Dr. Roy Spencer writes on Facebook:
Wayne Rowley has asked me to explain how a cold atmosphere can warm the Earth’s surface (which is what happens in global warming theory), a question I’ve been asked many times in the last 20+ years.
First of all, the temperature of anything depends upon the rates of energy GAIN and energy LOSS. When those 2 are equal, temperature remains the same; if they are unequal, the temperature changes.
Everyone knows that increasing the rate of energy gain increases temperature: e.g. turn up the heat under a pot of water on the stove, or turn up the thermostat in your house in winter.
But you can also increase temperature by reducing the rate of energy LOSS: put a lid on the pot of water while keeping the flame under it constant, adding insulation to the walls of a heated house while keeping the rate of furnace heating the same.
Now, note that in these examples, the lid is *cooler* than the heated water, and the walls (in winter) are cooler than the heated home interior, yet they can make the warmer object even warmer still. Your clothes in winter (or summer) keep you warmer than if you had no clothes on, even though the clothes are cooler than your body temperature. The examples are literally endless.
So, for the atmosphere, the net flow of infrared radiation from the surface to the “cold” depths of outer space is greatly reduced by the atmosphere (the so-called “greenhouse effect”), keeping the surface warmer than if the atmosphere was not there, absorbing and emitting its own infrared radiation. (An interesting side effect is that while the greenhouse effect keeps the surface and lower layers of the atmosphere warmer, the upper atmosphere is actually made colder. The same happens if you add more and more insulation to the walls of a heated house.)
How does this apply to global warming? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning slightly enhances the atmosphere’s ability to keep the surface warmer by reducing the rate of energy loss by the surface. The question is, by how much? The *direct* effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is small, only about 1 deg. C. But indirect changes in the atmosphere resulting from that direct warming (“feedbacks”) can either amplify it or reduce it. I believe those feedbacks will limit the warming to considerably less that what we are being told by climate modelers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I believe those feedbacks will limit the warming to considerably less that what we are being told by climate modelers”
No, no, no. Feedback analysis does not, can not and never will apply to the climate system. The tiny 1C effect is all there is, PERIOD.
That anyone can accept the idea of massive amplification by positive feedback illustrates complete ignorance about the feedback analysis that was misapplied to the climate. Saying the ‘feedback’ is negative is just as wrong since correcting one error with another is also wrong. In fact, the cascade of codependent offsetting errors that define climate science starts with the misapplicition of LINEAR feedback analysis to the climate system and that was done to provide plausibility for an ECS large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.
The only possible significant source of ‘feedback’ warming is albedo changes from melting ice, but when you look at the effect of eliminating all surface ice, the increase in solar energy amortized across the planet isn’t even close to being enough to offset the extra emissions beyond the forcing required to support the nominal ECS of about 0.8C per W/m^2 (4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing). Keep in mind that 2/3 of the planet is covered by clouds and 2/3 of the reduction in reflection by surface ice will have an effect on the albedo. The effect of melting ice was far larger coming out of the depths of an ice age as a much larger fraction of the surface is covered by ice. The dynamic range of melting ice on the climate is simply all used up. BTW, this isn’t properly characterized as feedback any way and is more properly considered a change to the system, much like the temperature coefficient of a resistor, which is not considered feedback even as it may affect the gain.
If you insist on applying feedback analysis, then the input of the model must be all of the incident energy (not just the next W/m^2) and the output of the model MUST be all W/m^2 of emissions and not just a temperature change. Moreover; COE must be applied between the input of the feedback model and the output, which Bode does not do in his analysis because the implicit power supply he assumes isolates the input energy from the output energy.
The idea that approximate linearity around the mean satisfies Bode’s linearity rquirment is absolutely wrong and considering the average not accounted for by the incremental analysis to be the implicit power supply is equally wrong. The forcing and feedback not accounted for by the incremental analysis are already accounted for by the average temperature which is also not accounted for. That these two errors have fooled so many, including you Roy, is an embarassment to the scientific method.
In your world view, increased convection in a warmer world is not a negative feedback?
MarkW,
It has nothing to do with my world view and is all about the legitimate vs. the illegitimate application of Bode’s feedback analysis. Feedback analysis is somewhat esoteric and well over the heads of most, especially among those who attempt to apply it to the climate system.
What you’re talking about is not feedback. It’s simply a reorganization of existing energy within the system. The feedback analysis misapplied to the climate is a LINEAR analysis and requires that the input and output have a linear relationship over all possible input and outputs. That is, if 1 unit of input results in 2 units of output, 100 units of input will produce 200 units of output. Applying a LINEAR analysis incrementally is completely invalid as this assumes non linearity!
BTW, what effect do non radiant transfers of heat have, like latent heat and convection, other the NET effect they’re already having on the average? The complete effect of all things considered to be ‘feedback’ is to increase the surface emissions by 0.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing and that’s all there is to it. There’s just no possible way that the next W/m^2 can be so much more powerful than the average W/m^2 that it can result in 4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions while the average W/m^2 only contributes 1.62 W/m^2 to the surface emissions. Feedback is incapable of doing this unless an implicit power supply, that’s not also the forcing, is part of the system.
Joules are joules, so it’s almost like climate science fails to recognize that 1 Watt is 1 Joule per second. The units of work are Joules and while it takes linear work to increase the surface temperature, the work required to maintain it increases as T^4. Besides, once in the steady state, the linear relationship between Joules and temperature is no longer relevant since the average temperature isn’t changing.
Furthermore, the T^4 relationship isn’t feedback either, but represents the non linearity of the apparent gain (or sensitivity) when changes in T are associated with changes in W/m^2 of input.
my understanding of feedback is different. It may not be feedback as understood in electronics, but it is feed back.
If I build a channel to take water from my reservoir the level of water in the reservoir will lower; vegetation will grow in my channel because there is now water; less water will then drain through my channel; vegetation continues to choke out most of the flow and the reservoir returns to the (almost) original level. The vegetation is the negative feedback with respect to the reservoir level.
(At no point does the construction of the channel lead to runaway vegetation growth that will increase the reservoir level above its original level. Converging system.)
But, it’s exactly the same feedback analysis used in electronics that was misapplied to the climate and used to justify the plausibility for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the IPCC.
They try and confuse you with examples like you stated, but this is not properly characterized with linear feedback analysis. Instead, it’s a non linearity arising from a dependence of the transfer function on the state. The feedback analysis applied to justify the concept of climate feedback requires the transfer function (i.e. the closed loop gain or what climate science calls the sensitivity) to be independent of the state (output of the amplifier).
That’s the kind of info/response that I needed to see.
THANKS.
my understanding of feedback is different. It may not be feedback as understood in electronics, but it is feed back.
If I build a channel to take water from my reservoir the level of water in the reservoir will lower; if the channel erodes and back cuts to the reservoir it will allow for greater flow; the greater flow creates more erosion and cuts a deeper channel. At 20 feet it hits bedrock and does not erode any more and the reservoir level is 20′ lower.
The erosion is the feedback with respect to the reservoir level. (diverging & leading to a change of state).
If an action causes a reaction that either re-enforces or restricts the initial action, that’s a feedback.
You may wish to call it feedback, but more properly, it’s not the kind of feedback whose quantifying math was applied to justify amplifying something tiny into something huge. You’re confusing a non linearity in the system, where the behavior of the system is dependent on the state, with the kind of linear system feedback that was misapplied to justify climate feedback analysis. That analysis is only valid when the system transfer function is independent of the state, i.e. strict linearity.
That warmist models mis-use the concept of feedback, is not evidence that there are no feedbacks.
Just like the fact that warmists mis-use models in general is not evidence that no models are useful.
MarkW,
The evidence that there’s no feedback is the lack of active gain, that is, no power supply and that the output Joules can only originate from the input Joules. Feedback, positive or negative, only makes sense in the context of active gain.
Consider that negative feedback results in a closed loop gain less than the open loop gain. A passive circuit would simply attenuate the input with a resistor network. The difference being that the output of the feedback circuit comes from an implicit power supply, while the output of the passive circuit originates from the input itself.
A proper passive model of the path between the surface and space is one where a fraction of what the surface emits is delayed, returned to the surface and added to new forcing allowing it to offset surface emissions beyond the forcing. Examine how such a system would respond to a step change in forcing (i.e. sunset/sunrise0. Notice how the apparent warming in excess of the forcing is the consequence of delay?
What you, and many others, are calling feedback is when the closed loop gain is considered to be strongly dependent on the state and will be far more for the next W/m^2 than for the average W/m^2 of input. Of course, the data shows that the average closed loop gain is mostly insensitivity to the temperature or the total W/m^2 of input.
