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.
Wow, I hadn’t realized Zoe posted on WUWT under so many aliases.
For mine the fact that an extra inner layer keeps a persons body in winter warmer, even if the outer layer is colder as a result, is a false analogy to the “greenhouse” effect. Humans are not increasing actual insulating layers. Instead extra GHG at altitude will tend to cool the upper atmosphere as there is increased thermal radiation to outer space. This introduces a negative feedback as convection is driven by lapse rate, and the colder upper atmosphere will make the lapse rate more negative, thus increasing convection.
Convection does not reach to the upper atmosphere where CO2 has a cooling effect.
CO2 makes it more difficult for energy to get from the ground to these upper atmospheric layers.
…there is water even in the upper most atmosphere, it probably levitated…
The moon provides the perfect example of what Earth would be like without water over the surface and water in the atmosphere; average about 200K.
The presence of water provides powerful feedback mechanism that regulate the global temperature. Nothing to do with so-called “greenhouse effect”. The formation of ice in the atmosphere, appearing as clouds, regulate the incoming insolation. The oceans absorb and distribute the heat. Sea ice formation limits the loss of heat from the oceans by insulating the surface.
Water in its various states and distribution in the oceans and atmosphere regulate the global temperature within tight bounds. The largest factor in climate is the annual variation in insolation due to Earths orbital eccentricity.
Nobody I have asked has been able to answer this.
One molecule of CO2 is intuitively and probably incapable of affecting the global atmospheric temperature. Likewise 2, 4, 8, 16 …. molecules. As you consider more and more molecules, you reach a level where you can detect a change.
What is that level and how big is the change?
Unless you can answer that question you must remain in the realm of untested assertions and that realm has no part to play in the formulation of policy for amelioration or mitigation.
So, how many ppm is the threshold for detection of temperature change in the air?
Please show your work. Geoff S
Basically you are asking for the ECS of CO2. Once you know that, you can figure out how much any increase in CO2 will affect temperature. Of course, even with double precision floating point, most computers don’t go low enough to calculate what the change caused by a single molecule would be.
GS
–
You need to explain all the assumptions in your question first.
One presumes you mean the earth, it’s atmosphere today and it’s daily make up or mix of GHG.
Water vapour and clouds and their distribution at any time can alter your question a lot.
–
CO2 is a marvellous minor GHG that plays a role in earth temperatures but the dominant player is H2O.
–
The reduction to absurdity idea just helps show that the doubling of CO2 induced ECS is only valid for a couple of doublings up or down from where we are, a sweet spot..
–
The answer lies in the amount of CO2 needed to produce a recognisable temperature effect in the atmosphere. Some commentators confuse the total amount of warming due to GHG as all being due to CO2. If there was no CO2 in the air at our distance from the sun there would still be some unfrozen ocean at the equator, some water vapour in the air causing a GHG effect and A definite rise in surface temperature due to this.
–
I would argue as CO2 is 400 ppm to water 25,000 ppm, if their relative GHG effects were the same then CO2 would only have 1.6% of the total GHG effect. For 33C this would only be about 0.5 C of the total warming for 400 ppm.
–
But there are other factors. Some CO2 more or less has to be present in a world composed of minerals like ours and at this distance from the sun.
CO2 is also fully gaseous in form at the temperature range we find ourselves in at this distance from the sun, whereas water is mainly non gaseous.
Finally water vapour in the form of clouds dampens it’s GHG effect by reflection of solar energy so it is not analogous to CO2 molecule per molecule.
–
This leads to the conclusion that without feedbacks a doubling of CO2 on its own in the current range would cause (per JC The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change.)
Ie 280 ppm will cause a 1C temp rise .
1 ppm change in this range will lead to approximately an 0.004C change in temp.
–
Does this help?
–So, how many ppm is the threshold for detection of temperature change in the air?
Please show your work. Geoff S–
If pick some number like 100 pmm.
There more millions nearer the surface. Or if talking about 50 meter of air,
the air from ground up to 50 meter high has more molecules of CO2 compared to 950 meter to 1000 meter {7000 to 7050 meters above the surface].
I think surface global air average is due to ocean surface water temperature.
Global average surface ocean is 17 C and air above it is 17 C. It doesn’t seem the CO2 can warm the ocean surface or ocean surface air temperature, but water vapor could {or obviously is} warming surface air temperature.
I think it’s possible that first 50 meter of air over land, could have CO2 warming the surface air temperature. And possible the top 500 meters of air surface air is warmed by CO2.
But first 50 meter of surface air could warmed things like trees, or type of terrain could have warming effect.
But anyhow, the way I look at it that CO2 warms at a low level, means I need less CO2 to start having warming effect, and people who imagine CO2 warms at 9000 meter, will need more CO2 to have any significant amount warming. I have more confidence CO2 at surface is having warming effect, than any warming or cooling effect of CO2 at 9000 meters.
Also average global surface air temperature is about 10 C. And think it would much cooler without the ocean surface temperature dominating the global air temperature. And specifically the tropical ocean {which is heat engine of the World] has average temperature of 26 C. All ocean Plus tropical ocean temperature has large effect upon land average surface air temperature.
If 400 pmm of CO2 warms land surface air by as much as 1 C, that pretty big effect, but of globally- land only 30% of surface area, and it seems CO2 has smaller effect upon tropical land surface temperature [tropical ocean is strong effect upon tropical land temperature.
If exclude tropical land from Global land, then as guess global average surface air temperature closer to 0 C rather than 10 C.
I should note that if CO2 has warming effect near surface {within 500 meter of surface] any factor causing warming {or cooling} at the surface say the high temperature of sand. Is heating the entire column of air.
Or if you were to chill the ground surface, say cover 1 square km with 6″ of snow, this will change not just the in first 1000 meter elevation of air but also air at 9000 meter elevation. Atmosphere has lapse rate, though also applies if cooling or warming air at 9000 meter.
