Guest post by Bob Wentworth, Ph.D. (Applied Physics)
I am sometimes shocked by the number of climate change skeptics who are certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real.
As a physicist, I’m as certain of the reality of the Greenhouse Effect as I am that 1 + 1 = 2.
The GHE depends on physical principles that have been well-known and well-tested for 137 years. There really should be no question as to its reality, among anyone who knows and respects science.
Note that being certain about the GHE being real is different than being certain about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the hypothesis that human-caused increases in the concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are causing highly problematic changes in the Earth’s climate.
AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone. One can be skeptical about AGW while totally accepting the reality of the GHE.
I know many readers are deeply skeptical about AGW. I encourage you to consider finding a way to honor your beliefs without denying the reality of the GHE.
Based on everything that’s known about physics, denying that the GHE is real seems to me to be just as wrong-headed as insisting that the Earth is flat. (Any Flat-Earthers here?)
Today, I’m going to do something that will likely be pointless, with regard to its ability to change anyone’s mind. But, for the record, I want to offer it anyway.
I’m going to offer a mathematical proof of the reality of the Greenhouse Effect.
I expect that skepticism about mathematics is likely to be common among folks who deny the reality of the GHE.
Oh, well. So be it.
* * *
There are various ways that the idea of the “Greenhouse Effect” might be expressed. Today, I’d like to focus on a formulation of the GHE that is simple and rigorously provable:
Suppose a planet (or object) absorbs shortwave (SW) radiant energy from the Sun (or another source of illumination), and loses energy by emitting longwave (LW) radiation into space at a known average rate.
Then, it follows that there is a maximum average temperature that the surface of the planet (or object) can have, unless there are materials capable of absorbing (or reflecting) LW radiation between it and space.
If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials between the planetary surface (or object surface) and space.
When the average temperature of a planetary surface is higher than the temperature limit that would be possible in the absence of LW-absorbing materials in the atmosphere, this is called the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE).
* * *
This result can be proven if one accepts a single principle of physics:
- The rate at which LW radiation is emitted by the surface of the planet (or an object) is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Mₛ = 𝜀𝜎⋅T⁴, where 𝜀 is the emissivity of the surface, 𝜎 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature of the surface. (This quantity Mₛ is technically called the radiant exitance from the surface, and is measured in W/m².)
The Stefan-Boltzmann law was deduced based on experimental evidence in 1879, and was derived theoretically in 1884. This law has been a key part of the foundations of physics for 137 years, and has been verified countless times, in countless ways.
The reality and nuances of this law are as well-known and well-tested as anything in physics.
* * *
I will divide the proof into two parts. First, I’ll prove that there is a limit to how high the average surface temperature can be in the absence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials. Then, I’ll show that LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials create the possibility of the average surface temperature being higher.
Let’s define a few terms:
- T is the temperature of the surface of the planet (or object).
- Mₛ is the radiant exitance from the surface of the planet (or object). The subscript “s” is for “surface.”
- Mₜ is the radiant exitance into space from the top of the atmosphere of the planet (or from the materials associated with the object). The subscript “t” is for “top-of-atmosphere (TOA).”
Each of these quantities, T, Mₛ and Mₜ quantities may vary over the surface of the planet (or object) and vary in time as well.
I will use the notation ⟨X⟩ to denote the average of a quantity X over the surface of the planet (or object) and over some defined period of time.
Thus, the average values of surface temperature, surface radiant exitance, and TOA radiant exitance are ⟨T⟩, ⟨Mₛ⟩ and ⟨Mₜ⟩, respectively.
Let’s average each side of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
⟨Mₛ⟩ = 𝜀𝜎⋅⟨T⁴⟩
This is the point where we come to the only fancy math in the entire proof.
There is a mathematical law, first proven in 1884, called Hölder’s Inequality. The general formulation of this inequality is rather abstract, and might be scary to a non-mathematician. However, what the inequality says regarding the current problem is very simple. Hölder’s Inequality says it will always be the case that:
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨T⁴⟩
In other words, the fourth power of the average surface temperature is always less than or equal to the average of the fourth power of the surface temperature.