For the delay model, the only proper output would also be W/m^2 and not a delta T. The incremental nature of the the climate feedback model makes it really absurd since the required linearity for the model to be useful rquires that there can be no difference between the incremental gain and the absolute gain.
A different view.
What is the heat we feel from the air around us in the shade?
Measure it with a thermometer.
Now how do we actually feel that heat?
Two main sources.
Infra red radiation.
Convective heat from the air molecules colliding with our skin.
Or the Thermometer surface for that matter.
–
How much heat do we get from infra red in the shade?
Infra red in and of itself causes a very low temperature effect.
CO2 absorbs and emits it at these very low temperatures.
The main reason is not that massive amounts of very low temperature absorbing and emitting causes a temperature rise per se.
It is that the massive amount of IR absorbed gets transformed into making other atoms move faster by collision and they cannot lose that energy as quickly as the CO2 and other GHG absorb emit and transfer it.
Thus building up the heat of all the air particles.
–
This creates a conundrum for those who believe that the air can actually keep trapping energy from the sun continuously during the day.
Or that heat can remain trapped in the oceans.
–
Yes during the day some heat is added from the sun to the atmosphere until it reaches the maximum temperature , then it is dissipated as the amount of insolation goes down.
More CO2, more temperature rise possible overall.
Trapping of energy?
Time scales are different for different substances and different substance states.
Trapping is a misnoner. What is occurring is the rate of energy transport is reduced.
In your example above, the body doesn’t just gain energy from the atmosphere, it releases energy to the atmosphere. It does this by both radiation and conduction.
But only radiation emitted by your body will contribute to the radiant balance of the planet. Convection basically increases the velocity of air molecules which do not emit radiation that can leave the planet, other than re-emissions by GHG’s, whose average energies are independent of the molecules velocity.
Arbitrarily conflating radiant and non radiant heat transfer is one of many flaws canonized since AR1. Another is that linear feedback analysis is relevant to the non linear relationship between W/m^2 of steady state emissions and the temperature. Another is that different W/m^2 can perform different amounts of work. Another is that most of the radiant surface energy absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface, while geometry dictates otherwise. Just to be clear, all of the non radiant heat transfered into the atmosphere must be returned to the surface since only radiant energy can leave the planet. To the extent that the water in clouds radiates and that some of its heat can be considered to originate as latent heat or convection, for the average atmospheric water to be considered in a steady state equilibrium, that water must absorb the same as it emits.
…and again a photon is not ‘heat’ and it is not ‘heat’ that’s ‘radiatively’ transferred. There is no ‘radiant heat’, a photon is cold energy. Thermodynamics cannot deal with the situation, ‘heat’ upwells by the warmed (by surface contact) atmosphere via convection. Photons can go in any direction. For 30 years thermodynamics has been earnestly applied resulting now in the same discussion points being used within the same arguments and with the Environment doing nothing that would be observably supportive still. Time to drop the ‘thermodynamic egg’, its spoiled, there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect that can have any consistency and none has been observed.
”there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect that can have any consistency and none has been observed.”
Yet Earthen thermometer fields near the surface measure global median ~288K and satellites measure global median ~255K. That is an observation.
In the winter,
Press a thermometer against your radiator. Note the temperature. Regardless if doors and windows are open, regardless of the insulation, the air in the house will not exceed the radiator temperature. GH effect debunked.
The best that can happen is that all the air is at radiator temperature! There is no heat up of the radiator. The radiator is analagous to Earth’s surface. Neither heats up.
How can anyone believe GH effect junk science?
In Roy’s case, it’s obvious. He has to please government imbeciles. But why do others believe it?
Once again, Zoe goes out of her way to refute a claim nobody has made.
The sun warms the surface, then that energy escapes. The GH slows down the rate at which the energy escapes.
If energy is coming in faster than it is going out, then the surface will warm. GH isn’t directly warming the surface, the sun is doing that.
The only imbecil in this conversation is you Zoe, because of your unwillingness to believe in basic science and mathematics.
The radiator warms the air, then that energy escapes.
The GHGs in the air and the insulation of the house slows down the rate at which the energy escapes.
If energy is coming in faster than it is going out, then the radiator will warm. GHGs and insulation aren’t directly warming the radiator, the electric company is doing that.
Proper analogy debunks your stupid GH effect.
The only imbecile in this conversation is you Mark, because of your unwillingness to understand how analogies work and the actual claims that must be proved.
Once again Zoe demonstrates that the only thing she has going for her is an intense hatred of anyone who disagrees with your stupid analogies.
It’s not my analogy. It’s the GH cult’s analogy. And it fails. It fails, therefore GH effect fails. QED.
Learn logic, idiot.
”the air in the house will not exceed the radiator temperature. GH effect debunked.”
?? The air temperature on earth does not exceed the radiator temperature.
Please explain.
Since the earth is several thousand degrees cooler than the sun, I fail see the point that you are failing to make.
Mark, the idiot,
INVERSE SQUARE LAW
Now be quiet. You have permanently lost all credibility.
Once again, Zoe tries to defend herself by drawing on a subject that has absolutely no bearing.
The sun is the same temperature, regardless of how far away from it you are.
BTW, the sun radiates in all directions, even in those directions where planets don’t exist.
The argument that needs addressing is the sensitivity of CO2 to long term negative or positive feedback which is how they make up carry stories that we are doomed. I think most rational people agree that there is a theoretical slight retardation of outbound infrared heat radiation due to slightly increasing CO2, (any additional atmospheric water vapor does the same at ~15 micron) which has its greatest effect in the first 50 ppmv and decreases logarithmically the higher the CO2 level. And when I say slightly increasing CO2, doubling nearly nothing, (280-560 ppmv-(.028% to .056%)) is still nearly nothing in the scheme of things and much of that is from a warming ocean outgassing CO2 and not fossil sourced which is natural variation warming for the most part since the LIA.
One extra molecule of CO2 per 10,000 other parts, mostly nitrogen and oxygen. The human CO2 content in the air we have added since the Industrial Revolution is thus only 0.0016 percent. In the scheme of the carbon cycle, it isn’t very big, and geologically speaking, as soon as we quit burning FF, it will revert to 280 ppmv soon enough and then lower the cooler the global ocean gets until it is 180 ppmv at the peak of the glacial advance, a little above life extinction levels. So this speculation that we will cancel the next glacial advance is wishful thinking at best. And total deception at worst to a gullible audience.
You would think that the effect would be noticed in Antartica, the worlds largest desert with low atmospheric humidity/water vapor, and yet we see no warming from CO2 at the South Pole which has approximately the same CO2 levels as the rest of the planet. Perhaps the CO2 effect is so minimal that it isn’t measurable in a hyper cold climate, where there is little heat to retard in the first place. And where there is substantial water vapor such as the tropics, where it is already warm and humid either side of the equator over half for 1/2 the planets area, WV and clouds already will retard the same outbound radiation.
I just don’t get where all the fuss comes from, other than political deception by vested interests with an axe to grind either for an additional tax and control of energy resources (carbon), or keeping a good gig going where you get endless grants to study the issue (academia). Or a corrupt media that seizes this agenda, to support the other two major reasons to keep themselves relevant with the the ‘CO2 done it’ leftist crowd in power. If anything, the little bit of additional CO2 we humans have released is probably the best thing to happen to the biosphere in a million of years and will enable the greatest civilization possible, if we can solve all of our other real problems, which there is no shortage of.
The fuss is because the IPCC has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports, referred to as ‘the scientific consensus’. They have an intrinsic conflict of interest where their purpose is to identify scince to support the UNFCCC’s policy goals of using climate reparations to globally redistribute wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The scientific truth is incompatible with their reason to exist.
Everything else is the result of opportunistically taking advantage of the broken science used to support the UNFCCC’s agenda to support tangentially related agendas, like radical environmentalism. The fact that politics chose sides of controversial science doesn’t help either, especially since the gap is so wide, only one side can be right and the political left choose wrong due to pressure from green special interests and those who want to see western civilization fail.
Dr. Spencer,
Can you show us the derivation from First Principles of your 1 degree C? You cannot, as this number cannot be calculated from First Principles.
What you call Heating the Surface is rarely measured, as no one has thermometers in the dirt and rock that make up the Earth’s Surface. It is the Atmosphere we are concerned with.
The Earth’s Surface emits radiation. Most of this radiation escapes to space. Some is trapped by Greenhouse Gases, principally water vapor and CO2. CO2 traps essentially all the radiation it can within 10 meters of the Earth’s Surface, and increases in CO2 just move the 10-m altitude a few microns closer to the surface, not changing the Temperature of the Atmosphere in any significant way.