Or if you cool ocean surface temperature from average of 17 C to 2 C such change to 70% of global surface, would have huge effect upon global surface air temperature temperature. But if were to keep ocean surface {top 1 cm of water] at 2 C for a year of time, it’s not really related to Earth’s climate. Huge global weather effect, but doesn’t effect things in terms of being in a global icehouse climate {in our Ice Age}. Or when stop keeping the top surface ocean water cooled, within a year things get back to normal. But but could keep very top surface of ocean cooled, and still have ocean being warmed by the sun. Having an ocean surface at average of 2 C. will lower how much energy in emitted to space. Or Earth could absorb more energy during the year kept surface at 2 C, and emit less. So really keeping ocean surface at 2 C, can or will cause global warming. Or world freeze for 1 year, but it’s during a time of “global warming”.
Or what determines global climate or what causes us to be in an Ice Age for millions of years, is the temperature of the entire ocean.
And the average temperature of Earth’s entire ocean is currently about 3.5 C. And during our Ice Age it has stayed within the range of 1 to 5 C.
And for those that truly believe Earth’s small geothermal heat flux is a reason to reject geothermal:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
How is this not obvious?
What seems to be obvious to you, never is.
Someone please explain to a layman….
If the energy input is constant and gases expand (molecules are further apart – pressure remains constant – ”trapping” of heat cannot increase) with heat according to the ideal gas law, what possible difference would ANY amount of extra co2 or h2o or any other gas make to the temperature equilibrium?
The mechanism by which CO2 warms the atmosphere has nothing to do with the ideal gas law.
Why?
Why? From a 1938 paper on the artificial production of atm. CO2, similar to top post discussion:
“if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
NB: “In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”
”Appears”
Well that doesn’t tell me anything
Trick …radiation does not have a temperature, that energy of photons is not the T in pv=nrT …the real problem for the ‘warmist’ is their improper exchange of ‘heat’ and ‘IR’ has led them astray and into invalidity. Little has actually changed by increases in atmospheric CO2 ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/23/climate-change-temperature-hits-100-degrees-above-arctic-circle-just-like-100-years-ago/ )
Peter, in modern times that author would instead write terrestrial LW and solar SW IR.
Trick, they can write ‘marshmallow’ for the lack of actual ‘heat’ involved is what the radio-like terminology was designed to avoid noticing.
Because trapping photons has nothing to do with pressure.
MarkW, your wording is imprecise, closing the atm. radiation window in certain bands does have something to do with pressure. More pressure, more IR opacity, less pressure, less atm. IR opacity.
This nonsense has been going on for decades — distract the thinkers from the truth.
The stupid assumption is that the lower atmospheric temperature is all that matters, and for dumb reasons CO2 levels are said to control the atmospheric temperature.
The assumption is now nearly universal! [sarc-off]
And yet when it comes to weather, meteorologists don’t just look at temperatures, no they look at other parameters — humidity, wind strength and direction, and atmospheric pressures.
There is not any globally averaged humidity figures — are there?
There is not any globally averaged atmospheric pressure figures — are there?
There is not any globally averaged wind strength and direction figures — are there?
How have they changed over the last 100 years, or even the climatically short period of 30 years?
But then climate ain’t weather, it’s just the average of the weather over some artificial (man made) time period.
Meteorologists also look at upper air parameters for they know that upper tropospheric/ lower stratospheric parameters can affect the lower troposphere.
There is not any globally averaged upper tropospheric/ lower stratospheric atmospheric pressure, humidity or jet-stream activity long term figures — are there?
And further up in the atmosphere meteorologists know that Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) in the winter months, or the arrival of Noctilucent clouds (NC) during the summer. Are either of these phenomenas on a long term increase or decrease?
How have any of these changed over the last 100 years, or even the climatically short period of 30 years?
Then we have the shrinking of the upper atmosphere — the thermosphere was seen to shrink by at least 15% about 8 years ago, has it rebounded back, could it have had an impact on the troposphere’s parameters?
No the climate scientist say is all that matters is measuring CO2 levels and globally averaged temperature! What a crock!
Still it gives you all something to argue over, instead of fully engaging to witnessing moves the UN elitist tricksters and their banksters friends are doing to Western democracy and open markets.
Humans can not control the climate, and atmospheric CO2 level is NOT means of climate control.
The climate has always varied historically, and, if the good Lord permits, we all will be alive to see it varying for a long time hence.
Remember too many of you have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and right to petition — many millions do not have such rights. Your written constitution is a powerful exemplar for what is possible when designing a more fair society.
Live long and prosper.
The sun warms the oceans, the oceans warm the atmosphere. The heat capacity of the ocean is 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. Roy Spencer is defending the indefensible in that the radiation only model of the atmosphere in the image has nothing to do with the reality of a convecting atmosphere. What happens in the atmosphere is immaterial.
Your model is overly simplified, that’s why it leads you to erroneous conclusions.
Yes, the sun does warm the oceans.
Yes, the oceans do warm the oceans.
However how quickly that warmth escapes to space is affected by the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. The more such gases, the slower the heat escapes, and the warmer the atmosphere gets.
It is interesting that you will not defend the radiation only model. I am not making any claims regarding CO2 heating the earths surface, but am making a point that the model used in the diagram is flawed since it does not accurately describe how heat moves through the planet over any time period.
To make my point more clear, imagine taking a cubic meter of sea water from the tropics and moving it to the arctic. How is CO2 from the atmosphere going tto prevent that seawater from rapidly becoming a block of ice?
I patiently await your answer.
I would suggest that you actually try to understand the arguments that others make.
That might prevent you from asking really stupid questions.
How would an arctic that is one or two degrees warmer prevent water from freezing?
Right, you won’t answer the question and then straight to a patronizing response.
99.9% of the heat flows through the ocean, but we need to spend billions of dollars on super computers that ineffectively model the atmosphere because that 0.01% of heat capacity in the atmosphere is going to bake us all in 100 years.