It turns out that ⟨T⟩⁴ = ⟨T⁴⟩ if T is uniform over the surface and uniform in time. To the extent that there are variations in T over the surface or in time, then this leads to ⟨T⟩⁴ < ⟨T⁴⟩.
(One of the reasons the surface of the Moon is so cold on average (197 K) is that its surface temperature varies by large amounts between locations and over time. This leads to ⟨T⟩⁴ being much smaller than ⟨T⁴⟩, which leads to a lower average temperature than would be possible if the temperature was more uniform.)
Combining the inequality with the equation preceding it, one finds:
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨Mₛ⟩/𝜀𝜎
In other words, if you know the average radiation emitted by the surface, then there is an upper limit to how hot the surface could be on average.
Let’s consider the case where there are no LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials in the atmosphere of the planet (or in between the object and space).
It should be clear that in this situation, Mₜ = Mₛ. The rate at which radiant energy reaches space must be identical to the rate at which radiant energy leaves the surface, if there is nothing to absorb or reflect that radiation.
So, in this situation,
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨Mₜ⟩/𝜀𝜎
We can re-write this as
T ≤ Tₑ
where the radiative effective temperature Tₑ is given by
Tₑ⁴ = ⟨Mₜ⟩/𝜀𝜎 [equation 1]
In other words, if you know how much radiation is emitted at the top of the atmosphere, and if you know there are no LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials in the atmosphere, then you can calculate the radiative effective temperature Tₑ and you can be certain that the average temperature of the surface will not be larger than this value.
* * *
Often, the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) is expressed in relation to the insolation, or the rate of energy being absorbed by the planet. Under an assumption of “radiative balance,” the average insolation is equal to the ⟨Mₜ⟩, the average rate at which LW radiant energy is emitted into space.
However, there can be small discrepancies between the average insolation and the rate of energy being emitted into space. And, some people who don’t trust climate science dispute the assumption of radiative balance.
So, I’m choosing to offer a formulation of the GHE which is valid even in the absence of radiative balance between the rates of energy being received and emitted by the planet (or object).
If you know the rate at which LW radiant energy is being emitted by the planet (or object), then there is a limit to how warm the planet can be without LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials.
* * *
What happens if there are materials present that absorb (or reflect) some of the LW radiation emitted by the surface, before it can get to space?
This creates the possibility that the rate of LW radiation being emitted to space could be different than the rate of LW radiation being emitted from the surface. In other words, such materials create the possibility that Mₛ ≠ Mₜ.
Let’s define the “LW enhancement” ∆M as ∆M = (Mₛ − Mₜ).
On Earth, ∆M is generally positive. More LW radiation is emitted by the surface than reaches space. This is possible only because of the presence of materials in Earth’s atmosphere which absorb (or reflect) LW radiation.
(In Earth’s atmosphere, there is more LW absorption than reflection. However, some reflection of LW radiation does occur in the form of LW scattering by aerosols and clouds. For purposes of this analysis, “reflection” and “scattering” are interchangeable concepts.)
If we go back to the inequality above that was expressed in terms of ⟨Mₛ⟩, and apply the definition of LW enhancement, we can rewrite the inequality as
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨Mₜ⟩/𝜀𝜎 + ⟨∆M⟩/𝜀𝜎
Applying the definition of the effective radiative temperature Tₑ we can further rewrite the inequality as:
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ Tₑ⁴ + ⟨∆M⟩/𝜀𝜎 [equation 2]
Equations 1 and 2 together offer a formal expression of the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE).
What do these equations say? They say that:
- Given the average LW radiant exitance at the top of the atmosphere, you can calculate a radiative effective temperature Tₑ. (To the extent that radiative balance applies, one could alternatively use the average absorbed insolation to calculate Tₑ.)
- In the absence of materials in the atmosphere that absorb (or reflect) LW radiation, it would be impossible for the average temperature of the planet to exceed Tₑ.
- If there are LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials in the atmosphere, then this creates the possibility of the average surface temperature being higher than Tₑ.
- How much higher than Tₑ the average surface temperature could be is determined by how much the average LW surface radiant exitance ⟨Mₛ⟩ exceeds the average LW TOA radiant exitance being emitted to space ⟨Mₜ⟩.