However, much higher in the Atmosphere, radiation is not free to escape to Space, as CO2 traps radiation emitted by gases up there. Up there, more CO2 increases the altitude at which 15-micron radiation is able to freely escape to space, lowering the temperature at which radiation is able to escape to space, causing the amount of energy escaping to space to be less, thus increasing the amount of energy in the Atmosphere. Due to the Lapse Rate this increases the temperature of the Atmosphere at the 2-meter height where everyone measures it.
This effect cannot be calculated, believe me, I have tried. It could be vanishingly small. Michael Mann and his brethren like to talk about “shoulders” and “Pressure Broadening,” effects that are definitely vanishingly small.
I wish you amateurs would stop with the 1 degree C nonsense. Back it up, or knock it off…
The ability of atoms and molecules to absorb photons is not a First Principle?
It’s distressing how many people don’t seem to want to understand what Dr. Spencer is telling them.
The skeptical side of the public debate if there ever is one with IPCC climate science will get discredited if they openly espouse the notion that the basic greenhouse effect of “…only about 1 deg. C” is wrong.
I haven’t been able to figure it out. But there seems to be a subset of skeptics who believe that if we conceed any warming, no matter how infinitesimal, then the warmists win.
So they latch on to ever more bizarre theories in order to avoid dealing with the clear science.
Thanks Roy
And how does this explanation goes along with atmospheric thickness over the polar regions?
What troubles me the most with the radiative theory is that all processes are nearly at light speed. Therefore there can be essentially no significant trapping in gases just by radiation. Other mechanisms have to be responsible.
How does happening at light speeds prevent CO2 from capturing and thermalizing energy?
“…CO2 from capturing and thermalizing energy?”
CO2
Does
Not
Do
This!!
Yes it does, it’s even been measured in the lab.
What is “thermalizing” energy supposed to mean? The EM energy CO2 is proposed to absorb is thermal by definition in the first place.
And if it nature is radiative then it absorbs but also emits the energy at light speed. No time for trapping.
You seem to suffer from an inability to understand what light speed means. It means the speed at which a photon travels. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a measure of time.
Photons travel at the speed of light before being captured.
Photons travel at the speed of light after being re-emitted.
This says nothing about what happens to the photon during the time when it was captured by the molecule.
When a molecule captures a photon, it absorbs energy in the form of vibrations. When that molecule collides with another molecule, those vibrations can be transferred to that other molecule.
That’s what thermalization is, and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
When that molecule collides with another molecule, those vibrations can be transferred to that other molecule.
That is not a radiative process. You cannot transfer energy to another molecule that way and still emit the same radiative energy the molecule received from the photon.
The radiative theory of the greenhouse effect does not include collision as in the kinetic theory of gases.
That’s what thermalization is
You should probably look up the definition of thermalization. It does not mean what you think it means.
Actually, thermalization does work the way I’ve been describing it.
As to your complaint about thermalization not being a radiative process, so freaking what.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermalisation
As to your complaint about thermalization not being a radiative process, so freaking what.
Because that was my initial criticism? Did you even understand my first post?
“Therefore there can be essentially no significant trapping in gases just by radiation. Other mechanisms have to be responsible.”
The radiative theory of the greenhouse effect does not include what you call wrongly “thermalisation”.
Mark my thermodynamics book says in the specific heat section that the energy required to increase the temperature of something can be in ANY form.
You seem to be saying if I have 2 kg of CO2 and I want calculate how much energy I need to raise the temperature then I will get two different answers if I have or don’t have IR involved.
That’s just too simple an explanation. Missing is radiation other than from CO2 frequencies.
He is prefectly right in how he describes the GHE. The strange thing is, nobody seems to realize how irrelevant “back radiation” is in this (correct) theory. On the other side, all GHE theorys that build on “back radiation” are totally wrong, and so is the chart Roy Spencer quoted above.
What Mr Pierrehumbert and many others still miss, are the logical implications it has. It is true, GHGs push up the photosphere (the average level from where the planets emits), but that is no way excluse to GHGs. It is also true for aerosols, and most of all clouds. Therefore in theory clouds must be warming Earth. And the empiric evidence (that is real weather records, not some trashy NASA models) show that is exactly the case.
But this fact again marginalizes the role of GHGs so that the common GHE narrative (GHGs heat up Earth by 33K) turns out to be totally wrong. Rather GHGs can only for some 5K of GHE.
Roy and ray miss nothing.
next.
Can we also ask – how does the warmth of the atmosphere cool the deep ocean? The true state of affairs is that the earth’s surface is a layered thing in terms of heat and temperature with a cold layer of the deep sea sandwiched between a warmer atmosphere and a warmer earth’s interior. How do you explain that with infamous greenhouse of scientific explanation. Most accounts suggest there is a refrigerating process going on at the North Pole that involves sinking seawater of increased density. If you think about the size and density of the ocean abyss versus the atmosphere there is a lot of “refrigeration” going on. Enough so that I consider the textbook values of the earth’s surface temperature to be off by a few degrees centigrade. One seldom if ever sees mention of the cold of the ocean abyss in any accounts of earth’s surface temperature. Yet if I remember my eighth grade science rightly the the entire weight of the earth’s atmosphere amounts to merely 33 feet of ocean depth. Worrying about the heat of the atmosphere may be akin to drinking the head on a glass of beer and leaving the rest on the table.
Can we also ask – how does the warmth of the atmosphere cool the deep ocean?
Leave the “also” out and you have a valid point. The various claims about a deep layer of warm ocean water melting the ice at the grounding line – blah blah blah is certainly debatable. There’s a long list of claims emanating from our friends that are obviously debatable.
Yes. If you look at the temperature profile of the ocean, it’s relatively constant both above and below the thermocline with a linear trend through the thermocline separating the deep ocean cold from warm surface waters. Most of the planets water is below the thermocline with an average temperature of about 2C, even in the tropics. When we consider the temperature of the planet, we only consider the temperature of the top few hundred meters or so. It’s the same with the part of the solid surface in direct thermal equilibrium with the Sun. Similar to the function of the thermocline, dirt and rock insulates the cooler surface from the interior heat of the planet.
If you look at the temperature profile through an insulated wall separating a warm room from the cold outside, it looks the same as the temperature profile of the ocean. While we don’t consider water to be a thermal insulator, it’s thermal conductivity is finite, so at a sufficient thickness, water does become an insulator!
Roy’s comments here expose the general inanity of the various disciplines that have monopolized public attention regarding the science of the atmosphere. Roy demonstrates how use of the phrase “greenhouse effect” insinuates an analogousness between the thermal functionality of a greenhouse to the thermal functionality of the atmosphere. But this analogousness is fictional. The temperature in a greenhouse increases with sunshine because the air therein is unable to mix with any of the cooler air above which OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with the insulative properties of the atmosphere as described above by Roy.
So, why does Roy and many other traditional pretenders continue to use an analogy that misrepresents the operational nature of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere? The answer is because nobody in those disciplines, including Roy Spencer, wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Untangling Meteorology’s Dishonest Rhetoric Regarding Physics of Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Untangling-Meteorologys-Dishonest-Rhetoric-Regarding-Physics-of-Storms-edmvie
James McGinn / Genius
Roy, and others, use analogies because most people know nothing of the physics/math behind the actual phenomenon.
And, Genius, your use of vicious ad hominem conspiracy theories is disgusting. Your use of the word pretender to describe the accomplished Dr. Spencer is risible. What are your physics credentials, Genius?
Dave Fair: Roy, and others, use analogies because most people know nothing of the physics/math behind the actual phenomenon.
JMcG: Right, so analogies can be used as an explanatory device. As I’m sure you would agree, they can also be deployed toward propagandistic ends. Which of these two do you think is indicated by the use of a blatantly inaccurate analogy to describe the thermodynamics of the atmosphere? Suppose that instead of referring to it as the greenhouse effect we referred to it as the ambient effect? Would this not be less deceptive?
Dave Fair: And, Genius, your use of vicious ad hominem conspiracy theories is disgusting.
JMcG: Well, what would be the point of a polite ad hominem conspiracy theory, I mean like, who is even going to notice something like that?
Dave Fair: Your use of the word pretender to describe the accomplished Dr. Spencer is risible.
JMcG: All academics are pretenders. It’s an unwritten part of their job description.
Dave Fair: What are your physics credentials, Genius?
JMcG: I prefer to let my own words speak for me:
Solving Tornadoes / Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
So many words thrashing around what should be a simple concept!
But it’s not the easiest of concepts to fully grasp: that every body that is not at absolute zero and/or has zero emissivity is both emitting and absorbing radiation all the time.
Those that haven’t got it by now, will probably not get it.
Similarly, every body that is in physical contact with other bodies is also losing or gaining heat by conduction, and every body that is in contact with a fluid medium is also losing or gaining heat by convection. These, however, are quite easy concepts because we can see them at work around us.