Even Dr. Spencer would admit they don’t know what climate sensitivity positive or negative, but those paid to make up scary stories would have you believe it’s positive, because that’s what they are paid for.
I hope you have a good time chasing your tail. I won’t be a part of it.
Speaking of evading the question and patronizing responses, I take my hat off to you Eric.
You even managed to insert the standard, I’m too good to waste my time here cover as you head for the door.
There is not any globally averaged humidity figures — are there?
There is not any globally averaged atmospheric pressure figures — are there?
There is not any globally averaged wind strength and direction figures — are there?
yes,
yes,
yes,
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.20thC_ReanV3.html
Cheers Mosher,
Nice to see we have interpolated data and some more modeling. Well it’s a sort of start I suppose.
So not quite yes, yes, yes, more like nearly, nearly, nearly!
And before you start yes I do want perfect records because ultimately we are talking about how and who runs the world of humans — the UN elitists, or ourselves in each country.
ta
The sun warms the oceans, the oceans warm the atmosphere. The heat capacity of the ocean is 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. Roy Spencer is defending the indefensible in that the radiation only model of the atmosphere in the image has nothing to do with the reality of a convecting atmosphere. What happens in the atmosphere is immaterial.
See my response to your previous erroneous claim.
“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.”
We´re talking about surface emission. According to Planck emission depends on the internal state ONLY! Absorption is relative to the internal state, emission is only indirectly related to absorption via the internal state. According to Planck. So, no, you´re wrong.
“An Update on Earth’s Energy Balance in light of the latest global observations”.
Graeme Stephens et al, 2012, Nature Geoscience, 5(10): 691-696.
Abstract- “Climate Change is governed by changes to the global energy balance.At the top of the atmosphere this balance is monitored by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from earth.By contrast observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas.As a result the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefor uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up to date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the long wave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be specifically larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm-2, than earlier model based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation- that is in form of latent heat flux-and thereby offsets much of the increase in long wave flux to the surface.”
Has this been accepted or challenged?
I had understood from a previous summary paper by Graeme Stephens and co-authors that the fate of the incoming average 340 watts/m2(100%) of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere is as follows:
75 watts/m2- (22%)- absorbed in the atmosphere .
165 watts/ m2- ( 49%)- absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
100 watts/ m2-(29%)- reflected back to space by atmosphere &surface.
Thus, I had thought that the Sun heats the Earth but what cools the Earth is the energy directed back to space by direct reflection (29%) and by radiation (49% + 22% = 71%).
In other words and counter intuitively greenhouse gases help to both cool( by the radiation that they emit to space from the high atmosphere) and warm( by the radiation that they emit down towards the lower atmosphere and surface)the Earth.
I assume I am in agreement with Dr. Spencer.
The planet radiates the heat it receives back to space.
If it gets closer to the sun and hotter it radiates more back.
As it cools at night it radiates less as it’s temperature drops.
It is not a battery and it does not store heat in the oceans selectively
of its own accord.
It follows the rules of physics.
–
Where we run into problems is in how the energy moves and transfers between the 3 different layers of the earth, atmosphere, ocean and earth; gas, liquid and solid.
Each substance is penetrated to a certain degree and vary in the degree they heat up to and how they distribute the heat they receive brpefore sending it back to space, which it must do.
–
We have a TOA radiating temperature that is mutable only in that the atmosphere has GHG that temporarily absorb a tiny fraction of the energy when receiving sunlight in the daytime.
A very small amount and only as the sun rises overhead.
–
This gives the atmosphere the temperature as the GHG transfer some of that energy to the O2 and NO2.
– This process is incredibly quick and once established (Peaked) cannot keep taking energy energy out and storing it somewhere. In fact after maximum insulation and temp rise for the next 18 hours it is radiating that heat back to space commensurate to how high it went up in the first place.
–
With more CO2 in the air, and everything else being equal (practically it never is), the air temperature curve moves ever so slightly over to the new level of GHG.
A doubling of CO2 produces a 1C temperature rise overall.
The nights become a little warmer, the days a little warmer, but the amount of sunlight coming in and out overall does not change.
–
This may sound like heresy but either you follow the physics or you do not.
Either energy in equals energy out and this applies everywhere; to snowball earth, the moon , the planets, etc or it doesn’t.
Over any 24 hour period there cannot be any real TOA discrepancy at all.
–
The oceans did not invent lithium batteries to store it in.
There are no batteries.
The ocean is not a battery.
The atmosphere is not a battery.
TOA imbalance demands a battery, science denies a battery.
–
This misunderstanding needs to be corrected one person at a time.
“With increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the earth system at the top of the atmosphere (TOA): the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming (Solomon et al. 2007; Trenberth et al. 2009). “
–
“model-based estimates of TOA energy imbalance [from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4)]“
Why do we have to use a model when we can easily measure it with satellites one may well ask rhetorically?
If, I repeat if, we can easily measure it with satellites we would not need to use models. Roy could just give us the monthly and yearly figures.
We use models because the satellite constraints mean the figures are extremely unreliable, large SD, hence we can use models and plug in just the right parameters to give an imbalance matching our imbalance theories.
“TOA measurements of radiation from space can track changes over time but lack absolute accuracy.“
–
But the models used are based on OHC.
and
“Most ocean-only OHC analyses extend to only 700-m depth, have large discrepancies among the rates of change of OHC, and do not resolve interannual variability adequately to capture ENSO and volcanic eruption effects,”
–
So there we have it, an unphysical idea that the earth can do something no other celestial body can do, store energy every day in a battery and warm up the whole world.
Even though it has been warmed and radiated that warmth every day for 4 billion years according to the rules of physics.
Adding extra GHG causes a constant storage of energy from the sun, which when humans add it Grows an arm and a leg and works as a thousand year battery.
No matter that the rest of the universe demands that energy back, earth resists.