In this formulation, the GHE refers to the phenomenon of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials making it possible for the average surface temperature to be higher than would otherwise be possible.
I’ve shown that a single principle of physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) sets a limit on how high the average surface temperature can be, and says that this limit can be increased if and only if there are LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials present in the atmosphere.
* * *
How does this apply to Earth?
Earth’s atmosphere includes LW-absorbing-or-scattering materials such as water (in the vapor, liquid and solid phases), aerosols, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorinated gases.
Equations 1 and 2 allow us to assess whether the LW-absorbing (or LW-scattering) properties of these materials are essential to accounting for the Earth’s average surface temperature.
Let’s put in some numbers. I’ll use poster data from NASA averaged over a 10-year period. (The results wouldn’t be much different if another data source was used.) That data indicates an average LW TOA radiant exitance ⟨Mₜ⟩ = 239.9 W/m².
(The absorbed SW insolation is given as 240.4 W/m², which is almost, but not quite, in balance with the LW TOA radiant exitance. This imbalance is evidence that Earth was not in steady-state, but experienced a net warming over the decade of measurement.)
The data indicates an average LW enhancement ⟨∆M⟩ = 158.3 W/m². As a reminder, the LW enhancement ⟨∆M⟩ isn’t a measure of “back-radiation.” It’s a measure of how much more LW radiation leaves the surface than reaches space.
If we assume an average surface emissivity 𝜀 = 0.94, then equations 1 and 2 lead to:
Tₑ = 259 K (-14℃)
⟨T⟩ ≤ 294 K (21℃)
In other words:
- If there were no LW-absorbing (or LW-scattering) materials in Earth’s atmosphere, and it emitted the same average LW radiant exitance (upwelling LW radiation) to space (which would be expected in steady-state if the absorbed insolation was held constant), then the average surface temperature could not be warmer than Tₑ = 259 K (-14℃).
- Given that Earth’s atmosphere does include LW-absorbing and LW-scattering materials which allow there to be more LW radiation emitted by the surface than what reaches space, the average surface of the Earth can be no higher than 294 K (21℃).
Given that the average surface temperature of the Earth is typically estimated to be about 288 K (15℃), this satisfies the constraint of being no higher than 294 K (21℃).
According to equation 1 and this particular data set, the surface of the Earth is 29℃ warmer than it could possibly be, given the same average LW TOA radiant exitance, if there were no LW-absorbing (or scattering) materials in the atmosphere.
(The more typically quoted figure of 33℃ would result if one assumed an emissivity 𝜀 = 1.)
This result demonstrates that the presence of LW-absorbing and LW-scattering materials in the atmosphere is mathematically essential to explaining at least 29℃ of the Earth’s current temperature, provided only that one accepts the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
* * *
Note that this result (that LW-absorbing materials are needed to enable the Earth to be as warm as it is) is entirely independent of any details of what happens in the atmosphere and ocean.
Convection, heat engines, ocean currents, thermal storage, turbulence, atmospheric pressure—none of these make the slightest difference to the basic conclusion.
No matter what physical processes happen on Earth, its average surface temperature would be need to be colder, if it were not for the presence of LW-absorbing materials in the atmosphere.
* * *
* * *
* * *
APPENDIX 1: “Proof” in the Context of Science
The term “proof” is generally reserved for mathematics, and is not used in science. In science, one doesn’t “prove” things; one offers evidence that confirms or disconfirms the predictive accuracy of a hypothesis or theory.
So, what do I mean when I say I’m “proving” the GHE?
Technically, I proved that the GHE is mathematically an inherent consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The reality of the GHE effect is equivalent to the reality of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The offered “proof” implies that any evidence confirming the Stefan-Boltzmann Law should also be considered to be evidence confirming the GHE.
There has been enormous evidence over 137 years confirming the predictive accuracy of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It is a key component in the foundations of physics.
APPENDIX 2: Does the GHE Offer More Specific Predictions?
Some readers may feel frustrated that the GHE, as I’ve formulated it, doesn’t offer any specific predictions for what surface temperatures should result from LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials being present in the atmosphere.
