over and over again. Photons have nil warming effect until they crash into a molecule and makes that molecule move.
      This has nothing to do with CO2. Only H2O molecules are close enough to radiate between.

      • Heat and radiation are different forms of energy. When radiation has been absorbed it will be transformed into heat. On the other hand, any material emits radiation according to its temperature.

        What happens at the bottom of the atmosphere is an interesting phenomenon. Firstly, I remind you that the surface temperature over the land is the temperature of the air measured at the altitude of 1,5 meters. The absorption calculations in the clear sky conditions show it with the accuracy of +/- 2 % that the upward radiation and the downward radiation have exactly the same magnitude. This is according to radiation laws. The GH molecules radiate evenly in all directions. Due to absorption, the level of radiation decreases from 395 to 240 at the TOA. It is very nonlinear as I have commented above using the exact numbers.

        • Dr. Ollila, thank you for your reply. So you aren’t seeking to lower the 395 or 345, you are saying the 155 needs to be raised. By adding in sensible and latent heat, I think is what I’m reading.
          As you can guess, I’m not someone who would understand why those belong on the GHE side of the ledger, I’ll take your word for it.

          • This is so simple that you can rely on your own judgment just by looking at Fig.2. Just calculate how much radiation energy has been absorbed on the surface and compare this figure to 240 W/m2.

        • “Heat and radiation are different forms of energy. ”

          Nope, heat is the energy that is added to the body and will cause a temperature change.
          Energy is just that, energy. Not all energy is heat, but all heat is energy.

          “Due to absorption, the level of radiation decreases from 395 to 240 at the TOA. ”
          How would that be possible? The Lapse rate exists regardless of absorption or radiation.
          This sentence and the meaning of this sentence is not correct.

          • To Another Joe. Quote: ““Due to absorption, the level of radiation decreases from 395 to 240 at the TOA. ” How would that be possible? The Lapse rate exists regardless of absorption or radiation. This sentence and the meaning of this sentence is not correct.”

            If you deny the observed flux values of 395 and 240, it means that there is no sense to continue any discussion. In addition to this, you mix up the lapse rate and the absorption in the atmosphere. Hopeless.

          • Antero,

            its not worth spending my time with you, but I will continue to call out your various mistakes. So I might actually spend a lot of time.

            For your notion that 395 W/m2 is an observed flux you are so far from the truth you would not even know. As far as I know this, it is a average temperature and its associated flux. You would be surprised that temperature here is 20 deg C. What is the emissivity to radiate that said flux I might ask you!
            Like I mentioned below, you have started a name calling game, above you used the word “Deny” which I did none of this sort.
            I now have given you one example that proves you wrong anyway and corrected your understanding.

            Happy to help!

  67. Please look at the satellite data for water vapour and OLR. They are strongly positively correlated:
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg1uzA-KKFEvD5BzX
    This is the opposite of the “greenhouse gas” non-science.

    If water vapour did not provide a negative feedback then all the tropical water would evaporate and end up as ice at the poles.

    Global surface temperature is controlled in a narrow range by the surface water, the connectedness of surface water, the heat transfer through the surface water (mostly driven by wind) and the formation of sea ice at a precise temperature.

    • The ocean is much warmer than the land on average. Water has higher heat capacity and lower elevatiom than land. Same insolation plus [non-existant] GH effect should make the land warmer.

      But the ocean reaches deeper into the bowels of the Earth, where it is warmer. Warmer water then convects up. The only solution is geothermal.

      Sooner or later all roads will lead to me.

      • I don’t think so. A circuit of pipes 2 meters down under the surface of the ground, water can be warmed enough to heat flooring/rooms/pools etc in homes.

      • I already said:
        “Warmer water then convects up.”

        There is no explanation why sun plus GHGs would make the ocean warmer AT THE SURFACE, compared to land.

        Bringing depth into discussion supports my view, and only my view.

        • Zoe Phin, I think that you have things upside down…
          Colder, denser water at the poles sink down to the bottom and only the trade winds near the equator bring these cold (not heated!) waters back to the surface near Peru and Chile.
          During an El Niño period the trade winds stop and reverse and no fresh bottom water comes up, to the anger of the Peruvian fishermen, as it is the cold rich bottom water which is the source of their income…

          • “only the trade winds near the equator bring these cold (not heated!) waters back to the surface near Peru and Chile.”

            There is a lot wrong with this sentence.

            Trade winds do not bring up water from deep down in the oceans. What brings up the water from deep down is geometrie and displacement of water due to cold water sinking, which pushes the water up elsewhere.
            The second wrong part is the notion that 4 Deg C cold water is cold! It is, as a matter of fact, much warmer than the -18 Deg C theoretical Earth temperature. If you bring water of that temperature up to the surface you make up a good part of the GHE.

          • Another Joe.

            The main way denser water can get to the surface is by off-land winds. That is the reason that you will see upwelling practically only near the coasts of big landmasses.
            The main upwelling place of the THC (thermohaline circulation) is near the coast of Peru and when there is an El Niño, the trade winds stop or reverse and the upwelling stops.
            That means no fresh nutrients, less plankton and less fish (and less CO2 emissions, but that is more than compensated by more CO2 emissions from the dried out Amazon forest).
            https://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/causes-and-effects-of-el-nino.html

            Of course, if dense waters sinks near the pole4s, it should be compensated by upwelling somewhere, but as the THC needs many hundreds of years before it gets to its upwelling near Peru, that difference over about a year is leveled off in the total mass of the oceans.

            Further, the ocean surface temperature in average is 15 C, at the equator up to 36 C. Although water of 4 C can give less cooling that anything at -18 C, I am pretty sure that is not the cause of the extra average temperature of the ocean surface…

          • In the eartheclipse article they talk about “water is pulled up”.

            This is wrong. wind cannot pull up water. Water is pushed up by cold water sinking to the seabed in the cold regions.

            Wind maybe can push water towards the west which creates a lower pressure where it is missing. The true driver yet is not the wind.

          • Another Joe,

            Of course wind can pull up waters from the deep and/or push water into the deep: half of the strength of Gulf Stream is from wind, the other half is from temperature and density differences.
            Wind pulls up water when it hits land and if the extra height is high enough, pushes water into the deep, despite density differences. The same for off-land winds pulling water from the deep. All what you need is a small change in water height to overcome the density differences.

            This time, Wiki has a good page on upwelling:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling

          • Interesting. Learned something.

            So there is multiple effects (temperature and density) and the Ekman Transport acting at the same time together with the Coriolis effect.

  68. Those curves have nothing to do with the GH effect and its definition. If they had, then anybody could prove any theories to be true.

  69. Results of the IR thermometer tests tonight with a low (200 to 500 ft) cloud deck:

    Air temperature (via electronic thermometer on porch): 61 deg F

    Porch bricks/IR thermometer: 61 deg F

    Pointing to sky/clouds w/IR thermometer: 57 deg F

    Pointing to clear sky: postponed until a clear night.

      • Excuse me?

        What are you ‘popping off’ about?

        Are you knowledgeable and conversant about this technology?

        Do you know the basis upon which it works?

        Are you familiar with techniques to verify it’s proper operation?

      • (This is REALLY to good to pass up …)

        Nick Schroeder pops off saying: “You are reading the on board reference T/C.”

        No, Nick, I pointed at the targets as indicated in the above post. (As in: Look , Nick , these devices have a little red laser dot that clearly shows where the ‘reading’ will take place. A 5th grader could do it. Are you smarter than that 5th grader?)

        Next.

    • Follow-on clear-sky measurements (after earlier cold front passage) –

      Air temperature (via electronic thermometer on porch): 44 deg F

      Pointing to grass w/IR thermometer: 39 deg F

      Pointing to clear sky w/IR thermometer: -55 deg F (YES, minus 55 degrees!)

      Further info: These IR thermometers use a “thermopile” sensor device mounted w/amplifier and A/D data converter in a TO-39 package and sensitive to the 8 to 14 um (LWIR) region. Affixed to the front of the device is a LWIR lens that establishes the FOV (field of view).

      https://www.melexis.com/en/product/MLX90614/Digital-Plug-Play-Infrared-Thermometer-TO-Can#

  70. Roy’s article is helpful is addressing the difficult question, what the CO2 warming hypothesis actually is? There are hundreds of versions of it in circulation, most of them wrong.

    The biggest single problem is the exaggeration of the role of IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere’s thermodynamics. It’s role is peripheral, almost negligible; not central.

    Roy’s use of a heated and insulated house illustrates this problem. The house’s central heating warms the house but heat leaks outside. Fine. How does heat move from one place to another? According to Roy’s analogy, only by IR radiation. No other means of heat transfer is mentioned.