I submit that the difficulty some people have with radiation and the greenhouse effect is that we mostly don’t notice the effects of radiative heat transfer in our daily lives, even as we experience them. Sometimes we can’t miss it, e.g. standing in the shade to avoid heating from direct sunlight, but even then we mostly don’t internalize it as “radiation”. If (like me) you live in an old house with not much insulation and single-glazed windows, you can stand in front of a window on a cold winter day, and your face feels cold; then move a couple of steps and stand in front of a (outside) wall and your face feels a lot less cold. You have to think carefully – and have a knowledge of the physics – to realise that the (±15°C) wall is “heating” your (±30°C) face by radiating at you more than the window (which is more or less transparent to IR) did. It’s also diffusely reflecting back at you some radiation from the (±20°C) inside walls (assuming that it’s painted white). It’s also diffusely reflecting back at you a very small fraction of the radiation from your face. It just goes on and on.
It’s analogous to having difficulty grasping all the consequences of relativity because Newtonian physics describes our everyday world so well.
No, it has warmed the air adjacent to the wall or window.
Which your skin can feel.
Seems like the final point is what is important, the max possible addition is 1C and probably less.
Not 5-7C or whatever number is currently fashionable among the climactically insane?
Meaning there is no issue.
Yeah, but it ain’t over till the fat lady sings . This looks like a NFL replay!
Yes Pat, and if only those who think they understand, actually realised EMF is a vector Force that cannot affect equal or stronger ie warmer Heat Fluxes. Quantum effects forbid it or we would go up in smoke. Brett Keane, NZ
Sorry, not buying the “greenhouse” meme.
Why, you might ask ? Well some from a bygone decade show why :
The Weatherman : It’s be a great country if only they’d roof it :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ljUQz9HoI
On a Serious note, Pat Frank’s and Monckton’s analyses are devastating.
How Atmospheric Pressure Drives Temperatures, Not Trace Gases
https://climatechangedispatch.com/atmospheric-pressure-drives-temperatures/
Ya just have to get off-planet to stop this blog circus. We cannot solve such with feet of clay.
bonbon,
The gravitational theory of Nikolov & Zeller is physicaly impossible, as that violates the conservation of energy. Willis Eschenbach has made an “elevator speech” on that point:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/
Ferdinand, a problem with that elevator speech is that there are no known perfectly transparent atmospheres. The only novel N&Z work was their curve fitting.
You might think it explains it, but half of the commentors did not.
Just like on this and every other GHG thread.
NO insulator adds any heat to any system…..slowing the movement of the heat energy does NOT “add” heat.
I have gone through these conversations many times. There are many problems with some people, who will not admit the facts and the basic laws of physics. I just summarize some of them.
1. How can the surface emit radiation of 395 W/m2 (measured), if the surface absorbs only direct solar energy 165 W/m2 (measured)? The answer: The surface receives energy 165 + 345 W/m2 from the atmosphere, totally 510 W/m2. The surface is capable to emit 395, to release latent heating 94 (calculated), and sensible heating 24; totally 510 W/m2.
2. How can the GH effect per the IPCC 155 W/m2 be able to reradiate to the surface 345 W/m2? The answer: It cannot, because the energy cannot be created from the void. The reradiation is the sum of four energy fluxes: SW absorption 75, LW absorption 155, latent heating 91, sensible heating 24; totally 345 W/m2. All these fluxes maintain the temperature profile of the atmosphere and it emits radiation per Planck’s law. The SW absorption is part of solar net energy 165 + 75 = 240 W/m2 and therefore it is not part of the GH effect.
If you do not accept the fact that the atmosphere reradiates energy to the surface, there is no sense to continue the conversation. It is not a theory; it has been measured. The solar energy recycles: 240 W/m2 is coming in and the same amount is going out. The same applies to the GH energy: 270 W/m2 is released by the surface and the atmosphere recycles it back to the surface.
An essential question is: Why this GH energy does not escape into space? The answer: There is an invisible roof like a roof in a real greenhouse. The atmosphere can send energy into space only by radiation and this highway has been already reserved for the solar energy 240 W/m2. No more, no less energy is not possible by physical laws.
1) LOL, No.
The surface gets ~165 from solar and ~335 from geothermal.
http://phzoe.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
Not only does Zoe feel entitled to her own math and her own physics, she’s now making up her own facts.
Mark: I just love Zoe’s logic of using data from a case where there are both solar and longwave radiation onto the surface to “prove” that the minuscule geothermal heat flux can maintain this type of temperature all by itself.
Ed,
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
Ed: I just love the fact that the only place Zoe can find support for her imaginative musings is on her own web site.
Since Zoe claims to have over turned just about every branch of physics, I wonder just how many Nobels shes expecting to win?
Once she gets all those articles on her sites converted into actual papers, I’m sure the accolades will start rolling in.
Zoe: Thank you for confirming my claim.
You are indeed using examples with radiative fluxes to the surface thousands of times greater than the geothermal flux to argue that the geothermal flux alone can maintain these temperatures.
Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is?
Ed,
It’s not up to the heat flux to “maintain temperatures”
It’s up to Thot to maintain Tcold and Tcold to generate those fluxes.
A heat flux of zero would mean Tcold = Thot. T is what generates those emissions.
The SB Law clearly states it is T[cold] that generates emission OUT of a medium, not the conductive heat flux IN the medium.
Learn science.
Zoe: What part of:
DeltaE = Q + W
(which is the mathematical statement of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) do you not understand?
For a steady-state case (which “maintains temperatures”) DeltaE = 0. For our case of the surface layer as the control mass, which we have been discussing for a long time now, W (work) = 0.
Now, this math may be beyond your capabilities, given everything you’ve posted to date, but in this case, the equation reduces to:
Q = 0
where Q is the sum of all of the heat fluxes into the control mass minus all of the heat fluxes out of the control mass.
So it is ABSOLUTELY the case that it IS “up to the heat flux to ‘maintain temperatures'”. Anyone who got through the first couple of weaks of an introductory thermo class, or even just the first couple of chapters of an intro thermo text, would realize this. You very obviously have done neither.
BTW, in an earlier thread, I provided you with the relevant section of a standard thermo text explaining this after you complained I had not yet done so. As before, you ignored this. And as always, you never provide any text to back up your arguments. I wonder why?
Ed,
You really are some type of an imbecile.
The question is what does Tcold emit?
All you did was set the heat flow to ZERO and pat yourself on the back, as if you answered something.
Zoe:
I asked you what part of “DeltaE = Q + W” (1st LoT) you didn’t understand.
The answer is clearly: all of it!
This is THE most fundamental equation in all of thermodynamics, and you have no idea of how to use it.
YOU made the claim that the geothermal heat flux of ~0.09 W/m2 is enough BY ITSELF to sustain surface temperatures we commonly see and upward radiant fluxes of hundreds of W/m2 indefinitely.
You are arguing that this is a steady-state condition. In steady state, DeltaE is 0. There is no work done on the surface layer in this example, so W is zero.
Anyone who understands this very simple equation (conservation of energy) AT ALL — and it’s not difficult — realizes that it MUST follow that the net sum of the heat fluxes in and out of the surface layer is zero. (No, I did not just “set the heat flow to ZERO and pat [my]self on the back”, I calculated it from your description.
It is possible at a given time to have the surface emitting more by radiation than it gets by conduction from below, but this is NOT a steady state condition, so DeltaE would not be zero. I have explained it to you before using 2nd grade math, but you obviously did not understand it, so I will do it again.
You use the example of the surface temperature (Tcold) of +5C emitting 340 W/m2. So let’s see what that does to a 1 m2 area of the surface. Using the 1st Law equation in differential form, we have:
dE/dt = 0.09 – 340 + 0 = -339.91 W
So this control mass is losing energy at a very high rate — it is not remotely close to steady state. This high energy loss means that its temperature will drop quickly.
You claim to be in finance. Financial accounting is based on “conservation of money”. Do you believe that if you got $0.09 per week of interest from your very wealthy bank (input), you could spend $340 per week and maintain your same account balance week to week? That is what you are arguing in the thermal case.
“dE/dt = 0.09 – 340 + 0 = -339.91 W”
You are insane.
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
“YOU made the claim that the geothermal heat flux of ~0.09 W/m2 is enough BY ITSELF to sustain surface temperatures we commonly see and upward radiant fluxes of hundreds of W/m2 indefinitely.”
No I didn’t. Reread what I wrote.
Zoe:
It is EXACTLY what you are arguing. You don’t even know enough to realize the direct implications of your arguments.