Maybe you take issue with the results of climate models and you want to refute the predictions that arise from “assuming the GHE exists.”
Maybe it would be nice to be able to identify “the part of these models that is the GHE” so that that part can be separately tested.
I think this sort of thinking reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the GHE.
The GHE is not a specific process. It’s an emergent phenomenon that arises from the basic laws of physics.
Modelers do not “add the GHE” to their models. They build climate models using the established laws of physics, with some model components being addressed empirically. (How well models reflect the basic laws of physics may vary.)
The GHE simply arises when one takes the laws of physics into account. It’s not something separate that one adds to a model.
There are no specific predictions that the GHE alone gives rise to. There are only the predictions that arise from the laws of physics. Sometimes, some aspect of these predictions may be attributed, after the fact, to the “Greenhouse Effect.”
But, the GHE is not a separate theory. It’s an observation of the consequences of the fundamental theories that form the foundations of modern physics.
APPENDIX 3: But How Does the GHE Work?
There are a variety of ways of talking about the GHE.
Some approaches focus on explaining how LW radiation absorbing-and-emitting gases can raise the surface temperature. People engaging with such explanations often get mired down in disputing details.
In this essay, I’m taking a different approach. What I’ve offered here makes no attempt to explain how LW-absorbing (or scattering) materials can raise the average surface temperature.
Instead, I’m offering an analysis that simply says, if a planetary surface exceeds a certain average temperature, Tₑ, then it’s certain that LW-absorbing (or scattering) materials must play an essential role in whatever process causes this warming to happen.
While the approach in this essay doesn’t offer any explanation of “how,” it arguably makes up for that by being so ridiculously simple that there would appear to be no legitimate loopholes for disputing it.
If you follow the logic offered here, it should be clear that the GHE is real.
Once one has accepted the GHE as real, I imagine there might be more motivation to work through and understand the explanations offered elsewhere about how the GHE works. Without being committed to trying to prove the GHE wrong, it is likely to be easier to understand how works.
(Do I expect that anyone will follow this path? Probably not. Yet, I’ve done what I can to offer the opportunity.)
APPENDIX 4: Variations in Emissivity
An astute reader might notice that the analysis above did not account for variations in the emissivity, 𝜀. If one takes this into account, the key equations become:
Tₑ⁴ = ⟨Mₜ/𝜀⟩/𝜎
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ Tₑ⁴ + ⟨∆M/𝜀⟩/𝜎
This refinement to the result doesn’t change the basic conclusion.
A majority of the Earth’s surface is ocean with an emissivity of about 0.96. Emissivity on land is mostly greater than 0.9, though it sometimes dips lower. Suppose we conservatively estimate 67% of the planet to be open ocean with an emissivity of 0.96, estimate that 80% of land has an emissivity of at least 0.85, and the remainder has an emissivity of at least 0.6.
This would lead to an effective emissivity, for purposes of calculating Tₑ, of about 𝜀ₑ ⪆ 1/(0.67/0.96 + 0.264/0.85 + 0.066/0.6) = 0.89. While this is a crude calculation (and ignores the need to weight in proportion to the TOA radiant exitance), it represents an approximate “worst case”; the actual effective emissivity will be higher than this.
An effective emissivity of 0.89 would lead to Tₑ = 263 K (-11℃). This is still about 26℃ colder than Earth’s observed average surface temperature.
Excellent piece. Thank you Dr. Wentworth.
So if CO2 drives temperature how come Mars is freezing and Venus boiling, both with v similar amounts of CO2 in their atmosphere.
Just wondering?
Where did you see or read “…CO2 drives temperature…” ?
He read it in this post where after all of his long winded and extremely condescending and ignorant ranting about “flat earthers” and “math non-believers” – both of which proved the author is an ignorant ahole who does not deserve a PhD in anything but political science – where the guy wrote that the only way that the temperature of the planet can be higher than his model said is it is if it is greenhouse gas effect. He totally ignores geothermal heat inputs to the surface temperature and heat transference.
Actually, what I have presented is valid in the presence of “geothermal heat inputs to the surface temperature and heat transference.”
The derivation makes no assumptions about the source of heat. I mentioned heat from sunlight, but the argument would be equally valid if 100% of the heating was geothermal.