    This is a repeat of the IR-only error. I houses in the real world, windows get left open. Air leaks in and out even if windows and doors are closed. Note this is not IR we are talking about now – it’s a gas, air, moving from one place to another. It’s called “convection”. It moves much more heat than radiation. Warmed air flows out of the house to the surroundings. Cold air from outside flows in.

    Convection is closely linked to conduction. The relatively warm walls, windows and doors or the house conduct heat to the outside air, warming this air layer that is touching the house. As this air is warmed, it rises. Joining this plume of rising warm air from the house is the chimney discharge of hot air directly from fires and boilers. What starts as conduction ends up looking like convection. Between them they account for most of the heat transfer from the heated house to the outside.

    IR radiation is a useful marker of hot objects, but it’s share of actual heat transfer is negligible.

    Steve Mosher above reminded us that, at the top of the atmosphere, earth receives heat and emits heat only as radiation. This is true. Where is the IR that leaves the earth emitted from? Not the surface (except maybe on the summit of Everest) since it gets absorbed and doesn’t transmit to space. IR is effectively emitted from the “emission height”, about the top of the troposphere, which is high enough for the sky above it to be transparent to IR.

    The emission height will emit IR based simply on its temperature. Not on absorption and emission frequencies but just solely on its temperature. So what determines the earth’s IR emission is the temperature of the emission height. This temperature is determined mostly by conduction-convection heating of surface air by the sun-warmed earth surface, and convective currents distributing this heat throughout the atmosphere, and up to the emission height. By contrast, the AGW narrative is usually limited to IR alone, as if IR irradiation from the ground is the only way that heat moves upward through the atmosphere. This is wrong and a fatal error of the CO2 warming conjecture.

    There is no blanket. Even the radiative heating of the air which does take place is not dominated by absorption and emission interactions and frequencies. It’s just a Maxwell-Boltzmann type energy transfer from photons to gas molecules similar to warming of gas by gas. Einstein pointed this out in 1917, destroying in advance the whole basis of the Arrhenius CO2 warming conjecture. (Angstrom had by them also refuted Arrhenius.) Einstein said:

    During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

    kT / 2

    this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

    “Regardless of the nature of the molecules”. How can it be any clearer than that?

    There is nothing whatsoever different about CO2 relative to any other gas in how it gets heated by radiation.

    • Phil: Hear, Hear! It is getting pathetic. Children imagining they know more than Maxwell and Einstein, need to download their Works and study them for a year or two. Brilliant, concise, and backed by Experiment.
      The Spectral lot have put the Cart before the Horse and would destroy Western Civilisation in their belief. Brett Keane

    • re: “The biggest single problem is the exaggeration of the role of IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere’s thermodynamics. It’s role is peripheral, almost negligible; not central. … Where is the IR that leaves the earth emitted from? Not the surface (except maybe on the summit of Everest) since it gets absorbed and doesn’t transmit to space.”

      Wow. Monumental fail. Does not explain very simple meteorological observations, nor the observations using an IR thermometer. Do you realize, Phil Salmon, how contrary your statements are to what is taught to young, up-coming meteorologists even?

      Take just these sample excepts below from the textbook “Meteorology Today | AN INTRODUCTION TO WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT” (by C. Donald Ahrens) that is listed as a required textbook for meteorology courses at the University of Oklahoma:

      From: pg 69 (7th ed.), Radiation Inversions

      Radiation Inversions A strong radiation inversion occurs when the air near the ground is much colder than the air higher up. Ideal conditions for a strong inversion (and, hence, very low nighttime temperatures) exist when the air is calm, the night is long, and the air is fairly dry and cloud-free. Let’s examine these ingredients one by one.

      A windless night is essential for a strong radiation inversion because a stiff breeze tends to mix the colder air at the surface with the warmer air above. This mixing, along with the cooling of the warmer air as it comes in contact with the cold ground, causes a vertical temperature profile that is almost isothermal (constant temperature) in a layer several meters thick. In the absence of wind, the cooler, more dense surface air does not readily mix with the warmer, less dense air above, and the inversion is more strongly developed, as illustrated in Fig. 3.15.

      A long night also contributes to a strong inversion. Generally, the longer the night, the longer the time of radiational cooling and the better are the chances that the air near the ground will be much colder than the air above. Consequently, winter nights provide the best conditions for a strong radiation inversion, other factors being equal.

      Finally, radiation inversions are more likely with a clear sky and dry air. Under these conditions, the ground is able to radiate its energy to outer space and thereby cool rapidly. However, with cloudy weather and moist air, much of the outgoing infrared energy is absorbed and radiated to the surface, retarding the rate of cooling. Also, on humid nights, condensation in the form of fog or dew will release latent heat, which warms the air. So, radiation inversions may occur on any night. But, during long winter nights, when the air is still, cloud-free, and relatively dry, these inversions can become strong and deep.

      From pg 73 (7th ed.), Review

      o At night, the earth’s surface cools, mainly by giving up more infrared radiation than it receives — a process called radiational cooling.
      o The coldest nights of winter normally occur when the air is calm, fairly dry (low water-vapor content), and cloud-free.
      o The highest temperatures during the day and the lowest temperatures at night are normally observed at the earth’s surface.
      o Radiation inversions exist usually at night when the air near the ground is colder than the air above.

      • Hi Jim,

        YOU WROTE:”. Under these conditions, the ground is able to radiate its energy to outer space and thereby cool rapidly. However, with cloudy weather and moist air, much of the outgoing infrared energy is absorbed and radiated to the surface, retarding the rate of cooling. ”

        I believe this is pivitol to the understanding of what is occurring, what is the physics/mechanism of this, and is it based on any scientific testing/results or is it conjecture.

  71. Dr
    Roy Spencer
    “Once again I am being drawn into defending the common explanation of Earth’s so-called “greenhouse effect” as it is portrayed by the IPCC, textbooks, and virtually everyone who works in atmospheric radiation and thermodynamics.”

    Thank you.

    Could you explain how and where the Total outgoing IR to space is calculated?
    240 W/M2.
    Is it just a figure picked out of the air to balance the diagram by Hansen?
    Is it actually measured?
    Do you measure it?
    Do you do a TOA from it or do you measure it at a TOA and how is this determined?
    I think I realise it is an abstract concept as TOA varies immensely from night to day and equator to pole but it still has to be put on that 24 hour a day Energy Budget Diagram.
    And if it is TOA distance surface area, which it should be, how do you define it back to all the other figures which are based on an earth surface area.

    • This a problem on the websites. We have persons who have no idea about the complicated and huge system behind the issue. In this case, for example, in which way the observations/measurements have been carried out, how many people are involved and how costly it is for the USA. Here is a link to CERES satellite system network measurements: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF4Selection.jsp

      As I wrote before, the energy fluxes of the energy balance diagram are observations based almost all.

      • Antero,

        if the outgoing flux of Earth is 240 W/m2 only, how do the satellites distinguish between reflected solar radiation and LW radiation?

        Is the reflection measured? Because in the sum of radiation reflected and radiated the satellites need to measure the S/4 which is 340 W/m2

        • The measured reflected solar is SW. And yes, the median sum measures ~340 over 4-15 multiannual periods, see Fig 1 in top post.

          • I cannot see any measurements in Fig1 only conjecture.
            You have to do better than that.

            In reference to Fig 1 tough, how does a satellite measurement distinguish reflection from atmosphere or surface. Would it not need observational evidence on the side to understand the measurement? Can you point to a better source than the above graphic or did you not understand the question?

          • Joe 8:57pm, see all the numbers in Fig. 1? Those numbers are from precision instrumental measurements over the observation period. Look up the paper cited to learn about the sources.

            The satellites have different telescopic precision radiometers that scan/measure the shortwave (SW) band (reflected solar light) and the longwave (LW) band (emitted terrestrial light). Look up the papers describing their operation.

            There are 100s of papers on earth’s energy budget progressively getting more accurate as they are increasingly calibrated to earth-based thermometer field readings. Look up the more recent ones.

          • So it must be a Trick,

            because you are saying all the values are from precision instrumental measurements.
            And in the graphic it says its average. So its not a measurement. The precision loses its meaning here.

            You call this graphic an energy budget, but yet its using the unit of Intensity. Can you tell me if the reflected solar has a meaningful temperature in those graphics? And if not, why would the incoming flux have one? Because this is what is being extracted from it – a theoretical temperature.

            But you did not answer my question exactly. How would one from the measurements of the short wave band decide where it was reflected? Curious mind wants to know.

          • Joe, the numbers are from precision instruments over time and space. No loss of meaning over multiannual periods, the meaning actually increases.