You argue that the tiny conductive flux through an area of the XY plane (we have been using a 1 m2 area for simplicity) in the +Z direction is BY ITSELF sufficient to permit a radiative flux out of that same area of the XY plane in the +Z direction thousands of times greater INDEFINITELY.
I simply applied the first equation everybody learns in their first thermodynamics course (conservation of energy) to your scenario. You obviously have never taken such a course, or you would not make such an argument.
It is your argument that is insane, not mine.
The GHE properly explained (the first chapter of much bigger story, illustrations skipped..)
The two greenhouse theories
I have no idea why this has gone almost unnoticed, it least to my knowledge, but we have indeed two different theories on how the GHE is supposed to work. And this not about some dispute among different fractions, rather both are well accepted among scientists. For the sake of argument let us call them Theory A and Theory B.
Theory A is likely more common as it is taught at schools and most people would understand the GHE just in this way. According to this theory Earth gets heated by the sun plus some “back radiation” which is emitted by GHGs. Also the atmosphere would be “semi transparent”, thus letting sun light in, but holding back LWIR to a certain extend. While solar radiation alone would heat the planet to only 255K, the addition of “back radiation” would ultimately heat it to a much more comfortable 288K. Of course this effect can and will be enhanced if the amount of GHGs should be increased, as it is done by the emission of CO2. A very simplified model might look like this:
Theory B is a bit different, something like the “premium” version of the GHE. It is certainly less common in general but more popular with experts. According to this approach there is an average level within the atmosphere from where the planet emits LWIR into space, it is called the “photosphere”. There at the photosphere we should have 255K, while below it temperatures will be higher due to the adiabatic lapse rate. When moving downward and finally arriving at the surface, temperatures there will be 33K higher and that again would constitute a GHE. Also in this model an increase of GHGs will move up the photosphere and thus cause global warming.
Of course one might think if both models come to the same result, why would it even matter which approach is being used? The problem is, that despite these two approaches are usually referred to as “models” or “perspectives”, they are indeed fully grown theories. Both describe the very mechanism by how the GHE is supposed to work. “Photosphere” and “adiabatic lapse rate” do not matter in theory A, while “back radiation” has no scope in theory B. The pivotal part of each theory is irrelevant in each other theory. Also of course we know that two competing theories can not both be right.
For this reason it is very odd climate experts argue the GHE interchangeably with theory A or B, or sometimes both of which, without feeling any pain over it. Here is an example where venerable Prof. Merrifield explains the GHE with both theories, though with a clear preference for theory B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw
Another example would be “scienceofdoom.com”, where they state: “Another way to consider the effect is to think about where the radiation to space comes from in the atmosphere. As the opacity of the atmosphere increases the radiation to space must be from a higher altitude. Higher altitudes are colder and so the radiation to space is a lower value. Less radiation from the climate(sic!) means the climate warms.”
(Note: they may not use the terms “photosphere” or “adiabatic lapse” in this case, though this is exactly the model they refer too)
This necessarily brings up the question which theory is right, which is wrong, and what consequences such understanding will have. To analyze this question let us name a few hopefully enlightening examples.
1. I think it is incredibly important to understand the creation of stars. Stars shape from hydrogen clouds which sooner or later collapse due to their own, weak gravity. When that happens, very cold and thin masses of hydrogen contract and fall into each other, thereby concentrating gravity as well. As a consequence pressure increases and the molecular movement of hydrogen atoms turns from slow and relaxed into fast and restrained. Just like the pirouette of an ice skater, less space to move will mean, under the law of energy conservation, faster movement at less space. Accordingly temperatures increase from just over zero to millions of Kelvin. Eventually hydrogen atoms move so fast at so little space, that they push hard into each other, so that the process of fusion will be facilitated. At his point a star is created.
The very same, basic mechanism, though far less extreme, is the reason why temperatures increase within an atmosphere. When air flows upward it relaxes and thus turns colder, if it flows downward in compresses and heats up. That is without any change in the kinetic energy of the molecules themselves.
Accordingly, within an atmosphere, you will see ever increasing temperatures the deeper you (can) go. If the atmosphere is strong enough, the increase in temperature will amount to hundreds or thousands of degrees Kelvin from top to bottom. This mechanism will be in place regardless of whether there is a source of energy input (like the sun), or whether the atmosphere is selectively more transparent to SW as to LW radiation.
It is a universal mechanism that can not be reasonably referred to as “GHE”, and yet it has to elevate planetary surface temperatures, if there is an atmosphere of according strength. Without getting too philosophical on the term “GHE”, theory B at least represents the basic physics, while theory A fails to do so.
2. Jupiter is a gas giant and its atmosphere is getting thicker and hotter the deeper you go. This of course is not a unique property, you see the same pattern with any atmosphere, like that of Earth or Venus. The difference is just that you never hit a solid or liquid surface unless temperatures are probably even hotter than on the surface of the sun. Another interesting detail hereto is, that with a certain depth there will be no more solar radiation, as all of which has been absorbed or reflected by the atmospheric layers above. Yet temperatures will continue to increase the deeper you go.
A GH theory of course should not only explain a certain instance like that of Earth, but must also be able to explain the temperatures on Jupiter. In this case theory A will become very simple. In the absence of direct solar radiation all that remains to explain temperatures at a certain depth of the atmosphere will be “back radiation”. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, the more “back radiation” there will be. So far so good.
The problem here is of logical nature. Obviously temperatures and “back radiation” increase side by side and it is definitely true, that “back radiation” increases because temperatures increase. “Back radiation” is just a part of ambient radiation and that is a function of temperature as the Stefan-Boltzmann law already tells us. In other words, theory A has a serious tautology problem, a classical egg-chicken issue.
Apart from this circular reasoning, theory A can not explain why temperatures and ambient radiation increase the deeper you dive into an atmosphere. To do that we require theory B, which henceforth is basically correct while theory A is wrong. This has the logical consequence that “back radiation” is indeed irrelevant for the GHE.
Also this totally applies to the common explanation of the GHE via “Earth Radiation Budget” diagrams which, although a bit complicated, suggest in their core that surface temperatures are determined by “back radiation”, ignoring that “back radiation” itself will be determined by surface temperature. I am afraid the GHE is commonly understood (and taught) the wrong way.
3. Let us assume you would measure ambient radiation in water with a probe which can be directed upward or downward. At any given temperature you would find there is just as much radiation upwelling as downwelling (“back radiation”). Question: will that mean there is a massive GHE in water?
This perspective translates into atmospheric back radiation as well. In fact there is multiple times more back radiation than we can measure at the surface, but most of which is getting re-absorbed within the atmosphere itself and never reaches the surface. Let us think of multiple cloud layers, which all radiate downward, but only to the next lower cloud layer. The same would be true if you sliced a single cloud layer. And it is also true for GHGs, which absorb most “back radiation” emitted from higher layers.
All together we have “back radiation” that easily goes into the thousands W/m2 and if it would heat anything, be it the surface or the atmosphere, we would need to be worried. It would be totally enough to fry the planet, naturally. In reality however “back radiation” is just part of back and forth radiation, which heats nothing. It is in fact totally trivial.
4. There is a classical “experiment” to prove the GHE. Two bottles, one of which enriched with CO2 are heated with some source of light. The CO2 enriched bottle then is meant to heat up more strongly than the other one as CO2 would absorb more heat. As troublesome as this experiment is for a lot of reasons, let us assume it would work indeed.
As an act of heresy you could invert the experiment. Again two bottles, one with additional CO2, and now you warm them up in an oven to moderate temperatures. Finally you take them out and observe which one cools faster. Logically it must be the one with CO2, since it not only absorbs but also emits LWIR. Question: would this prove CO2 cools Earth??
Obviously such simple experiments can be misleading and set up to give any result you like. The same is true for “back radiation”. What is usually being omitted is the fact, that CO2 for instance not only “radiates back”, but also upward. This means due to GHGs less radiation will be emitted from surface to space, but additional radiation will be emitted by GHGs themselves into space. This would be a lump sum game unless you introduce the concept of adiabatic lapse rate and photosphere into your theory. This again will make theory A obsolete and support theory B.
5. Let us take an extreme, theoretic example. We have a planet which receives just as much solar radiation as Earth does. It has no (or a perfectly transparent) atmosphere, but is entirely covered by some fluid. The fluid is totally transparent to solar radiation, but totally opaque to LWIR. The solid surface underneath (or at the bottom) is both a perfect absorber and emitter. The fluid thus will work like a one-sided mirror. All goes in, nothing goes out.
The solid surface will attain 342W/m2 of solar radiation which will heat it to 279K. This will heat the fluid to the same temperature, which then again will emit another 342W/m2 back to the solid surface. A total of 684W/m2 will then heat the surface to 331K, with a GHE of 52K. Of course this is not the end of the story, as the fluid will turn hotter as well, giving more back radiation and so on. Temperatures eventually might turn so hot that the fluid evaporates.
