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).
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.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
IR thermometer testing.
Freezer compartment, compact office frig/IR thermometer: 21 deg F
You are reading the on board reference T/C.
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#
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: ” Children imagining they know more than Maxwell and Einstein, ”
Did Einstein work with the EM (absorption/radiation) properties of various gases?
IOW, IR Spectroscopy in particular?
Introduction to Infrared Spectroscopy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S_bt3JI150
Prof. Dave IR Spectroscopy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TmevMf-Zgs
The infrared atmospheric window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
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.
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.
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).
No Jim,
the atmosphere is not a mirror.
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?)
mods – comment stuck in moderation?
mods – Link to ‘stuck’ comment – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/12/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/#comment-2944713
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
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
Very brief and comprehensive narrative of the necessary corrections to the false climate science.
Thanks for your points and hopefully this will ultimately get back real physics in this discussion.
re: “My IR gun is designed to be useful over short distances,”
This is at odds with, well, physics. Also, nothing in the device datasheet concerning “distance” on these 8 to 14 um sensitive devices. MLX90614 – https://www.melexis.com/en/product/MLX90614/Digital-Plug-Play-Infrared-Thermometer-TO-Can#
Also at odds with physics (depending on exactly what you mean): “Quantum Oscillators respond only to superior energies.”
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I’ve updated my Greenhouse Confusion and Fear article to expand the discussion of back-radiation. I’ve added a simple diagram that I think might help.
http://brindabella.id.au/ftp/GHE-temp-profile-ann.png
More on b-r in:
http://brindabella.id.au/ftp/Back-radiation-quote.png
This compares the net energy transfers at the surface with the vastly greater collisional energy transfers taking place at an atomic level.
“…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.)
Crisp, please justify your claims above. Brett Keane, NZ
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
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
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)
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
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.