            Fig. 1 and Fig 2 units are SI derived units of power per m^2; they are not SI base unit intensities. The SW has a meaningful brightness temperature. The brightness temperature is calibrated to meaningful thermometer temperature. The SW was reflected from the scenes in the satellite telescopic radiometers.

            You really ought to learn this stuff on your own but your questions are a way to do so.

        • Trick,

          Here is a question then for learning.
          The reflected incoming solar is given as 77 W/m2.
          This cannot be a measurement as you claim. Because this is essentially reflected sun light.
          It will have the same intensity that it had as when it came in! Ask _jim how a mirror works. He will be able to explain that to you.

          So the arbitrary number of 77W/m can not have a meaningful brightness temperature attached to it. The the solar reflected value would have the same temperature that we have attached to the incoming solar.

          Also you cannot just take units of power per m^2 and assign a temperature to it.
          The SB law only allows us to derive a flux from known surface emission factor and temperature. It does not work the other way around.

          • Joe, in the several on orbit CERES instruments both reflected SW and outgoing LW TOA flux are observed looking down. There is no need to estimate reflected sunlight source temperature as that temperature is well known. There IS a need to measure the outgoing sunlight power/m^2 over time as that helps determine changes in Earth’s multiannual energy budget.

            ”you cannot just take units of power per m^2 and assign a temperature to it.”

            Try this experiment Joe, it will set you back ~$30 if you do not yet have a hardware store IR thermometer for example the Ryobi R002. Prepare a lab glass full of tap water and water ice commonly served in a restaurant (whenever they reopen). Measure the ice water temperature with your IR002 device. Tell us what it reads in F.

            This experiment should instruct you that it does work the other way around. I sense you are making progress, slow but sure in understanding something about atmosphere thermodynamics.

          • See Trick,

            you are not listening.

            You cannot measure a flux of reflected outgoing SW. Any outgoing reflected SW will have the same intensity as when it came in.

            So when you say there is a need to measure the outgoing flux, then how are you doing it? Tell me what flux does the SW thermometer see when pointing at Earth and it is hit by the reflected SW? What is its temperature reading? Just pretend the ice cube is Earth and the satellite is your SW receiver.

          • Another Joe is living on another planet like the Earth. He has no idea what is this blog story about.

          • Joe 1:20am, sure I cannot measure the reflected SW but orbiting CERES instruments do a great job of that so earth energy balance can be reported with 95% confidence calibrated to be within a range of about +/- 0.2 W/m^2. Measured reflected SW with 95% confidence has reduced about 0.57 +/- 0.19 W/m^2 in the period 3/2000 to 9/2016, remarkably stable, change caused in part by reduced sea ice coverage.

            The Ryobi IR thermometer is set up for stuff with emissivity 0.95. If an Apollo astronaut walking the moon pointed it at the earth (emissivity ~0.95) in its field of view a reading of about -1F would be displayed. Try the ice water experiment Joe, you can learn something.

          • Antero,

            down to =name calling already? No arguments! You are as cheap as I made it out you’d be!

          • Trick,

            the point is, that 77 W/m2 is not measure but an abstract calculation of reflective areas and the size. You just confirmed this with your post.

            So next time you try to sell the graphic as being measurements, be a bit more careful. People don’t take to wrong representations of what is being shown.

          • Trick and Antero,

            Trick said: “…orbiting CERES instruments do a great job of that so earth energy balance can be reported with 95% confidence calibrated to be within a range of about +/- 0.2 W/m^2.”

            Antero has voiced confidence in the instruments on at least one post.

            What gives you confidence in these claims? Is it that you read a paper by people who should know (and therefore you blindly trust them), or have you studied the instruments and applied knowledge of instrumentation and physics to confirm it?

            Here are some of the problems:

            1) The upwelling IR that is absorbed by GHGs is scattered upon re-emission. The sensor measuring the IR is aimed radially toward the Earth. It can only see IR emitted in the direction of the sensor. So, it can only see a small fraction of this IR.

            2) The Aqua and Terra satellites are sun-synchronous, with a 99-minute period. The satellites circle the Earth every 99 minutes but don’t retrace any given track for 11 days. So, a sample of the surface lasts for a few seconds, and the sample period is 11 days. I hope you agree that what is being measured is a signal, and as such, must comply with the mathematical laws of signal analysis that govern sampling. The Nyquist Sampling Theorem requires a sample rate that is 2x the maximum frequency of the signal, or the sample is aliased. For this system to work, it would require that no significant frequency content be contained in the signal that is faster than one cycle every 22 days. We know that on the surface, the signal has significant frequency content well beyond the diurnal. To resolve surface temperatures to 0.1C accurately without aliasing requires 24-72 samples/day or more. The data from CERES fails to comply with fundamental signal analysis and suffers from aliasing. This is a common problem with all satellite instruments for climate measurements – but conveniently ignored by scientists. Since most of climate science runs open-loop, it’s easy to get away with. Just write a paper and ignore it.

            3) We don’t truly have an accurate and properly sampled measurement of the upwelling IR. The aliased measurements of the limited IR that can be seen are fed into a model. We have the output of a model with all the known issues we get with models. It is important to acknowledge this.

            4) Attempts must also be made to correct for data inaccuracies that come from degrading orbit and failed components, like solar arrays, array regulator electronics, battery cells, scan mirror motors, communication channels, and recorders. These corrections are estimates.

            A C9 incandescent bulb that illuminates a “night light,” is 5W. CERES is claiming to resolve an energy imbalance that is 1/25th this value spread over a square meter and measure it from 700km altitude while measuring it once every 11 days.

            Do you want to refute any of this? If not, does it make you reconsider the confidence you have in the claimed EEI?

            We can’t rely on CERES. We can’t rely on ARGO. We don’t have evidence of 0.65W/m2 in the atmosphere (where a significant portion of the EEI should exist). We don’t measure it on the ground. We don’t measure it with ice-mass loss. No explanation can be provided based upon physics as to why 99% of this EEI goes exclusively into the deep oceans. So, the GHE can still be real. The surface of the Earth can be warmer than it would be if GHE didn’t exist. But claims that an energy imbalance of 0.65W/m2 can’t be supported. It would have to be orders of magnitude smaller, and we don’t have the technology to measure it.

          • ”What gives you confidence in these claims?”

            I have studied the instruments and applied knowledge of instrumentation and physics to reasonably well understand the CERES Team publications: “The CERES team notes uncertainties in absolute calibration and the algorithms used to determine Earth’s radiation budget from satellite measurements are too large to enable Earth’s energy imbalance to be quantified in an absolute sense. The CERES data products are more useful for providing its spatial and temporal variability.”

            ”The sensor measuring the IR is aimed radially toward the Earth.”

            The satellite telescopic radiometers view a wide area scene not just the zenith.

            ”The data from CERES fails to comply with fundamental signal analysis and suffers from aliasing.”

            I need more than an assertion by William to reconsider the confidence I have in the usefulness of the CERES Team published multiannual earth energy imbalance (EEI). Perhaps William can point out a properly published paper criticizing CERES Team publications since the CERES Team papers provide more than simple assertions. It is well known all models are inaccurate while some are useful. CERES instruments precision & accuracy are each noted; calibration countermeasures are reasonably well explained & implemented.

            That William can’t rely on CERES and Argo does not influence me at all.

            The imbalance of 0.65 William attributes to Hansen has improved, as of early 2018, to 0.35 +/- 0.24 W/m^2 at the 95% significance level March 2000 to September 2016 reported in Loeb et. al. 2018 Table 7: “CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.”

          • Trick,

            I have not asked anyone to believe what I have said, just because I have said it. As I mentioned in previous posts, I offer information for people to consider as they do their investigations. I use fundamental science that is verifiable in the lab and apply it to the claims. If it can be shown that the claims fail at the fundamental levels, it should stimulate people to question the claims further.

            If you understand signal analysis, you know if Nyquist is violated, then the sampled data is corrupted by aliasing. The extent of the aliasing error is a function of how much energy aliases back into the frequency content of interest. If you don’t understand signal analysis or have no practical experience applying it, then I can understand why it would be easy to dismiss it as insignificant. I’m not aware of any engineered system that would violate Nyquist because the cost to comply is small and design integrity is in jeopardy if it is violated.

            I need to correct my previous statement that the Aqua satellite has an 11-day track. The correct information is as follows. As measured on the equator, the ∆ between each orbit is ~24.8° or ~1715 miles. After 15 orbits, 347.5° is covered along the equator, and the satellite does not fully cover the globe. The subsequent orbits begin to fall between the previous tracks. By the end of the 2nd day, all of the tracks are laid out, and they end up being spaced ~ 12.4° or ~858 miles along the equator. Each track is retraced every two days, not every 11, as I incorrectly stated prior. At ~400 miles altitude, its field of view allows it to see adjacent tracks, but the accuracy at the periphery is not stated. However, that doesn’t solve the challenge of seeing IR that is scattered. It still only provides 1 sample every two days for any location directly below the instrument, or 1 sample/day if the far periphery is considered. This is still a significant violation of Nyquist. Aliasing error cannot be extracted post sampling.