–
The earth’s atmosphere gets hotter with GHG not because of storage batteries but simple physics. It absorbs (delays in transit) an extra small minute amount of energy for 6 hours a day as the sun heats it up. Then it radiates more than it receives back to space for 18 hours while the sun heats up the rest.
The ocean absorbs a little bit more as the air is a little bit warmer, not much and then radiates it back as well.
The planet sums it all up and sends it all back out equal to that in.
Apart from that little insulated house.
Interesting thread. I have never liked the cartoon in Roy’s post. It’s just to simple. The troposphere is very different from the upper layers of the atmosphere. It’s a complicated mess to model. Solving for the surface temperature change from a doubling of CO2 using radiative forces only makes little sense to me. Convective forces likely undo any radiative temperature effects instantaneously. I just don’t understand the focus on radiative forces only when talking about the effect of CO2.
Also, I think Zoe is right about geothermal heat. To not include it as a source of surface temperature just seems wrong to me. Just think how Roy’s cartoon would change if geothermal produced a surface temperature of 32F.
Thank you,
but my actual argument is a little different:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
Geothermal is 65mW, TSI is either 1361W or 600 something watts, depending on how you measure it.
What’s wrong with ignoring something that’s 200,000 times smaller than the main driver?
Mark,
I help people like you realize your error:
I just hope your claimed IQ of 140 was not just another lie.
MarkW June 23, 2020 at 5:11 pm
Apparently you do not understand the difference between flux and temperature.
Except for the upper 10-20 m of Continental crust and the upper 200m or so of our oceans the TEMPERATURE of the remaining 99+ % of our Earth is from geothermal origin.
Solar just slightly increases the TEMPERATURE of the mentioned surface layers.
I have a few questions for Dr Spencer, or for that matter for anyone who wants to chip in.
What about Venus, that does not have a solar heated surface? If I recall correctly the Russian landers found that there was less than 7 w/m^2 of solar irradiance reaching the surface?
What about Mars that has, on a numerical molecular basis, more molecules of GHGs in its atmosphere than Earth has in Earth’s atmosphere, and yet within 2 vertical metres, the temperature can go from circa 20degC plus at the surface, to freezing at 2m above the surface? There are plenty of photons emitted from the Martian surface at 20degC, and plenty of GHG molecules to interecept these and re-radiate them, but they appear unable to maintain any heat even over a distance of less than 2 metres.
Why can’t you cook a steak say 30cm below a BBQ, when you can cook it to a burnt crisp 30cm above a BBQ? There are plenty of photons radiating downwards from the hot coals/charcoal (in fact jest as many that radiate upwards), but they will not raise the temperature of the steak sufficient to cook the steak.
Why, given that the Earth is never in radiative balance, what stops the runaway GHE? Don’t forget that we have seen conditions where the temperature of the planet was say 30degC so emitting plenty of photons from the surface, the atmosphere was 7,000 ppm of CO2 and the oceans also having a surface temperature of 30degC so plenty of GHGs, both CO2 and water vapour. So under these conditions why aren’t the oceans getting hotter and hotter, thus releasing more and more CO2, and more and more water vapour, leading to more and more GHGs thereby increasing the temperature of the surface and the oceans, leading to yet more CO2 and water vapour etc. and thus ever more heating. What ends that cycle?
Given that until the industrial revolution, CO2 had remained constant for millions of years, what explains the temperature profile of the Holocene? It certainly is not planetary orbital cycles because they do not operate on such a short time scale.
If GHGs do something of real significance (and I am not suggesting that they do nothing at all), why is there no correlation between changes in CO2 leading temperature on any timescale? The ice cores strongly suggest that CO2 is a response to temperature change, not a driver of that change, and that is a fundamental problem to the claim that GHGs are a major player in the ‘heating’ of this planet.
What about Venus? 90bar of surface pressure drives a totally IR opaque surface atm.
What about Mars? 0.01bar of surface pressure drives almost totally IR transparent atm.
What ends the cycle? In large part due to the T^4 factor.
Ice cores? No SUVs around adding CO2 prior to the proxy surface T changes.
No correlation CO2ppm? Multiannual ENSO and sea ice changes are factors global T also.
What about Jupiter and Uranus?
Temperatures all controlled by their Atmospheric Pressure/weight while recieving substantially less solar radiation than Venus, Earth & Mars.
Venus is internally powered:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
Because Venus is internally hot, it can support a lot of atmospheric pressure.
Zoe
Venus is internally powered
So if Venus was teleported out into intergalactic space with no star or anything else for light years in all directions – its temperature would not change?
It would change very little.
The sun only adds ~17 W/m^2 to Venus’ ~16800 W/m^2 surface.
Richard Verney,
You can cook or even bake to crisp a steak below an electrical grill in any oven, or even below a BBQ, if the glowing charcoal is on a grate and the IR waves can reach the steak…
That in history most of the time CO2 followed temperature is not a proof that the opposite never happened (it may have happened to escape the “snowball earth” period), neither that it has no effect at all. It is the first time in many millions of years that a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase, thus let us wait and see what the real effect of that extra CO2 is. Theoretically not more than about 1 K for a CO2 doubling. That is all and no reason for panic…
Thanks your response.
With regard to your first paragraph, I specifically mentioned 30cm, not because 30cm is a magic number, but because over any significant distance, convection dominates radiative transfer of energy.
So you can toast bread, or fry bacon under an electric grill but this is only because the distance involved is very small, probably around 6cm (I measured my oven – it is 6cm). In a standard oven (which has a hearing grill at the top), the manufacturer shows where you should place the grill pan, and it is at the top of the oven. This is for a reason. If you put the grill pan at the bottom of the oven, which is about 30cm below the element, with the oven door open you can neither cook toast nor fry bacon. It is not because photons emitted by the grill cannot travel more than 10cm, but rather convection simply overwhelms the process.