However we have yet another restriction, as we know the temperature on top of the fluid, the liquid surface, must be 279K, since only with this temperature the planet emits as much energy as it receives from the sun. As soon as the temperature at the bottom is higher than these 279K, the warmer fluid will float to the surface balancing any delta in temperature between bottom and top of the fluid.
It turns out, even under such an extreme or perfect “greenhouse”, “back radiation” will not determine surface temperature as there are other mechanisms in place. It is a bit like eating soup with a fork. Yes, there is a momentum where you try to lift some soup out of the bowl, but eventually it will not yield the intended result. Even if you had a perfectly semi- or selectively transparent layer above the surface, that is not enough to catch the heat underneath. On the one side you have convection, which neutrals the effect of selective “back radiation”, on the other side real atmospheres are only marginally more or less transparent to SW as to LW radiation.
6. Quite generally, if an atmosphere was equally transparent to SW as LW radiation, there should not be any GHE according to theory A. In this case the atmosphere would heat a planet as much as it cools it, which turns out to be a lump sum game. In reality however, it is easy to see that is not the way it works. We will have “normal” temperatures at photosphere level and from there on downward, temperatures will increase. If the atmosphere is strong enough, then there will yet be boiling hot temperatures at the surface, just like on Venus. Important: this is without a semi-transparent atmosphere or “back radiation” respectively.
For all these reasons and many more, theory A based on “back radiation” is indeed a logical fallacy, while theory B is not. It provides a steady state mechanism to explain elevated surface temperatures which is not in conflict with any laws of physics, or logical consistency.
Even though this insight is extremely important, as it is of such fundamental nature, it is not even a necessity for what is to come. It is only facilitating the proper understanding of physics and shaping a healthy base to build on. All upcoming rationales will have to be solid on their own and shall not be solely derived from a single insight.
Yet this consequently brings up an extremely important question already. Sure, the (average) altitude of the photosphere will be influenced by GHGs, among which there is CO2. However, this is a property that can not be exclusive to GHGs alone. Clouds (and even aerosols) can only raise the photosphere, not lower it and thus should warm the planet as well. And if this should be true, the whole GHG induced GHE will be put into question.
Thank you.
Uranus is another conundrum for AGW.
Very long.
Short answer or clue is the temperature of entire ocean determine whether you are in an Ice Age or not.
And we are obviously in an Ice Age.
It agreed by the all believers of all stripes “that 90% of global warming is warming the ocean”.
{And tend to get hysterical about having a warmer ocean. Which is currently quite cold}
I would say their animal brain is far smarter what they claim as thinking.
So only way to get out of this million year Ice Age is by warming the ocean.
Now, Zoe is somewhat correct:
https://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
Or I would say somewhat closer to right in regards to the ocean.
You could review her math, and perhaps point out any of her mistakes.
Though the thought they are waving their wands and measuring Geothermal heat, has value in terms of amusement.
Leitwolf
Good post.
You point about radiation in dark gas is important.
Many of the global warming narratives (they are legion) discuss vertical movement of heat in the atmosphere as resulting from radiation alone.
But as you point out, in gas giants and even Venus, the atmosphere is dark except for a thin outer layer.
Below this layer, radiation has no effect.
It’s equivalent to the narrow photic zone at the ocean surface.
And the backradiation myth is equivalent to saying that all heat transfer in the ocean, down to the dark abyssal depths, is all by radiation only.
It’s transparently wrong.
Leitwolf:
Many years ago, two groups of engineers in my division were arguing about the underlying mechanics of a key technical problem. We had a consulting physics professor from the University of Chicago who listened to our arguments, then told us that we were all correct.
How could that be? I still remember what he said: “A good theory should work when viewed from multiple different viewpoints.”
The “two greenhouse theories” you invoke are not separate theories, but rather two different viewpoints for the same theory. (Yes, they are.) If you follow the implications of one viewpoint, you must accept the aspects of the other viewpoint.
Absolutely not! These are two seperate, opposing theorys. The only thing they have in common is the physical “phenommenon” they try to explain. If that commonality was enough to make theories indistinguishable from each other, or turn them just into different “perspectives”, then you would also name creationism and the theory of evolution to be the same theory.
Your logical fallacy is in thinking that the result would validate a theory. In reality building a theory starts with the result as the observed status quo. From there on you try to “back engineer” how it comes to the status quo. A typical sign of bad theory building is when it requires a lot of parameters which then are only good to describe a single instance of observation. The “energy budget” diagramm on top of this page is a perfect example for it.
They’re both what are called equivalent models. The basic problem is conflating the energy transported by photons with the energy transported by matter. The conflation fails to represent reality at TOA because the vacuum of space has essentially an infinite thermal resistence, while it has absolutely no resistence to the transfer of photons.
Leitwolf:
The “two theories” you present are indeed compatible. Take your statement of Theory B, with an “emission layer” high in the atmosphere outputting enough radiative power upward to space to balance (at least approximately) the incoming solar power.
The surface is hotter than the emission layer due to the negative lapse rate, so it is radiating more than the emission layer.
The emission layer cannot radiate upward without also radiating downward toward the surface.
The surface must also be (roughly) in balance, so its higher emissions (and other power outputs) are balanced by the downward solar and downward terrrestrial radiation.
It is important to realize the the negative lapse rate is caused by the fact that the atmosphere gains energy (“is heated”) primarily from below and loses energy (“cools”) primarily from above. Convection actually reduces the lapse rate — it is caused by this differential heating/cooling effect creating a lapse rate larger than adiabatic (called an “unstable” lapse rate), and the action of convection drives the lapse rate back toward adiabatic.
“4. There is a classical “experiment” to prove the GHE. Two bottles, one of which enriched with CO2 are heated with some source of light. The CO2 enriched bottle then is meant to heat up more strongly than the other one as CO2 would absorb more heat. As troublesome as this experiment is for a lot of reasons, let us assume it would work indeed.”
None of them work… simply because the light source is always incandescent or IR quartz rods – both of which emit short wave (hot) near IR. And they heat the bottles… which heat the gas inside via conduction.
What’s needed is a PURE electronic source of ONLY long wave (14-16 µm) IR. None exist. And such source would need NIST or WRR traceable calibration for emitting either 398 (up welling) or 333 (down welling) W/m² intensity… like the colorful e-balance charts™ proclaim.
Until such a real test can be accomplished in a certified lab environment …please stop assuming “it would work indeed”. Oh… and the bottles must be plastic not glass.
UV Meter,
A CO2 laser should work, as it emits in the right band (10.6 μm) of its own excitation.
With adjusting the supplied energy, it should be possible to get the exact beam energy…
( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/23/climate-change-temperature-hits-100-degrees-above-arctic-circle-just-like-100-years-ago/ ) … a photon is not ‘heat’ and thermodynamics doesn’t validly apply. The environment is really unchanged.
Peter Anderson,
A photon is a package of energy and if absorbed by some object it adds energy to that object which may result in heating or evaporation or… depending of in what form it gets, but that energy is not lost in space…
A photon is ‘cold’ energy without a (kinetic) temperature. A photon is a discrete propagation of electromagnetic energy. A photon exists within the bounds of the atmosphere, remains separate to the materials of the atmosphere and is NOT ‘energy’ within the atmosphere with any accordance to thermodynamics. What the ‘global warmist’ struggles with is that the terminology they’d use is designed to avoid noticing that the photon is not really governed by thermodynamic principle in movement or otherwise behavior generally. Effort to prop behind terms such as ‘long wave IR’ is akin to fakery.
Peter,
No matter how you define it, a photon IS energy everywhere it gets: in vacuum and atmosphere, until it is captured by some atom or molecule and then adds to the energy of that atom or molecule. That was and is measured and quantified, where the amount of energy per photon “package” depends of its wavelength.
The energy is the important part, just compare the energy of UV & white light to CO2 LWIR.
Not only is it much higher there is a lot more of it on the spectrum.
If you impart low energy to a molecule or atom at a higher state of energy the lower energy cannot increase the state of the object. If it replaces a higher energy photon the overall energy state of the object is reduced.
If you want proof read up on what Water in a solar still does, during the day it boils the water at night it freezes it, courtesy of your CO2 LWIR.
Dr. Spencer says that the cooling proves that CO2 warms the surface, because it should have cooled more.