            The claimed accuracy of the instrument + model output is essentially a few hundred ppm of the total energy budget. It would not be easy to achieve this with a precision calorimeter in a laboratory setting. The people bringing you the peer-reviewed papers have already violated the fundamentals of signal analysis and ignored the effects. There is no reference to compare it against, so they can get away with it. Those paid to do this work are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Those outside are not going to get a paper through PR with those whose livelihoods would be impacted by the results. So, you are free to absorb all of the PR info you want to (on faith), or you can investigate clear violations of the fundamentals which indict their claims. Aren’t you the least bit curious as to how 99% of the EEI makes its ways to the deep oceans, bypassing the atmosphere, land and ice mass? Where is the PR paper explaining that effect? The case doesn’t just fail at one minor thing. It fails at every inspection point.

          • ”The people bringing you the peer-reviewed papers have already violated the fundamentals of signal analysis and ignored the effects.”

            This is an assertion William. You don’t know this because you have not pulled the appropriate papers and pointed to the violations. You just assert the violations must be there. I do not absorb any PR (yours included) on faith, I pull the papers, sometimes it means an actual trip to the stacks or Librarian at my local college library.

            You will find a discussion in Loeb 2018 et. al. p. 904 where the “EEI makes its ways” and it is not 99% as you write so I am curious about where you obtained that misconception. The paper explaining where the “EEI makes it ways” is cited. NB: Antero linked to the Loeb 2018 paper 8:15am.

            Your case is built on assertions and with hearsay evidence. This can be remedied with some work; I am curious if you will ever back up your comments by presenting the first hand evidence.

          • Trick,

            You said: “This is an assertion William [that Nyquist is violated]. You don’t know this because you have not pulled the appropriate papers and pointed to the violations.”

            Significant frequency content exists in a temperature signal beyond the diurnal (1 cycle/day). IR follows temperature. Run an FFT of any properly sampled temperature signal to confirm this basic, non-controversial information. A satellite passing overhead once every two days can sample any location once every two days. To be generous, allowing for side-scanning, we can call it 1 sample/day because the instrument picks up the location directly below on one day and to the side on the next. The 1 sample/day is a measurement of IR that can be seen, which is not the scattered IR. But ignoring that fact, 1 sample/day is, by definition, an aliased sample of a signal with content far above that frequency.

            The CERES system uses two satellites, Aqua and Terra. There are two other satellites, but we don’t need to complicate the discussion. Aqua and Terra sample three hours apart, so with this, we can increase the sample rate to 2/day, still far below Nyquist. The signal needs to be sampled with a regular sampling frequency. Sampling twice per day, 3 hours apart instead of 12 hours apart, creates another type of error, equivalent to what would be “extreme clock jitter” in an electronic system.

            For surface temperatures, to resolve an accurate mean to 0.1C or trend to 0.05C/decade requires 24-72 samples/day or more. Resolving a few tenths of a Watt out of hundreds of Watts is even higher accuracy, so the requirements to not alias are even greater.

            This is just a basic application of signal analysis mathematics. No peer review is required, just as you wouldn’t ask for peer review to support the use of trigonometric tables. If you want to read more about Nyquist applied to surface temperatures, you can read an article I wrote, here:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Violating-Nyquist-Instrumental-Record-20190101-1Full.pdf

            I have read some of the papers. This one in particular:
            https://icdc.cen.unihamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/icdc_Dokumente/CERES/loebetal_CloudsandtheEarthsRadiantEnergySystemCERESEnergyBalancedandFilledEBAFTopofAtmosphereTOAEdition-4.0DataProduct_JCLI_31-2_895-918_2018.pdf

            This quote on page 896 frames the problem well.

            Begin Quote:

            However, the absolute accuracy requirement necessary to quantify Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is daunting. The EEI is a small residual of TOA flux terms on the order of 340W/m2 . EEI ranges between 0.5 and 1W/m2 (von Schuckmann et al. 2016), roughly 0.15% of the total incoming and outgoing radiation at the TOA. Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13W/m2 (Kopp and Lean 2011), constraining EEI to 50% of its mean (0.25W/m2 ) requires that the observed total outgoing radiation is known to be 0.2W/m2 , or 0.06%. The actual uncertainty for CERES resulting from calibration alone is 1% SW and 0.75% LW radiation [one standard deviation (1s)], which corresponds to 2W/m2 , or 0.6% of the total TOA outgoing radiation. In addition, there are uncertainties resulting from radiance-to-flux conversion and time interpolation. With the most recent CERES edition-4 instrument calibration improvements, the net imbalance from the standard CERES data products is approximately 4.3W/m2 , much larger than the expected EEI. This imbalance is problematic in applications that use ERB data for climate model evaluation, estimations of Earth’s annual global mean energy budget, and studies that infer meridional heat transports. CERES EBAF addresses this issue by applying an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system (Loeb et al. 2009)

            End Quote

            Many pages of commentary and analysis could be written about that paragraph alone, and Nyquist isn’t even listed. They admit to their “daunting” challenge without also acknowledging that they violate basic signal analysis requirements. The uncertainty in incoming solar radiation is 0.13W/m2, which is a significant fraction of the claimed EEI. They conclude that paragraph by admitting their instruments show EEI = 4.3W/m2 !!! It’s only after countless estimates, compensations, corrections, filtering, interpolating, and other magic do they arrive at their claimed EEI of 0.65W/m2 or whatever the EEI du Jour is.

            Word/Times Used in the Paper
            Estimate/33
            Correction/33
            Calibration/34
            Model/26
            Uncertain/65

            In summary, they take partial measurements (because the IR is scattered) sampled too infrequently, by two different instruments which are dependent upon extensive cross calibrations. These poor samples are corrected, compensated, and aligned with other bad instruments (like ARGO). Then the data is fed into a model using a large number of estimates.

            CERES doesn’t measure EEI – it estimates it via a model. Application of conservation of energy and specific heat calculations using simple temperature measurements don’t support their result. Hence, the mystery OHC.

          • Ok, now William is starting to focus with first hand quotes. Yes, EEI is not directly measured, EEI is derived from calibration of measurements. William starts strong then William loses it, finishes weak, and resorts to hearsay again: “It’s only after countless estimates, compensations, corrections, filtering, interpolating, and other magic..”

            Point out where each of those fail with the same sort of focus i.e. quotes from the appropriate published paper. The various authors go through it all in detail, in many papers. Until you can do that the best efforts (through early 2018) still stand that EEI can be equally 95% significantly stated to be anywhere in the range 0.14 to 0.59 W/m^2 in the period observed with the conclusion “CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.”

            For now, observations from continuing CERES system, if funded, will be usefully able to monitor longer periods of “interannual variability” in clouds and earth’s radiant energy system at 95% significance. In addition, updated Earth energy budgets using CERES data properly as in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in top post will still be relied upon as the community of authors do now.

          • Trick,

            Thanks for the play-by-play. It was charming.

            On March 19, 2020 at 10:31, Trick said: “…sure I cannot measure the reflected SW but orbiting CERES instruments do a great job of that so earth energy balance can be reported with 95% confidence calibrated to be within a range of about +/- 0.2 W/m^2. Measured reflected SW with 95% confidence has reduced about 0.57 +/- 0.19 W/m^2 in the period 3/2000 to 9/2016, remarkably stable, change caused in part by reduced sea ice coverage.”

            Directly above, in your reply to me, you said: “Yes, EEI is not directly measured, EEI is derived from calibration of measurements.”

            So, at least you are learning from our interaction. You now acknowledge that we can’t measure EEI; it is the product of modeling. Also, we don’t “calibrate measurements.” We calibrate instruments then take measurements with the calibrated instruments. As the paper’s authors described, despite improved calibration methods, the measured EEI is 10X higher than expected. The measurements of radiance must be converted to flux, and then interpolation is required to correct for sample time differences. These calculations lead to large uncertainties. Thousands of calculations then follow based upon estimates, guesses, and comparisons to other poorly made measurements. This is the model.

            I don’t fault you, Trick. Parroting PR papers is the only thing left to do when you can’t think on your own and don’t have the experience to analyze what you are reading. But those who have the experience designing and innovating high-performance systems that work in the real world, and meet strict manufacturability, reliability, and profitability requirements have other options. After 3-4 decades of doing that successfully you understand what the limits of real-world designs are and what the effects are from violating fundamentals. It seems that you can’t challenge any of my statements, and I know you have a lot of reading to do, so I’ll leave you to it. May your trips to the local college library be fruitful.