The point is that below the tropopause conduction and convection are the dominant mechanism of energy transfer, and they over power the effect of radiative transfer. Above the tropopause, radiative transfer of energy is the dominant process. We, of course, live below the tropopause, where convection and conduction rule supreme. The flat plate energy budget used in this article, doees not take account of the dominant processes which go on below the tropopause, the differences between day & night, lattitudes etc. In fact we would have no weather, if that flat plate energy budget truly represented what is going on below the tropopause.
If you look at a vertical section of our atmosphere, you will see that CO2 does little if anything below the tropopause, but is dominant above the tropopause. Have a look at the below image, where the tropopause is marked by the dotted line at around 15km, and the wavelengths of CO2.
Incidentally like you, I have no confidence in the ‘data’ sets that in my opinion are not fit for scientific purposes, and this is why we find it so difficult to understand what is going on. Like you, I consider that the modern CO2 data set, is one of the better data sets.
Thank you for your reponse.
With regard to your first paragraph, I specifically mentioned 30cm, not because 30cm is a magic number, but because over any significant distance, convection dominates radiative transfer of energy.
So you can toast bread, or fry bacon under an electric grill but this is only because the distance involved is very small, probably around 6cm (I measured my oven – it is 6cm). In a standard oven (which has a hearing grill at the top), the manufacturer shows where you should place the grill pan, and it is at the top of the oven. This is for a reason. If you put the grill pan at the bottom of the oven, which is about 30cm below the element, with the oven door open you can neither cook toast nor fry bacon. It is not because photons emitted by the grill cannot travel more than 10cm, but rather convection simply overwhelms the process.
The point is that below the tropopause conduction and convection are the dominant mechanism of energy transfer, and they over power the effect of radiative transfer. Above the tropopause, radiative transfer of energy is the dominant process. We, of course, live below the tropopause, where convection and conduction rule supreme. The flat plate energy budget used in this article, doees not take account of the dominant processes which go on below the tropopause, the differences between day & night, lattitudes etc. In fact we would have no weather, if that flat plate energy budget truly represented what is going on below the tropopause.
If you look at a vertical section of our atmosphere, you will see that CO2 does little if anything below the tropopause, but is dominant above the tropopause. Have a look at the below image, where the tropopause is marked by the dotted line at around 15km, and the wavelengths of CO2.
Incidentally like you, I have no confidence in the ‘data’ sets that in my opinion are not fit for scientific purposes, and this is why we find it so difficult to understand what is going on. Like you, I consider that the modern CO2 data set, is one of the better data sets.
”you will see that CO2 does little if anything below the tropopause”
If you look, CO2 bands affect a lot of color warmer direction below the dotted line. BTW, that chart has been changed in unknown ways from the original. For example, the confusing 400 K/(day cm^-1) blue square at top does not appear in the original.
The CO2 band below the dotted line is casting an earthshine shadow on the areas above the line for the cooler direction colors.
You are misreading the plot.
As you are aware, CO2 has three absorption bands, two of which overlap with water vapour, and are fully saturated by water vapour. The one absorption band, not fully saturated by water vapour lies at 667cm^-1. This is on the left hand side of the plot, and you can see how water vapour further to the left particularly between 150 to 550cm^-1 lights up in purple and pink, and again at around 750 cm^-1.
However just where there is the window in the absorption spectrum of water vapour, and just where CO2 comes into its own at the 667 cm^-1 band, the plot does not light up and shows a very modest response of something between .1 to .5, below the tropopause. Now compare that 667 cm^-1 band above the tropopause, where it lights up showing a response of 10 to 100.
It is clear that CO2 is doing very little in the critical 667cm^-1 band below the tropopause, but is the dominat player above the tropopause where it carries energy to TOA to be radiated away into space.
richard, you’ve changed “CO2 does little if anything below the tropopause” into a “very modest response of something between .1 to .5” K/day warming rate then back to “CO2 is doing very little”.
You imply that CO2 cooling rates that “lights up showing a response of 10 to 100” in a relatively tenuous gas region overcomes the role of CO2 on its warming rates of a relatively dense gas region shown below the dotted line. To eliminate any misinterpretation, here is what the authors wrote in 1995:
“The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d^-1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”
The authors interpret the figure you link (with the bogus later added 400 blue square):
“A critical perspective for interpreting the effects of carbon dioxide in the troposphere for atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor is the recognition that the effect of carbon dioxide is to moderate the strong cooling of water vapor.”
The authors go on to point out for no overlapping of CO2 and wv e.g.: “the subarctic winter atmosphere the results are quite different. For these situations, the introduction of carbon dioxide increases the cooling rate in the troposphere.”
It is well known added CO2 ppm in the midlatitude tropics warms the lower atm. and cools the upper atm. which this 1995 paper was intended to confirm early in the use of the LBLRTM.
MarkW
I still don’t understand. How exactly did 50 ppms CO2 extra in the atmosphere heat all the oceans of the earth by exactly the same amount as what the atmosphere got heated up? And then again, when I measured the minimum temperatures here, around myself, I could not find any heating caused by the extra CO2 in the air. How is that possible?
Click on my name to read my report.
Anyone?
Answered the first time you asked.
Richard (Verney) says
The ice cores strongly suggest that CO2 is a response to temperature change, not a driver of that change, and that is a fundamental problem to the claim that GHGs are a major player in the ‘heating’ of this planet.
Richard, this is so true. That was exactly the point that turned me into skeptic of man made warming (by CO2). Click on my name to read my report on that. As stated above, I also checked, in various ways, to see if more water vapor / CO2 actually does cause warming. My finding is that in the night it gives some warming but in the day time it causes cooling. It seems the total of the cooling effect is always slightly higher than the warming effect.
@ferdinand meeus
We had a discussion on another blog. What puzzles me about people like you is that you actually believe all the so-called measurements and reports supporting the notion that CO2 causes warming but when I ask you to produce me something you measured yourself I find you have nothing…..