A C Osborn,
A absolute black object emits and absorbs photons of all wavelengths, no matter its own average temperature. From many earth’s materials the emissivity (and thus absorbance) of IR in the range of CO2 back radiation is known (thanks to Willis Eschenbach):
From Geiger’s The Climate Near The Ground, first published sometime around the fifties when people still measured things instead of modeling them. He gives the following figures for IR emissivity at 9 to 12 microns:
Water, 0.96
Fresh snow, 0.99
Dry sand, 0.95
Wet sand, 0.96
Forest, deciduous, 0.95
Forest, conifer, 0.97
All these materials have no problem to absorb the back radiation caused by CO2 at any temperature of their own. If that results in warming or cooling is a complete different matter. That depends of how much energy they emit and how much they absorb. The first is a matter of temperature and the second of what they receive as SW during the day and LW at night. Without the latter, the cooling would be a lot faster and colder.
Please use your physics to explain the Solar still boiling water during the day and freezing it during night when the Ambient temperature is way above freezing.
Why are your CO2 photons making it colder than the surrounding surface and air?
AC:
It is common for surface temperatures to be below atmospheric temperatures at night, even in unengineered systems. This is because the surface is a much better radiator than the atmosphere. (It is possible to engineer systems to magnify this effect.)
On many nights in many places, this cools down the bottom meter or so of the atmosphere noticeably. This is why official temperature measuring stations are located at 1.5 to 2m off the ground.
It is common to see frost on the ground on nights when the temperature gets close to freezing but never reaches it. If you look carefully in these cases, you will see that the frost appears only in areas that can radiate directly upward to the night sky. Areas under trees and the like do not have frost.
Ed, now I know you know absolutely nothing about Solar Ovens as night time refrigerators.
We are not talking about a couple of degrees below ambient to get frost.
We are talking 20 degrees F (10 degrees C ) below ambient.
Read this and then explain how it has to be clear sky to get the LWIR to do it’s job.
http://www.provident-living-today.com/Alternative-Refrigeration.html
You can google this affect and see hundreds of experiments doing the same thing.
A C:
Seriously? I explain how “unengineered” natural systems can have this effect. Then I emphasize that “it is possible to engineer systems to magnify this effect.”
So you post a link to engineered systems that, in fact, magnify this effect and claim this demonstrates that I “know absolutely nothing” about these systems. Again, seriously?
The premise of your question indicates that YOU “know absolutely nothing” about the underlying science.
The reason you want a clear night sky and no obstacles is to MINIMIZE the downwelling LWIR that could come from clouds and solid objects. (You cannot eliminate it completely, but there can be a significant reduction if you know what you are doing.)
The following is a difficulty I have with the enhanced greenhouse effect. It is purely the underlying radiative process and not concerned with secondary effects of feedback etc.
The simple model is a square unit of surface with a clear sky above. Initially everything is in balance at the surface.
We then we add some CO2 to the atmosphere, and the enhanced greenhouse effect says the surface will warm. Let’s say the smallest incremental warming effect is just one more IR photon coming back to the surface from the atmosphere per second. The surface temperature reaches a balance when it radiates just one IR photon back upwards per second.
Let’s say the quantum of energy in each IR photon is ‘p’, and this comes from the atmosphere due to increased concentration of CO2. The atmosphere doesn’t have a sense of direction, and radiates upward and downward in equal measure (leaving aside sideways as that’s just redistribution). Because of this, for every ‘p’ radiated back to the surface, the atmosphere will radiate another ‘p’ upwards and off to space.
To warm the surface by ‘p’ per second, the enhanced greenhouse effect has to find enough energy to radiate at 2p per second.
Radiating at 2p means the atmosphere needs to find twice the energy that it gains from the surface. The enhanced greenhouse effect does not include some auxiliary power source to supply this. Where does the extra energy come from?
You can maintain a higher temperature produced by a given energy source, but you cannot increase temperature with a colder object. More importantly, cold air is NOT a cold pot lid or cold insulation. Cold air will not make a person warmer in the winter time — if you don’t believe me, then strip down to your undies and stand outside on the next freezing cold day.
A solid lid is NOT a gas. CO2 itself is a gaseous component of the COLD gas atmosphere. Furthermore, CO2 does NOT inhibit convection like a solid lid on a pot or like solid insulation in a house. The pot lid prevents convection from cooling the water, already heated by the stove’s heating element. The house insulation prevents convection from cooling the interior air already heated by the furnace. Your analogy, thus, likens cold solids to cold gases, and convective processes to radiation processes, as if these are the same processes, which they are not.
The “depths” of space in the vicinity of Earth on the sunny side are NOT cold, but rather pretty darn hot, as I understand it. So, on the sunny side of Earth, there seems to be a problem with attributing the temperature there to a warming effect. Rather, Earth’s atmosphere on the sunny side has a COOLING effect, which is NOT a “greenhouse effect”.
Now the dark side of Earth is the extreme opposite — “cold” is an understatement there, and so, yeah, Earth’s atmosphere on the dark side has a warming effect, BUT due to thermal inertia of the ENTIRE atmosphere/ocean system, which enables energy to be retained in just the right amount to keep the temperature at night warm enough for life, until the heating effect of the sun can start to kick in again at the night/day transition. Of course, this is not a simple on/off situation with light/dark, but rather a constant rotational situation, with progressive gradations of temperatures of partial lattitudinal surface areas cumulatively acting in partial ways collectively over time to maintain an overall temperature-friendly planet.
Cold already exists in air so high and thin that it cools only by radiation. Now you add something that increases radiative cooling more, and voila! — more cooling of that thin air. No “greenhouse effect” — just cold thin air in the gradient of hot to cold that is the temperature profile of the planet. I have it on good authority that the adiabatic equations show there is no modulation from radiation in this profile. Hence, no need for “greenhouse” gabbing.
Adding more insulation to the walls of a house simply adds more mass in contact with cold that already exists outside, which mass cools more nearly to that outside temperature (i.e., heated less by the escaping energy from the first layer of insulation) … by convection and radiation. And the greater mass of the added insulation is creating a greater barrier to convection through the pores of the other layer of insulation under it. This is NOT what a gaseous atmosphere does, and so the insulation analogy is once again problematic.
It doesn’t.
I would like to see the proof of how the effect of the amount of CO2 contributed by humans can be separated from the effect of the amount of CO2 contributed by other means.
The answer is probably so little that it is not even deserving of attention.
So it is said. I’m still not convinced.
“Can” … “either” … “or”.
I believe this is speculation.
The atmosphere is warmer than space. So by placing a cold atmosphere between the warm earth and the even colder space, you can warm the earth.
Basic physics.
Note to AC and others, in this instance “warm” does not mean that the atmosphere is creating energy. No matter how much you want to believe that I am making that claim.
The average surface temperature of the Ocean is about 17 C and average air surface temperature of land is about 10 C.
And global average surface air temperature is about 15 C.
It seems the ocean surface is warming the air, and land surface is cooling the air.
The average ocean surface temperature of tropical ocean is about 26 C.
And as is said, the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.
What is not said, is the Venus clouds are the heat engine of Venus.
Earth is cold. Presently in the Ice Age it’s colder than normal.
One could say the Moon is colder than Earth.
One say the Moon is a vacuum, and a vacuum has no temperature, and due
to lack of temperature, a vacuum doesn’t warm or cool. An air temperature of
15 C is cold. And human being which can stop itself cooling in 15 C air temperature, can be warm. But a 15 C water temperature could have a lot more cooling effect upon a human body. Both 15 C air or water can be lethal, but 15 C water can kill you quicker.
The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C, and because it’s so cold
we are in an Ice Age.
If instead the ocean was about 15 C, than it’s not anywhere close to being in an Ice Age.
The global climate would be called a Greenhouse {or Hothouse} climate. And Earth would still be cold, certainly have less being frozen. Less hot and less frozen- a more uniform temperature and of course less violent weather, people will still get too cold from the cold air and water.
And you will still get some snow and ice.
Or currently get frozen clouds in tropics, and I guess you still get frozen clouds in the tropics.
So got global heat engine and it has frozen clouds, and some are worried about our Icehouse Climate getting too warm.
And idiots tearing down statues of famous Dems and wanting to defund the local police. Yup.
Let me have a go.
Take, for example, a real blackbody with constant temperature over it’s emitting surface. It has a transparent atmosphere, almost completely. There is still enough heat transfer to the atmosphere and emission of LWIR to get convection of air currents. Let’s say the surface has warmed up to 300 K (27°C) when energy being lost equals energy coming in. Rising air will expand and cool. Falling packets of air will be compressed and warm. The simplified calculation of the resulting temperature gradient is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This is just under 10°C per km of height. So there should be an atmosphere 100°C cooler 10km up (If no condensation as the wet adiabtic rate is about 5.5).
Now if the atmosphere becomes completely opaque with an effective radiating surface 10 km up (ignoring that it gradually thins out), that will be 300 K and the movement of air will mean the surface is 400 K.