            Ps – This is where you say something witty now to have the last word.

          • ”You now acknowledge that we can’t measure EEI; it is the product of modeling.”

            William’s words not mine, thanks for quoting my words though. William should also quote the relevant details in CERES Team papers.

            Btw, calibration of radiometer instruments is carried out on board CERES, resultant instrumental data is then calibrated to thermometers on Earth. I do have the experience to analyze what I am reading, can understand when William’s arguments are unsupported, and see that William’s arguments do not stand against the more detailed papers when William does not bother to quote the authors work.

            Instead William resorts to writing: “It’s only after countless estimates, compensations, corrections, filtering, interpolating, and other magic..”. If I or anyone did that in “their experience designing and innovating high-performance systems that work in the real world, and meet strict manufacturability, reliability, and profitability requirements” their end market would seek other options.

            ”It seems that you can’t challenge any of my statements.”

            I already have and William has corrected many of his statements, a trip to his library would have helped William avoid that. I’ll leave the last word to CERES Team papers.

  72. When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2. Everything matches without the violation of physics. No energy disappears or appears from the void. Coincidence? Not so.

    Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.“

    The ground and oceans absorb shortwave energy and re-emit long waves as IR emissions. The longwave IR is the same energy from the sun that was absorbed. The air and clouds temporally absorb this longwave IR energy and re-emit this in different directions. There is no gain in energy and the ground and ocean surfaces absorb very little or virtually nothing of the long wave IR.

    Therefore background radiation in the Earth’s energy budget just counts the same energy from the sun almost twice.

    This issue also being that the value of back radiation being almost identical as the solar input is nonsense and therefore creating extra wm-2 that doesn’t exist. What can be shown with real observations that confirm this to be the case?

    The clear sky and cloudy sky during night and day confirm this being nonsense.

    1) A clear sky causes significant warming related to solar input of 404 wm-2 with temperatures of several more degrees centigrade.
    2) A cloudy sky causes significant cooling related to the blocking of 404 wm-2 with temperatures of several degrees centigrade.
    3) A clear sky at night causes significant cooling related to the absent of 404 wm-2 with temperatures of several degrees.
    4) A cloudy sky at night causes slight warming related to the absent of 404 wm-2 with temperatures of only one or two degrees centigrade.

    With 1) and 2) the significant temperature difference is because of energy from sun only.
    With 3) there is significant cooling because the background radiation is having little or no effect compared with solar input.
    With 4) if the wm-2 were even remotely equal in energy between the sun and background radiation, the warming would be several degrees not just the one or two degree centigrade change. Weather stations only measure this rise when clear skies cloud over.

    This shows that the energy differences between solar input and background radiation are not the same. In my view the background radiation is about 4 times lower and this was just re-emitted from clouds, that was previously re-emitted from the original solar input. The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 wm-2 and there is no co-incidence 4 times lower gives a similar value to being absorbed in the atmosphere.

    How can background radiation be greater than energy absorbed in the atmosphere? (It literally makes no sense.) This energy budget indicates that the solar energy warming the atmosphere is not as much as background radiation warming the atmosphere. Clearly the world observations between day and night show this to be false.

    • Sorry for the possible confusing background wording.

      Should of course be back or meaning back to ground.

    • There is another Elephant in the room, most of the Radiation goes IN to the Oceans, not just the surface of the water.
      The amount of it going in is controlled by cloud cover.

    • Good points. And a cooler object (the air) can not heat a warmer object (the earth). The “atmospheric blanket” only slows down earth’s cooling — which of course is primarily H2O sponsored.

      • re: “And a cooler object (the air) can not heat a warmer object (the earth). ”

        Mirror. Or a partial mirror (like our atmosphere, containing WV).

          • re: “the atmosphere is not a mirror”

            Go study molecular spectroscopy, in particular, the EM ‘radiation’ characteristics of CO2 and H2O.

            It IS like a mirror, a lightly silvered mirror as a matter of fact. The DIFFERENCES are that CO2 and H2O gas molecules are resonant at specific wavelengths (or frequencies) and therefore ‘act’ only in those ‘bands’ as a lightly silvered mirror.

            You types, ppl like you, Another Joe, lack experience dealing with such abstract concepts as RF propagation and antenna theory, and therefore lack critical thinking skills necessary to visualize HOW the various EM-resonant gases (like WV and carbon dioxide) affect the energy ‘flux’ (flow) from the surface of the earth to space.

            You might begin your trek from ignorance of these issues by studying Figure 6.3 in this pdf file:

            http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

          • re: “the atmosphere is not a mirror”

            Go study molecular spectroscopy, in particular, the EM ‘radiation’ characteristics of CO2 and H2O.

            It IS like a mirror, a lightly silvered mirror as a matter of fact. The DIFFERENCES are that CO2 and H2O gas molecules are resonant at specific wavelengths (or frequencies) and therefore ‘act’ only in those ‘bands’ as a lightly silvered mirror.

            You types, ppl like you, Another Joe, lack experience dealing with such abstract concepts as RF propagation and antenna theory, and therefore lack critical thinking skills necessary to visualize HOW the various EM-resonant gases (like WV and carbon dioxide) affect the energy ‘flux’ (flow) from the surface of the earth to space.

            (Posting with link removed -maybe this will not get stuck in spam filter?)

          • The relevant subject of study here would be “molecular spectroscopy”, in particular, the EM (electro-magnetic) response and emission (radiation) characteristics of CO2 and H2O molecules.

            It IS like a mirror, a lightly silvered mirror as a matter of fact. The DIFFERENCES are that CO2 and H2O gas molecules are resonant at specific wavelengths (or frequencies) and therefore ‘act’ only in those ‘bands’ as a lightly silvered mirror.

          • _Jim,

            Mirrors reflects light/electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. The atmosphere does not. CO2 for example is absorbing the energy in some spectral bands, for our atmosphere relevant in the infrared at 4 (incoming) and 15 µm (outgoing).

            You might want to read up on the difference of Reflection, Absorption, Transmission, Emission, Refraction.
            The Lecture you linked does not mention reflection it is all about absorption.

            Why would you insist, that the atmosphere is a mirror, with nothing backing you up, is a mystery.

          • re: “Mirrors reflects light/electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum.”

            I’m not going to sit here and ‘pick nits’ with you.

            If you don’t understand RF (radio frequency) and EM waves as “energy” (and how they can be reflected and re-radiated by “tuned” structures as well as by various specific gas-state molecules), you’re going to wind up fairly helpless and un- and mis-informed on this subject.

            I think I’m going to leave it at that, as some of y’all on this subject are highly focused on narrow aspects of heat transfer in solids, and it doesn’t work that way with EM-active gases such as WV and CO2 (as well as several other gases).

            Go study both IR spectroscopy as well as Molecular spectroscopy for starters …

          • _Jim,

            you are not pointing out where I am saying that I do not understand EM ‘radiation’.

            As a matter of fact I gave you some keywords, which I am familiar with, but you are not, other wise you would not push your meme that the atmosphere and EM active gases reflects heat.

            Your linked document clearly says nothing of this sort.
            Absorption and Emission is not the same as Reflection. You might want to get your basics right.

    • Good work Matt G. When dealing with Planetary and their Moons’ cloud effects, we ( eg on Tallbloke’s Blog etc.), deduced that cloud cycles must be internal energy cycles so far as albedo losses are concerned. That is, cloud albedo makes no Net difference to the TOA Flux.
      So far, observations and Theory derivation support this, but as always this may change.
      But looking at Solar System Lapse rates etc leads me to at least doubt the likelihood….
      Brett Keane, NZ

  73. Dr Spencer: getting back to basic Physics/Quantum Mechanics.
    Gases have no surfaces
    Atmospheres are not confined.
    Ideal Gas Laws control the formation of Stellar Ignition, from c.2K dust clouds. Also of planetary and similar atmospheres eg Titan.
    Thus pressure and solar input (AU) control Atmospheric T ultimately. Everywhere.
    Quantum Oscillators respond only to superior energies.
    EMF is a Vector Force, not flowing “uphill”.
    My IR gun is designed to be useful over short distances, by internal simulation computing. Yours must use Kryptonite.

    We may differ, but that is Science……. All the Best from New Zealand, Brett Keane

  74. I want to thank persons MarkW and Ferdinand Engelbeen for their comments defending real physics and climate change science.

    • You are joking!

      MarkW does not understand basic heat transfer through radiation and you know it!