@Roy
I must say that I actually also doubt the results of Christie / Spencer as I (still) measure it is getting cooler, globally. The correlation of the sats with the terrestrial stations is uncanny, meaning [I think] that whenever there are doubts about the sats they probably re-calibrate on BEST/ Hadcrut….
(I suspect that the Pt probes are degenerating strongly due to the lower magnetic fields on the sun which causes more of the most energetic particles being able to escape from the sun).
Henry, you say “It seems the total of the cooling effect is always slightly higher than the warming effect. ”
I would change that to “It seems the total of the cooling effect is always MUCH higher than the warming effect. ”
The proof is simple anywhere away from the tropics, for me in the UK a day of sunshine without clouds is at least 5 degrees F and usually 10 degrees F warmer than a day that is clouded over.
It is on every weather forecast. Beside which CO2 affects pale to insignificance.
However there are 2 other affects, 1. it is usually also windier when it is overcast 2. the Cloud or lack of it has Set the amount of energy to be lost during the night.
The main reason that daytime clouds have much more affect than the same amount of nighttime clouds is that the day time clouds are blocking/reflecting far more Energetic Radiation than the nighttime clouds are blocking, which is only LWIR.
True!
Henry,
I do accept lots of measurements done by others, as long as these are done in good faith. That includes CO2 measurements in lots of stations and in Antarctic ice cores and until now I don’t see any reason to doubt the actual radiation measurements (SW and LW up and down) done in many surface stations and by satellites (TOA).
I do doubt the surface based temperature trends (with HadCRU the least “corrected”) and have a little more faith in satellite measurements, as these are less contaminated by local circumstances than surface stations, but also have their own problems. As far as I know, the satellites are calibrated to balloon measurements, not to ground stations, but Dr. Spencer can answer that question more to the point.
So I haven’t done any climate measurements myself, except that my weather station data could be analyzed for the past 10 years (temperature, humidity, wind speed, UV, rain data), but that is not interesting at all, as local weather and climate don’t tell you much about global weather and climate over the long range. You need the data of many stations in lots of places to know global weather and trends… That means that you need trusted data and that is where there is the problem…
Ferdinand
First thing in science: trust no one but yourself….
Tell me exactly where you live and I will check minimum T in your area.
As far as I remember there were problems with fruit because of low T min early in the year. Obviously. We also have the natural droughts coming up on the higher lats….
Due to???
which I predicted..
Henry,
As long as I remember there were always colder days at the wrong moment in spring when the fruit trees are blossoming. All they can do is heating up with a lot of fires (to stir up the cold bottom air) or sprinklers which freeze around the flowers, but temperature doesn’t go below freezing…
On the other side, 50 years ago there were several such cold days until the “IJsheiligen” the Saint’s days around 10-14 May. After 15 May you could safely plant tomatoes and other stuff that couldn’t withstand one degree below zero. In the past decades I haven’t heard of any freezing nights in begin May. So my impression is that the minimum temperature trend did increase over time in our country.
Here anyway are the coordinates for St. Truiden, the hearth of the fruit area in Flanders:
Breedtegraad (latitude): 50.8157248
Lengtegraad (longitude): 5.1862508
I live 20 km north of Antwerp, near the border with The Netherlands.
For the drought I do agree with you.
I have searched for the solar cycle level at the driest years in the past:
1833/4
1901
1976
2018
All are at solar minima, which acts on the jet stream position (more equator ward) and gives the Mediterranean countries more rain, while here more drought. Opposite when the sun is active and we receive lots of rain…
The only exception was 1893 which was a dry year at a solar maximum, but a quite low maximum, comparable with the most recent one.
Sir, a photon in the atmosphere cannot affect the planet’s surface release of further photons, the non-water GHGs cannot then slow the surface’s continued cooling by release of energy as photons.
These photons are not ‘heat’ and are not ‘heat’ in the atmosphere, they represent energy that was ‘surface heat’ released by cooling. The amount of CO2, or other non-water ghg’s, cannot then slow further cooling by the surface releasing further energy as photons.
There seems a fundamental problem with the effort to apply thermodynamics to a process forming of a cascade of photons within the atmosphere. These photons, and their energy, are separate to the material of the atmosphere even whilst within its bounds.
With a passing regard to that image you use, it clearly shows how that misinterpretation …the confusion of photons and ‘heat’, has mislead even whilst being (too) often seen on (especially government) ‘climate pages’.
The surface has cooled in releasing these photons, the non-water GHGs simply suspend them into a cascade and it is the gathering intensity of that cascade that satellites see with associated attempts of inference of a temperature made. Indeed, more non-water ghgs lead to a ‘brighter’ cascade.
After the first interaction with a non-water ghg molecule any information of the surface’s temperature state is, however, removed. As these photons continue to linger their properties are further altered within their cascade.
The uncertainty the UN supplies with its numerous models and ‘sensitivities’ is indicative of the cascade’s ‘randomizing’ side-effect on its captured photons. It would seem that thermodynamics is not well equipped as a study tool for the situation ‘climate science’ attempts to notice.
Increase of non-water ghgs creates a brighter cascade, not either a ->consistently<- warmer surface or atmosphere. It is the lack of consistency that is why, after decades, the attempted application of thermodynamics still has seen historical data institutionally altered and a paucity of agreeable environmental observations as is so often the topic of articles on this site.
Hope your day has gone well. I enjoy this sites articles but have not previously commented.
I’m trying to understand where you came by the misconception that anyone is arguing that a photon in the atmosphere affects the surface’s ability to emit a photon.
Nobody has made such a claim.
The claim is that the photon in the atmosphere impacts the ground and is absorbed by the ground, making the ground warmer.
If you care to argue the actual claim, good.
If you keep on making up arguments and assigning them to others, then your bad faith makes it impossible to engage with you.
Hello MarkW,
The photon you mention has left the ground previously, making it cooler, and that seems overlooked.