Now the actual temperature gradient is a little over 6 K/km (6.5 for ISA to 11 km) rather than 10, because of condensation of water and it’s not really pockets of air that rise and sink with no energy transferred between it and it’s surroundings. When it’s rapid rise and fall, the approximation is good enough (e.g. foehn wind).
This doesn’t mean that the arguments that there is no GHE are wrong. Something has to warm to get energy out equal energy in, just not the oceans.
[[First of all, the temperature of anything depends upon the rates of energy GAIN and energy LOSS. When those 2 are equal, temperature remains the same; if they are unequal, the temperature changes.]]
This is so embarrassing for a man of Spencer’s education to be stuck at the starting gates when it comes to understanding thermodynamics.
The temperature of an object depends on its internal kinetic energy. But solar radiation isn’t heat or kinetic energy, it’s just energy. Only when it hits the Earth’s surface do some wavelengths get absorbed and turn into heat. Others simply bounce off, which is why we can see in daylight what we can’t see at night.
Where does Earth surface heating come from? The Sun, and nothing else. The Sun is a Planck radiator with a temperature T of 5800K. After absorption of various wavelengths, the Earth’s surface attains a temperature of -50C to +50C. It then becomes a Planck radiator at that temperature, after which the radiation tries to head to space. The catch is that air absorbs a good portion of the heat via conduction then rises it toward space via convection. This means the whole air, not just the CO2 trace fraction. Since the air is always cooler than the surface, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is satisfied. In short, Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse it’s a giant chimney, and CO2 does zilcho except feed photosynthesis of plant life.
The so-called Greenhouse Theory is a scam pushed by the U.N. IPCC, which is run by leftist environmentalists and globalist Marxists with an axe to grind against the fossil fuel industry for underpinning and supporting their archenemy capitalism. As hardcore Marxists, they believe that the end justifies the means, hence hijacking science to make useful idiots for the cause is always on the table. They’re the ones mixing science and politics, not the fossil fuel industry, which just exists to satisfy consumer demand to fuel the comfortable wealthy convenient Western lifestyle they hate so much.
So after giving up on other emissions, they fastened on CO2 emissions, trying to paint them as evil as a killer argument to dismantle the fossil fuel industry without a fair trial and due process. What do they claim? That atmospheric CO2 “traps and piles heat”, warming the Earth’s climate, and since CO2 emissions never quit rising, we’ve got only X months/years before an irreversible tipping point leading to climate Armageddon.
Too bad, they’re pushing a deliberate fake physics hoax that CO2 can cause global heating via radiation, without wanting you to know that its absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, and ISN’T HEAT.
They also want to snow people like Spencer with talk about “energy”, claiming that CO2’s radiation of so many watts per square meter adds to the Sun’s and raises the surface temperature, i.e., that it’s only about gain and loss, usually ditching the Planck Radiation Law in favor of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, with its complicated-looking T^4 equations that awe and fool non-scientists, and are ridiculously misapplied because they try to use them with non-coalesced (liquid and solid) objects like er, air, showing imaginary glass panes in the sky with arrows pointing up and down like a circus attraction, all labeled with T^4 moose hockey The-S-B Law gives total radiant power in watts per square meter, meaning radiation from a 2-dimensional surface, not watts per cubic meter like would be necessary for a gas.
Sorry, but the S-B Law is irrelevant. It’s about the Planck Radiation Law instead, which demands that cold radiation can’t raise the temperature of a hotter object because the latter is already emitting that same cold radiation to cool, and extra cold radiation will bounce off or be chewed up and spit out. CO2’s -80C radiation can’t even melt an ice cube, which is way hotter at 0C. If you put a water ice cube and a dry ice cube in the same glass, the ice will melt (sublimate) the CO2, not vice versa.
So Zonk! -80C radiation can’t melt an ice cube! Greenhouse Theory disproved, QED. The CO2-driven AGW theory is dead and just hasn’t been buried yet. The IPCC fake physics hoax is doomed to the trash heap of history when/if we all get on the same team chanting the same chorus:
JUST SAY NOT TO THE IPCC AND -80C. ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CAN’T MELT A BUCKET OF WARM PEE.
We need to reverse their political campaign and demand that the IPCC be dismantled or purged, and that they give us our money back.
I did the Planck equation math here. Please feel free to forward the link everywhere. I’m sure the IPCC’s big bucks won’t be used to spread it:
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
– T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper ™
World’s Greatest Genius (WGG)
http://www.historyscoper.com
Oops! I melt, er, meant a bucket of frozen pee 🙂
TL: In my experience both as a university student and as a university instructor in technical subjects, I have noted that the weakest students would simply search for any equation that dealt with the topics at hand, and then try to use them without the least understanding of what the equations actually meant. Typically, these students dropped out of the field quickly and went on to something less demanding.
So it is with you. You see the equation for Wien’s Displacement Law, which allows you to calculate the peak wavelength/frequency of thermal radiation AS A FUNCTION OF the temperature of that blackbody, and draw nonsensical inferences from it, because you have no idea what the equation means.
It is true that a blackbody (ideal radiator) at -80C will have peak thermal radiative emissions at a 15-micron wavelength. However, this IN NO WAY MEANS that 15-micron radiation HAS A TEMPERATURE of -80C!
Only someone completely ignorant of the underlying meaning of that equation could make that assertion. Bodies of many temperatures (including your physical body) emit substantial radiation in the 15-micron range. And this 15-micron radiation contains no information about the temperature of the body that emitted it.
A 15C body (typical of the earth’s surface) will absorb 15um radiation that originated from a body at 35C (like your skin), at -18C (like the upper atmosphere), or even at -80C, identically.
“However, this IN NO WAY MEANS that 15-micron radiation HAS A TEMPERATURE of -80C!
Only someone completely ignorant of the underlying meaning of that equation could make that assertion. “
True and true.
The sun emits 15-micron radiation- a lot of it.
The principle of least action states that the universe will choose the path between two states that minimises the action. This principle is a generalisation of Fermat’s theorem which requires light to take the path between two locations that minimises the travel time.
The principle of least action can be extended to any system evolving between two states. It is the founding assumption behind Noether’ theorem that is required to explain why Einsteinian relativity does not break conservation of energy.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/the-principle-of-least-action-calls-into-question-atmosphere-warming-by-co2/
The principle of least action applies to atmospheric thermodynamics. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to exert vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. This is an enormous thermodynamic response to this tiny trace gas perturbation, that transgresses the principle of least action.
However, a response by the system rearranging its structure, changing for instance water vapour content or the emission height, or adjustment of convection or even radiative interactions, could lead the system toward a new equilibrium with much less expenditure of energy. And thus fulfil the laws of least action, Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems. Miskolczi’s hypothesis was of this nature – a rearrangement of the emission structure without temperature change.
On the other hand, response to the tiny adjustment of CO2 amount by heating up the whole atmosphere and ocean, is the exact opposite of what one would expect in fulfilment of the principle of least action. It’s the principle of most action, and most (empty) heat and noise.
CO2 backradiation warming – sorry, heating – works in La La Linearland.
Or in Back-Of-Envelope-Land.
But we dont live in La La Linearland.
We don’t live in Back-Of-Envelope-Land.
We live in a complex mostly chaotic world.
Where CO2 backradiation warming has as much chance as a slowflake in hell.
From Albert Einstein’s 1917 paper:
http://inspirehep.net/record/858448/files/eng.pdf
“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.”
To Roy: Argh! Just stop it!
Putting a lid on a pot of water also stops CONVECTION. The walls on a house work MAINLY by stopping wind and CONVECTION. It is the heat transport through a gas medium that is primarily responsible for heat transfer – not a passive radiative effect. If you are in a snow storm and build snow walls and are then able to warm up, it isn’t because the snow walls are reflecting energy back onto you – it’s because you have stopped most of the heat transfer that the wind causes.
Yes, in a laboratory you can actually measure the effect of heat increase due to more insulation, but in Nature it is mostly a MINOR effect. If you were to increase CO2 concentrations but a factor of x100, yes it would be important. a Factor of x2? No, it isn’t. (So instead of 400 molecules of CO2 per million, you have 800… It’s still too tiny a fraction to matter)
Convection plus water evaporation/condensation = almost all heat transfer occurring in atmosphere.
Regarding the conversations I’ve had at various times with Tim Gorman here on WUWT concerning the proper role of global mean temperature (GMT) in the science debates and in the public policy debates about climate change …..
Would Dr. Spencer care to comment on what he sees as the primary purpose and objective of the updated UAH temperature anomaly graphs which he publishes every month on his blog?
What value do these monthly UAH graphs have for those who are deep into the scientific debates and the public policy debates concerning the supposed human and environmental impacts of climate change?