  75. As the final summary after these comments, I like to conclude this way.

    I thank the WUWT webpages and, Dr. Spencer, for this story. I have submitted my own story months ago to WUWT and also a story what this research result means for the IPCC’s climate model, but they were never published. Now it has been published but as you have read Dr. Spencer keeps it bad skeptic science. He thinks that there is no simple figure to measure the magnitude of the GH effect (33 C) or the forcing energy flux causing the GH effect (155 W/m2 per IPPC, or 270 W/m2 per me). Dr. Spencer does not write open, what is the final GH effect because he thinks it too complicated.

    What happens in the atmosphere is complicated regarding the absorption/emission processes, but they can be analyzed by the means of spectral calculations as I have done it tens of times. Regardless of these problems, one thing is sure: the temperature of Earth’s surface reacts only to the SW and LW radiation absorbed by its surface. The energy balance diagrams which are very near to each other nowadays show what are these fluxes: 165 + 510 W/m2. Because the net energy of the Sun is only 240 W/m2, the GH effect is 510-240 = 270 W/m2. I found no comments using the proper physical groundings to show this conclusion to be wrong- not even by Dr. Spencer.

    I never wrote that the energy balance diagram of my (Fig. 2) is against physical laws as written by Dr. Spencer but I wrote that the GH effect definition of the IPCC is against these laws. Dr. Spencer never confirmed if this is the case or not, and by the way, no commentator did it even though it is very obvious.

  76. Dr Ollila,
    OK, the diagram is all good and balances. I am very familiar with this type of simplified energy budget.
    1. If you choose to define the GHE as the sum of downward longwave radiation (dwlr) from the atmosphere, fine so be it.
    2. In such case, you include an amount equal to all of the latent and sensible heat absorbed by the atmosphere in the dwlr. Fine, but realise this component does not increase the surface upward radiative flux at all, in this type of energy budget. For example, if you set both values of latent and sensible heat to zero, what is the upward surface radiative flux? It will be 367 Wm-2 in order to balance. If both are for example set to 100 Wm-2, upward surface flux – i,e. surface temperature – still remains 367 Wm-2 to balance. Clearly this component does not contribute to the greenhouse effect!
    3. Atmospheric reemission of absorbed energy is problematic anyway. Your flow diagram shows all of atmosphere absorbed insolation (75 Wm-2) being reemitted downward as part of dwlr. Are you confident there is no component reemitted upwards forming part of the outgoing longwave radiation (with a value of 212 Wm-2 in the diagram)? From your description, you seem to consider this part of solar insolation, yet it reappears in dwlr. In other words, what fractions of atmospheric absorbed energy from each component are reemitted net upward and net downward? (That is my current area of research). It’s not so simple!
    4. You use a value of 28 Wm-2 for the atmospheric window. Fine, but that is not an observed quantity if I am not mistaken, (see Costa and Shine, 2012) and has profound effects as well. Estimates have been in the range 20 to 40 Wm-2 as I am sure you are aware.
    Best regards

  77. To Neogene Geo

    I am really happy about this professional comment. My response is as follows:

    1. Quote: “ In such a case, you include an amount equal to all of the latent and sensible heat absorbed by the atmosphere in the dwlr. Fine, but realize this component does not increase the surface upward radiative flux at all, in this type of energy budget.”
    For me, this is pretty simple. Firstly, a general observation: The energy amount, which could be called “Energy of the GH effect = EGHE” is the amount of energy recycling between the atmosphere and the surface continuously. This can be easily found in the energy balance diagram. This EGHE is trapped into this recycling process “between the sky and the Earth”.
    The latent and sensible heating increases the temperature of the atmosphere and as Hartmann defines the GH effect, the atmosphere emits LW radiation to the Earth – the total amount is 345 W/m2 including the EGHE of 270 W/m2 which includes the energy fluxes of latent and sensible heating (=115 W/m2). The surface absorbs this energy and it has an effect on the temperature. The surface emits LW radiation according to its temperature (by the way, 395 W/m2 is exactly according to Planck’s law). If there were not the energy flux of 115 W/m2 originating from latent and sensible heating, the temperature of the surface would be lower and accordingly also the emitted LW radiation of 395 W/m2 would be lower. This is the evidence that latent and sensible heating has its effect on the upward LW flux from the surface in the same way as LW absorption be GH gases and clouds have on the surface temperature, and this effect we call the GH effect.

    2. Quote “Atmospheric reemission of absorbed energy is problematic anyway. Your flow diagram shows all of the atmosphere absorbed insolation (75 Wm-2) being reemitted downward as part of dwlr. Are you confident there is no component reemitted upwards forming part of the outgoing longwave radiation (with a value of 212 Wm-2 in the diagram)? From your description, you seem to consider this part of solar insolation, yet it reappears in dwlr.”

    I am not sure that all the SW energy absorbed by the atmosphere has been really emitted only downward to the surface. I can show two groundings on this matter. Firstly, as one can see in the diagram, the overall flux values satisfy the energy balance requirements, which shows that the 75 W/m2 has been emitted to the surface. Secondly, I have carried out spectral analysis calculations using the average global atmosphere for the surface emitted LW radiation. The results for the clear sky are: dwlr is 318.0 W/m2, uwlr at TOA is 182.8 W/m2, the transmitted uwlr is 83.2 W/m2 (totally 266 W/m2 at TOA), and these values corresponds to observed measurements quite well; this is the best evidence. Thirdly, the SW absorption starts from the altitude of 70 km and at the altitude of 2 km about 20 % of total SW absorption has been done, and the uwlr absorption happens in the opposite way because at the altitude of 2 km 95 % of this absorption has been done. These figures should suggest that SW absorption should go mainly into space – strange enough. In fact, all these absorptions as well the latent and sensible heating increase the temperature of the atmosphere and in this sense, it is very difficult to separate the actual sources of emitted LW fluxes by the atmosphere. You may have quite a difficult task to do.

    3. Quote: “You use a value of 28 Wm-2 for the atmospheric window. Fine, but that is not an observed quantity if I am not mistaken, (see Costa and Shine, 2012) and has profound effects as well. Estimates have been in the range 20 to 40 Wm-2 as I am sure you are aware.”
    I am very well aware about this matter because I have carried numerous spectral analysis calculations on this issue. This figure 28 W/m2 originates from my own calculations. Kiehl & Trenberth carried no calculation basis for their value of 40 W/m2 – it is ad hoc value. Stephens et al. found the value of 26.7 W/m2, which is very close to my value of 28.0 W/m2. My value is based on the clear sky value of 83.2 W/m2 and 0 W/m2 of the cloudy sky. The all-sky value is based on the simple formula that cloudy sky conditions prevail about 67 % timewise and this gives the value of 28.0 W/m2. It is impossible to measure the transmitted value at the TOA, because it just LW radiation in any sky conditions.

    • Just by reading my comments I noticed an error in this sentence “Thirdly, the SW absorption starts from the altitude of 70 km and at the altitude of 2 km about 20 % of total SW absorption has been done, and the uwlr absorption happens in the opposite way because at the altitude of 2 km 95 % of this absorption has been done.

      The percentage of 20 % should have been 80 %. Sorry.

  78. Dr Ollila,
    Thank you for your response, very interesting.

    Quote: “If there were not the energy flux of 115 …. the temperature of the surface would be lower”.

    From my mathematical model of the exact energy budget shown in the diagram, it can be demostrated that the upward surface flux is independent of the value of the non-radiative transfers of latent and sensible heat. This may seem counterintuitive. That is where we differ in interpreting this energy budget model.

    Regards

    • For me, it is impossible to separate the positive warming effect of LW absorption on the surface temperature and to say that latent and sensible heating has not this same effect because they all three energy source warm up the atmosphere and reradiate to the surface.

  79. Agreed, but the energy source for evaporation must come from somewhere. It comes from downwelling radiation (probably mostly SW, but it doesn’t matter which one mathematically). So that portion of total downwelling is not available to increase the surface temperature, we cannot use the energy twice!
    Best regards

  80. Also, the energy of the absorption has been used twice. The surface releases energy upward into the atmosphere in three different ways: LW radiation, evaporation of water and warm air welling up. Thereafter GH gases and clouds absorb a part of LW radiation increasing the atmospheric temperature, water vapor transform from vapor to liquid releasing latent heat, and the warm air increases the atmospheric temperature. Thereafter the atmosphere emits LW radiation to the surface increasing its temperature AND THE RECYCLING PROCESS STARTS AGAIN. There are no differences between these three energy recycling processes. The key is that the GH effect energy is in trap between the atmosphere and the surface and that is why it recycles.

    I see. You doubt that this is a perpetual motion machine recycling forever without external energy. Is there any external energy? Yes, there is the direct SW radiation to the surface 165 W/m2 and the SW absorption by the atmosphere 75 W/m2. I think that these two external energy sources are needed to keep this recycling process in motion. If these external energy sources would be cut off, this GH effect recycling would die off, too.