Only a small proportion of those photons released ever return, the ‘re-warming’ cannot overcome the previous cooling.
The photons in the atmosphere do not behave with regard to principles of thermodynamics, they are in a cascade.
You seem to overlook the points I would make to insert your own, MarkW, to suppose such are ‘the argument’.
Thermodynamics is the ‘wrong’ science it would seem. Discussions as I see here seem to be in a ‘time warp’ as such are unchanged in the 30 years I’ve participated, same arguments devoid of attention to the Environment’s behaviours and disregarding of such outcomes even.
Thermodynamics seems the ‘wrong’ science. That as the non-water GHGs form a cascade of Photons within the Atmosphere increasing the ‘linger time’ without consistent affect on temperature in the real-world.
With the difficulty this website’s host presents in making discussion (so many notifications), however excellent the ceded presentation ability is (I enjoy reading the articles), why would anyone want to join in a discussion that is 30 years past being relevant?
There is no observable ‘greenhouse’ effect in the real world and the theory must give way, the ‘greenhouse’ hypothesis produces a cascade of photons.
Have a better day MarkW, but with my inbox (and phone) flooded with notification I do not think this more than becoming a waste of my time for a limited audience. Most arrive here for the articles, as I do.
…seems little has changed… ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/23/climate-change-temperature-hits-100-degrees-above-arctic-circle-just-like-100-years-ago/ )
The ‘science’ of ‘climate change’ seems confusing of a ‘vibrational’ shape change with a kinetic motion. The incident photon’s cold energy interacts with the internal bonding of the (CO2, as example) molecule. The atomic centres (+) are moved as the internal bonds flex, the ‘higher energy’ state made by closer proximity of (+) within the molecule (for example).
This is not a kinetic movement of the molecular unit, it is not a temperature alteration. Also, as velocity is a vectored unit and altering direction is an acceleration, such interactions have a greater chance of presenting a lower overall kinetic velocity i.e. excitation has a great chance of leaving the CO2 molecule COOLER.
Thus, in terms of seeking of a thermal equilibrium, CO2 will remain cooler than the surrounding atmosphere but upon being ‘warmed’ is more likely to release a photon.
Thus, CO2 will persistently cool by photonic release and persistently scavenge kinetic velocities (temperature) away.
Increase of atmospheric CO2 is, in this way, a cooling process.
(This is a quick outline, leaving the reasonable reader to join some dots.)
Peter, turn off notifications from blogs. Just pop back to the thread you commented on and either search for you last post to see what people have said or just scroll to the bottom and read from there.
Is the fact that the Sun is still providing energy to the atmosphere above/in the Gray zone (Before Sunset to darkness) into the heating effect? As an avid Ham Radio Operator I know that things take place in that band. The total area of this band is significant and it does not seem to me that you can simply take one half of the area and treat it as adding energy and the other half as losing energy. Seems to me that the Gray Band is like the eves of a roof on your house BUT the opposite, as it keeps adding energy longer. a chart of the temperature every 15 minutes shows this effect.
Challenge to a debate with Roy Spencer from Joe Postma.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/06/23/not-an-energy-budget-plus-postma-vs-spencer-live-debate/
Pablo, that site is well named.
This was a great explanation. I totally agree with you Mr. Spencer.
I made myself a calculator in Excel that is using information from different sources. One example from a lecture by Dr. Biezen who explains how much greenhouse effect the first 20 ppmv CO2 is responsible for. 1,5 to 2,5 °C if you take away all the other greenhouse gases. That is about 9W/m^2. Then the additional increase in CO2 ‘adds’ less and less reradiation exponentially.
Considering the present CO2 consentration excluding all other greenhousegases must therefor be about 18W/m^2, and calculating backwards, I find that a doubling of the present CO2 concentration, adds a ‘disturbingly’ small effect. Less than 1 °C.
Also, as the upper troposphere cools, it can hold less water wapor. It will therefor compensate for the additional CO2, which in turn makes radiation into space easier. In addition to this, any convection that brings moist air into the mid. and upper troposphere, might condense easier, making more clouds.
If we look further into a warmer future, it takes more energy to heat X°C as the initial temperature is higher. To take an extreme example: it takes 0.9uW/m^2 from 0K to 2K, but 10 million times more energy to increase the temperature from 273 to 275K.
(Man Made) Global Warming is impossible for one reason alone – Convection!
The gases in the atmosphere, the amount and their weighting in relation to each other is irrelevant because of convection. To pretend, ignore or to talk as if there’s no convection only document lack of understanding, ignorance or deception.
Roald, in the convection game you have to account for surface thermodynamic internal energy change due upwards convection and ALSO downwards convection returning that energy in a certain period.
Upwards convection is shown explicitly in top post, downwards convection is lumped into the relevant energy returning to the surface. Over multiannual periods up and down convection are observed to balance to a small error so the up/down absolute magnitudes aren’t that important.
The greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, was always a modelled idea. The modern model descends from Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, modified by Held and Soden 2000 (A). Given it’s a model we must ask ourselves 3 important questions right away.
1. Is A tested and validated as all science should be?
2. Is A the only possible model?
3. Is A the best model?
The answers are:
(1) (A) was never tested rigorously. All tests proposed by skeptics seem to be rejected out-of-hand. Only ridiculously easy tests proposed by those whose careers depend up it have been accepted. I think we can say it is badly tested and certainly not validated.
(2) several other GHGE models have been proposed. For example. By: David Evans (B), Mean-free path to space models [e.g. by Nahle (C) and Dai Davies (D)], Miskolczi (E), …)
(3) How do we know that the Manabe/Wetherald model, A is a better GHGE model compared to others (B, C, D, E, …)?
Right!
Actually nobody realizes anymore that the whole
thing was never properly tested.
They made Modtran and Hitran and that seemed to convince most people. Except me, of course.
I realized that what they had done was to
‘calculate’ that which nobody really had measured….