  81. It was an error in the comment above. Energy does not disappear but it can change its form. In the recycling of the GH effect energy, the energy changes its form from radiation to heat, latent heat to heat and warm air will be mixed to colder air. Then radiation to the surface and the surface emits radiation. It is according to physical laws. If the heat could escape from this process, then it would not work but the energy in the atmosphere has only two possibilities to escape: radiation into space and radiation to the surface.

    A man cannot construct a perpetual motion machine, because there is always energy loss and normally it is in the form of friction.

  82. Antero, in our previous years (much of it on Tallblokes Blog) of disproving the IPCC hypotheses, such as they were, we found that the measured Spectral readings in the lower to mid-atmosphere were really a traffic jam. So, by the rules of Equipartition or line of least resistance, the flux is dominated by combined Water Vapour and bouyant air uplift.
    It was seen that the water Phase Change daily cycle has about TEN times the needed capacity to do the job of moving energy back to its mean free path levels to Space.
    Venus has a Sulphuric/Sulphurous Acid water vapour Cycle, Titan a Methane-type Rain cycle, both have dense atmospheres. Brett Keane
    Without Latent Heat Transport, it is postulated that atmospheres tend to be lost more quickly. But that is not proven to my knowledge, at least.

  83. Dr Ollila,

    So I must attempt to show the independence of upward surface radiative flux X from latent heat flux L and sensible heat Q. Words are never enough, maths is universal. OK here goes.

    Let absorbed insolation P = (1-a)S/4 where S is the solar constant and a the bond albedo. (We consider the entire planetary surface here.) Further, let e be the bulk atmospheric emissivity with respect to longwave radiation such that the atmosphere absorbs eX of surface emitted radiation. The amount (1-e)X therefore comprises the atmospheric window. Surface temperature T is defined by X=sigma.(T)^4. I hope you agree so far.

    Further, let the bulk atmospheric emissivity with respect to shortwave radiation be u, such that the atmosphere absorbs uP of solar insolation, and an amount (1-u)P is shortwave radiation absorbed by the surface. OK?

    Now I don’t assume anything about how the atmosphere partitions the absorbed energy, so let the system have further degrees of freedom. Consider the absorbed components uP is partitioned such that (m1)uP is reemitted upward, and (1-m1)uP is emitted into the surface. Similarly (m2)eX is reemitted upward, and (1-m2)eX emitted into the surface. (This quantity is my definition of back radiation.) Further, let (m3)(L+Q) be reemitted upward and (1-m3)(L+Q) reemit into the surface. Here L and Q are surface to atmosphere non-radiative energy transfers of latent and sensible heat. I refer to m1, m2 and m3 as atmospheric partition coefficients, value 0 to 1.

    OK so far? Let me know if you disagree with anything. There is another term I usually add for TOA radiative imbalance for systems in non-equilibrium, which is derived from ocean heat content derivative, but I will just assume TOA equilibrium for now.

    Consider Outgoing Longwave Radiation, OLR:
    OLR=(m1)uP+(m2)eX+(m3)(L+Q)+(1-e)X
    Agree?

    Now consider conservation of energy at surface:
    (1-u)P+(1-m1)uP+(1-m2)eX+(1-m3)(L+Q) = X+L+Q
    Hence
    Upward surface radiative flux X = ((1-m1u)P+(m3)(L+Q))/(1-(1-m2)e)

    Substitute for X in the OLR equation to derive

    OLR = P
    And therefore L+Q do not contribute to OLR; therefore
    m3 = 0
    And
    X = (1-m1.u)P/(1-(1-m2)e)

    So upward surface radiative flux, and therefore surface temperature T are independent of L+Q.

    Do you see why now latent and sensitive heat do not affect surface temperature and therefore cannot be part of the greenhouse effect? Even in spite of the fact that both contribute to downwelling longwave radiation. Don’t just take my word for it, it falls out of the mathematical modeling. If you don’t accept that, then you do not accept the model and need to create a new one.

    Best regards

    • Please excuse my typographic error in the first equation for X, sign of m3 is incorrect. It should of course be

      X = ((1-m1.u)P-m3.(L+Q))/(1-(1-m2)e)

      Otherwise the substitution in OLR fails.

      Regards

      • I have to say that my motivation is not great enough to start to think about your equations. The reason is that I am so convinced about my own definition and understanding of the GH effect.

        Firstly, there is an observation that the Earth receives energy 240 W/m2 and releases exactly the same flux into space. It means that this “machine” or “process” has a 100 % efficiency without any losses. There is no place where the energy could leak to. Nowhere.

        The same applies to another recycling process of the GH effect energy of 240 W/m2. It recycles between the surface and the atmosphere because there is no place where the energy could leak to. We are so used to think that there cannot be any process with the efficiency of 100 % but in nature it can be. This was a Heureka moment for me after these discussions.

        • A typo again. It should be “The same applies to another recycling process of the GH effect energy of 270 W/m2.”

      • ”It means that this “machine” or “process” has a 100 % efficiency without any losses.”

        This machine or process passes the 1LOT in so doing ~240in/~240out no energy is harmed.

        Because the machine or process produces entropy it passes 2LOT, entropy is not harmed.

        What thermo. law can Antero show is being harmed?

    • Neo,

      Might be just me, but are you not missing out on an assessment of conduction?

      This is the most overlooked heat transfer form in the discussion.

      Air is an almost perfect isolator, use everywhere for insulation, even in blankets, and yet we ignore it, why?

      Because there is almost no heat transferred? EXACTLY this is the reason why it should light up like a flare above the discussion.

      Air, and this includes the whole atmosphere is so lazy to shift heat around by conduction, that you could almost call this “retaining” of heat.

      Think about that one for a moment

  84. So, this is basically a defense of a hypothesis that says: 240W=395W.

    Energy creation anyone?

    If input is 240W, nothing inside the system can go beyond that. Unless there´s another source.

    • You must accept the fact there are two energy (=radiation fluxes) greater than 240 W/m2. Ther are LW flux 345 W/m2 from the atmosphere and the upward flux 395 W/m2 from the surface. Otherwise, you to that group who denies the observation-based facts.

      • Antero, Quantum Effects prohibit Flux against the Energy Gradiants, Or else the Rayleigh EU Catastrophe would have occured also in IR etc.. EMF IS A VECTOR FORCE (and a weakish one at that, merely coincident to KE).
        Using Spectral readings as if they were Currents has led us into a swamp of self-deceit…. Brett Keane, New Zealand.

      • The fluxes are occurring but they cannot create new energy.
        GHG back radiation is not new energy, just the mechanism that creates the lower atmosphere heat rise that must occur for the 240 to work its way back to space.
        That 240 W/ M2 is measured at TOA.
        Confirmed by Dr Spencer’s silence on this matter.

        • To angech. Your explanation sounds good to me. A big problem seems to be that the GH effect energy of 270 W/m2 has been regarded as “a new energy source”. We know that practically all energy in this system TOA-Atmosphere-Surface-Atmosphere-TOA originates from the Sun. In this sense, there is not a situation that I claim that this energy flux 270 W/m2 comes from the void. The best explanation for me besides the comments of angus is that this GH effect recycling energy has been trapped in this recycling process. This is the very essence of the GH effect and it may look like this is against the physical laws but it is not. For me, it starts with the real observations of the fluxes involved. The explanations cannot be found by denying these facts as some of are trying to do.

    • Or atm. opacity preventing the incoming IR EMR from escaping until the temperature rises to allow the IR EMR to escape by shifting to frequency bands where it can do so.

  85. You are right on this one!

    In comparison to the Earth radius the atmosphere is so thin, that there is almost no impact from this.

  86. “…IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not.”

    It is entirely inappropriate to use the equations of Statistical Mechanics to explain Quantum Mechanical phenomena. Both IR emission and absorption are quantum mechanical phenomena and are controlled by the quanta of energy required for a molecule to jump from one quantum state to another state. This translates to fixed frequencies (E= h*f) at which energy can be absorbed in the IR band. Nothing to do with temperature.

    “…any gain or loss of an IR photon by a GHG molecule is almost immediately felt by the non-radiatively active gases (like nitrogen and oxygen) through molecular collisions.”

    Translational energy of gas molecules is transferred by collisions. IR radiation is absorbed and held as vibrational or rotational energy, never as translational energy. This is transferred weakly or not at all by collisions. (It is an entirely different matter if we are talking about a solid or a liquid.)

  87. I think that after 40 years or more it is time for a re-think about the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
    It has become to complicated and contentious. There are two fundamental facts which are not in dispute.
    Molecules of greenhouse gases can absorb radiative energy of specific wavelengths in quantified amounts (photons), and then can emit similar photons, with the same energy and wavelengths.
    These photons are emitted equally in all directions.

    The energy balance of the Earth must be maintained.

    I should like to offer a REVISED Greenhouse Gas Theory for consideration and helpful comments here.
    It’s a little too long to post here, but please visit my website https://hotgas.club
    Eddie Banner

  88. Crisp, further, I suggest particular exposition of the properties and methods of action of Quantum Oscillators. Without of course neglecting the other factors involved for atmospheric gases.
    Brett Keane, NZ

  89. Because of the discussion about so-called reradiation and its capability to transfer energy from a cold body to a warm body continues, I copy here two sections about the college textbooks:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. It does not only absorb radiation but can also emit radiation.

    Although a blackbody does not really exist, we will consider the planets and stars (including the earth and the sun) as blackbodies. Even though by definition, they are not perfect blackbodies, for the sake of understanding and simplicity we can apply the characteristics of blackbodies to them.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law according to college physics:

    All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorption minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object T and the temperature of its surroundings Ts. Assuming that an object with a temperature T is surrounded by an environment with uniform temperature Ts, the net rate of heat transfer by radiation is

    Qnet = σeA(T^4 – Ts^4)

    where e is the emissivity of the object alone. In other words, it does not matter whether the surroundings are white, gray, or black; the balance of radiation into and out of the object depends on how well it emits and absorbs radiation. When T >Ts, the quantity Qnet is positive; that is, the net heat transfer is from hot to cold.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    The law of energy conversation:
    Energy cannot be destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. When a photon emitted by a cold body hits a warmer body, it will be absorbed and its energy will not disappear but it will be transformed into heat.

    For me, it looks like many commentators should read again the physics books used in colleges.

    • Antero, good points, yes, your 1LOT Qnet is for object T, both objects same area in view & emissivity. So, I point out for others here 1LOT is also true:

      Qnet = σeA(T^4 – Ts^4)

      when your T is less than Ts, the quantity Qnet is negative; that is, the net energy transfer is still from hot to cold. Many commenting here, as you point out, are not accomplished enough in thermodynamics to understand the possibility the sign on Qnet can be negative. When T = Ts steady state exists then the objects transferring EM energy neither have a net gain of Q:

      Qnet = 0 = σeA(T^4 – Ts^4)

  90. One funny thing just occurred to me. Somebody familiar with the emitted radiation spectrum by the body of 15 C degrees should know that its wavelength zone is about from 3 to 100 micrometers. Another body – like an atmosphere in 10 C degrees – has a wavelength zone a little be higher (lower frequency). The body of temperature 20 C degrees has a wavelength zone a little bit lower (higher frequencies).

    Let us assume that a photon with a wavelength of 10 micrometers hits a body of 15 C degrees. What are the possibilities that this body in 15 degrees can react to this photon 1) rejecting it or by 2) by absorbing it? This photon could have been emitted by a body in which temperature is something between 10 to 20 degrees. Now those guys with their own physics say that this body of 15 C degrees absorbs only a photon from a body hotter than itself. Actually this body has no means to know what was the temperature of the body emitting this photon.

    • Antero,

      The use of CO2 lasers is another clear point in this discussion that a cold(er) body can heat a warm(er) one:
      Operating temperature maximum about 100 C, IR beam at 10.6 micrometer, that is the “peak temperature” of a black body at minus 80 C or so. With that beam, steel is melted at over 1000 C, which according to several in this discussion would be impossible…

      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser

  91. Dr Spencer “Given any rate of energy input into a system, the temperature will continue to increase until temperature-dependent energy loss mechanisms equal the rate of energy input. If you don’t believe it, let’s look at an extreme example.”

    Why would anyone not believe this. This is part of the whole warming doom argument, energy that has come in a decade ago is still swishing around in the oceans, the energy transferring mechanisms are asynchronous, what is emitted in the last 24 hours is not the same energy that was absorbed, and in many cases not understood, poorly understood, with I would venture many unknown unknowns.

    Energy comes in and a large portion goes into the system until other mechanisms turn it out again. There is not much balance in this process, the balance is the bottleneck of incoming and outgoing emission fluxes which on a bare rock planet would be “all things equal” emit absorb generally speaking, but obviously earth, there is input from solar, and output from escape, both input and output deal in amounts of energy that are a tiny drop compared to the energy in the system.

    Essentially regulators of energy flow rather than determiners of how much energy exists in the system because this amassing of energy in the system has happened over billions of years.

    GHGs and atmosphere/clouds, and what the surface is made of, regulate the energy balance.

    and of course, there is no actual real evidence at all that CO2 is such a dominant factor as claimed by the IPCC.

  92. Simply put, the atmosphere is essentially a bottleneck. It limits the input with clouds water vapor and other gases, and does same on outgoing energy. (in terms of energy balance not temperature profile)

    But this really does not mean much if you cannot determine the actual energy balance, you are determining the energy regulation, there is a difference. What about all that energy in the system and what happens to it, when does it go in the oceans and reappear in the atmosphere ect.

    The system’s many mechanisms for moving energy around cares not for the regulator, and can warm and cool with the processes internally because there is a LOT of energy in there and MANY processes to move it around in the oceans and atmosphere.
    The regulator does not GUARANTEE stability, this is what is essentially alleged by the IPCC, that somehow we can regulate the immense system of energy transfer in the climate system if we manipulate a secondary factor in the atmospheric regulator of input and output

  93. Mark – Helsinki. About 30 kilometers, where I live.

    You write about the energy balances as if the Earth could reach the energy balance only after hundreds of years or even after longer time periods. I have published three energy balance papers and I have found that nowadays the fluxes of the energy balance are measured with very good accuracy. An energy balance has one remarkable property: it must be in balance. Therefore if independently measured energy fluxes show that IN and OUT are practically equal, we know that it is a measure of validation. Nowadays the energy balances over 2-5 years show excellent balance values.

  94. Antero, Quantum Oscillators run the energy transfer show, and they do not react to weaker or equal forces. This is why EMF is a Vector Force, non-Scalar. A simple matter of balace of forces at the sub-atomic scale. Modern Physics has found the means.
    Heat being just a process, your version would result in an IR Catastrophe as feared before the development of Quantum Theory. Einstein disagrees with you, after Maxwell previously proved you wrong in his Kinetics of Gases. Study them well.
    As for CO2 Lasers, entirely different techniques make them work. N2 is the Gain Medium and He and CO2 assist until CO2 is able to emit the desired IR frequencies in vibrating mode, put simply.
    Brett Keane, NZ

    • Brett Keane.

      How do you explain that according to the energy balance in Fig.2, there is no energy catastrophe on the Earth’s surface even though the LW flux from the atmosphere of 345 W/m2 has been absorbed by the surface? On the contrary, if there were not this energy flux, the surface would be out of balance in huge numbers:
      – IN 165 W/m2 solar insolation
      – OUT 395 W/m2 LW radiation plus evaporation rate (latent heat) 91 W/m2 and sensible heat 24 W/m2.

      Do not even suggest that 395 is not real. It is measurement-based fact as is also 345 W/m2.

  95. Antero, can you please provide a reference for these radiation measurements that support the balance? Seriously, I’m very interested.

  96. To Martin Mason. For a serious request. Figures are in W/m2.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1,
    Table 5.
    – Solar insolation 340.0
    – SH radiation up 97.1
    – Net SW to the Earth 349.0 – 97.1

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2097.1
    – Acronyms in Ch. 3, Vales in Table 1.
    – SW rad. To the surface 169.9
    – LW rad. To the surface 338.6
    – LW rad. From the surface 398.8

    These values have been updated continuously. Those guys with their own physics can close their eyes for preventing any upset.

  97. I think it would behoove more than just a few individuals to become familiar with actual “weather” observations and ‘phenomena’ (and some the forces which shape it!) by becoming a little more familiar with meteorology as a subject (setting aside for the time being “energy budgets” and the like.)

    To that end – two introductory textbooks are recommended (as required by the meteorological department at the Oklahoma University for their “Intro to Meteorology I” courses):

    ———————————–
    (1) Meteorology Today |
    AN INTRODUCTION TO WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
    9th Edition

    https://epdf.pub/meteorology-today-9th-edition.html
    https://epdf.pub/queue/meteorology-today-9th-edition.html

    Author: Prof. C. Donald Ahrens
    599 pages

    —————————
    (2) Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers (3rd Edition)

    News: https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/blogs/news/entry/roland-stull-meteorology-text-available
    Bookdownload: https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/

    Author: Dr. Roland Stull

    —————————

Comments are closed.