The greenhouse gas/climate course I began online never even mentioned that this GHGE was a model. They pretend their GHGE is just simple physics. The only way the physics could be organized. By ignoring its model nature, they pretend it (the model) isn’t there. If there’s no model there are no possible alternative models! It’s a logical fallacy that pretends things can only work one way. Imagine having a discussion on the nature of Gods & gods in religion where everyone has to agree beforehand there is only one religion (Christianity), and only one kind of God (Montheistic Father). We would never be able to even think of, say, religions without Gods (Buddhism), …
That analogy seems to be the establishment’s answer to “what about alternative models: B, C, D, E?” There pretend no such things exist.
In Manabe and Wetherald, the authors do test their model against the US Standard atm. profile. Model surface temperature is calculated to equilibrate at 286.9K against observed standard: 288.15K. Temperature profile up to 10km calculated to compare within 1K model atm. to standard atm., above that to 45km height the model runs maybe 2-8K cooler with a tropopause slightly higher.
Improvements to the method published in the subsequent years, with more equilibrated layers from more computer power result in differences of less than 1K up through the stratosphere.
Model B) has never been published, you will have to be more specific about C,D. Model E used severely sparse atm. opacity data that has not been updated.
I challenge people to show me this is invalid:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
Only science and logic allowed.
No sophistry or dogma allowed.
Hello, I follow WUWT and the discussions here with high interest. I am (electrical) enginer, but had no deep dive on thermodynamics. What I have seen in some of the explanations of the GH effect here leaves me unsatisfied, as it is missing an important aspect – and that is the DAILY consequence of the GH effect.
Someone stated before:
“From Sciencing dot com
“The Mojave Desert is a land of temperature extremes and very little precipitation. Forty-degree temperature changes are typical in a single day, with peaks near 120 degrees Fahrenheit and lows significantly below freezing. The California Desert Studies Center has recorded humidity and temperature at the dry Soda Springs site down California’s famed Zzyzx Road since the 1980s. According to these measurements, typical summer afternoon humidity is 10 percent and winter afternoon humidity is 30 percent, with humidity highs most winter nights of 50 percent or greater.” -> huge temperature difference over 24 hours.
I live in Germany, here we have sometimes (english also?) November days, where the temperature over 24 hours stays in the range of 5-8 °C. These are foggy days, high humidity, no sun visible. Sunshine duration is about 9-10 hours on these days.
What is the difference between these two situations?
If I look at it physically, I would say it is the “effective thermal storage capacity”, consisting of
a) the energy stored in the water vapour – which is slowly reduced over night, but not exhausted in the morning, and built up over the day
b) the energy transferred by evaporation and condensation, as we are at the dew point
These days are usually windless, so convection is not a major issue (correct me, if I am wrong).
In all the years, I have not seen a single explanation, what is the consequence of the greenhouse effect on a single day. Always averages.
Is there an explanation on the daily effect of GH, maybe in the style of “Zinc oxide and you” ( if you remember this)? maybe I missed it.
So my interpretation of the GH effect is, it increases the effective thermal mass, so the variance of temperature goes down.
On the consequence of the average, I am not sure, this is where the C02 and a lot of other effects kick in.
This article tried to give a simplified overview, but in my eyes it misses the core- and I agree with a lot of other comments, that it is not isolation, that is the essential point here.
I saw the analogies with housing – isolated and not isolated – but what is left out in this analogy is the thermal energy storage. If you have in germany ( or britain) a house with lets say a 35 cm brick wall, it will collect and store a lot of energy from sun over the day, which it gives back over night. So it will not heat up in summer quickly, as it will radiate off the energy collected from sunlight over day in the night. And also, it will collect energy in winter sunshine, but of course cool down over night. on the other hand, the energy pushed in through heating is also not going out quickly…
When you take the isolated house, you always see the infrared pictures at night, when the isolated house has ambient temperature, and the brick house (same color) is emitting radiance.
What they don’t show you, is the IR picture on a hot summer day – there the brick house has a wall temperature of e.g. 35 °C, and the fully isolated house has a wall temperature of 50 °C+… So here you have low thermal conductivity coupled with a low thermal energy storage capacity. Which is why these building tend to fall below the dew point quickly, and the condensing water attracts algae, etc. So I think buildings are not so good as example for GHE.
What I would propose as example is 2-3 pots.
a) one a cheap aluminum pot, very lightweight. May be filled with woodchips, which represent the dry air in the desert
b) a massive, heavy iron pot, may be left out (should represent intermediate GH effect)
c) the cheap aluminum pot filled with water
Then we put them into a furnace or expose them to sunlight (from all sides) in space in a cycle of turning energy on and off- to simulate day and night…
What happens?
A) will have a wide variation in temperature, adapting quickly to the new energy balance, as it has no thermal mass – this is like the moon
B) will be slower, having less variation, maybe like mars
C) will trend towards an equilibrium temperature, with a small variation compared to a) and b).
So, this is my understanding today of the daily consequences and benefits of the greenhouse effect – it reduces the swing of temperature every day.
What do you think of that?
and based on a model like this – the effects of
– Albedo change
– Greenhouse gases
-etc
may be evaluated.
On this abstract model, I see 2 parameters to be influenced:
a) The “Swing” or variety of temperature, locally and globally
b) a long term effect on the average temperature.
( or no – it is 2 effects
one on the high temperatures changing,
and one on the low temperatures changing -> leading to a change in the average)
So, now I hope my thougts are complete.
Photons do not obey ‘thermodynamics’ and the ‘greenhouse effect’ cannot have a consistent affect on temperature. Realize the energy you’d involve has come from the planet’s surface already cooling. The ‘greenhouse effect’ cannot actually stop the planet’s surface cooling.
one statement I missed in may long pamphlet:
Only if we understand the greenhouse effect on one day, we can go on and evaluate the consequences over a longer timespan. Year. Decade. Century.
(correct me if I am wrong)