As to “heat transference”, I’m not certain what you mean by that. However, if you’re referring to there being mechanisms to transfer heat between different locations on Earth or in its atmosphere, any and all such mechanisms are also accounted for in what I’ve presented.
The result relates to a distribution of surface temperatures, and the relationship with the amount of radiation emitted to space.
The conclusion is valid no matter what the heat source is, and no matter how heat is transferred.
* * *
If you found some of my comments “condescending,” then I apologize for that.
You made generalised condescending characterisations. Most people here understand and accept GHE, because they were or still are professionally involved in technical occupations and have reasonable skills and understanding of mathematics and physics.
Most people understand and accept GHE by numbers fed to them. But the numbers are wrong, 390 > 240 means 150 unexplained excess energy but not 501 < 390 max. 111 isn’t needed and is reflected. No unexplained excess energy is labelled the GHE. Having the correct data changes the understanding of science.
The flat earth comment is over-the-top, I agree. There are plenty of ways that a person can deduce with his own eyes that the earth is not flat and would truly need to be deranged or disingenuous to claim a belief in a flat earth given the opportunities in today’s society to observe contrary evidence.
It’s not so accessible to experience the Stefan Boltzmann law in daily experience. On a different angle, it’s understandable that people have experience with gases heating up when work is done on them and then they draw the wrong conclusion that pressure produces heat (rather than work producing heat), or even less defensibly that static pressure somehow maintains heat.
I hope that some people will read this article and understand that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect but that it doesn’t mean that there is dangerous warming from it.
I hope my comments about convestion and temperature pressure relationships aren’t believed to be among those claiming “pressure produces heat”. I believe no such thing but I do claim there is a pressure-temperature relationship. T=P/V, given two masses of gas containing the same amount of thermal energy, the one under more pressure has less volume and a higher temperature.
PV=nRT
The so-called ideal gas law, shows the relationship among pressure, volume, and temperature in an idealized case.
T is therefore proportional to PV, not P/V. But where the “pressure creates temperature” idea goes wrong is in the direction of causality. In reality T is the independent variable (arising from solar radiation) that causes the volume to adjust when a certain number of moles of gas are in a gravitational field. The mass of the atmosphere over the surface of the planet determines the pressure at sea level.
If the sun stopped shining, or the earth were somehow flung out of orbit into intergalactic space, the entire atmosphere would cool and shrink down, eventually condensing and finally solidifying. At that point pressure approaches zero.
As it is, the height of the atmosphere varies substantially due to temperature from a maximum in the tropics to a minimum at the poles. Clearly it is the sun’s heating that is driving the bus, not pressure.
Yes, I mis-stated. T=PV, not P/V.
And the sun does provide the energy.
“P” is determined by the mass of the overlying atmosphere as you say and is lower at higher altitudes.
Assuming an atmosphere transparent to incoming radiation the surface will warm and the lower atmosphere will be warmed and then rise to be replaced by downfalling atmosphere. The rise will be mostly adiabatic causing expansion and cooling as the pressure decreases (both P and V decrease causing T to decrease). the result is an atmosphere with a lower pressure, temperatuee and density at higher altitudes due mostly to the pressure difference.
Other effects cause temperature to be higher at altitudes where the atmosphere is ethereal.
I think I learned that there was a temperature / pressure relationship in my Thermodynamics classes in high school. We got to learn on a running broiler 20ft diameter flywheel that produced heat for the building for sure but I think also electricity. I also seem to remember a text book that was all tables of temperature vs pressure. Of course it was for superheated water which only occurs in real life in the AGW 8.5 case. We are going to be hotter than Venus.
I was expressing frustration with the rather vocal subgroup that do not understand and accept the GHE.
I regret that I didn’t express myself with more grace and care.
If you wanted to take a pop at your ‘strawmen’, why didn’t you use a straw-duvet analogy? Adding them gives you more GHE, reducing them gives you less .
And, you ought to have talked about the relative effectiveness of the various GHGs, starting with H2O ……
Bob Wentworth
Bob let’s see.
Two things to consider.
Do you think that according to your mathematical proof of GHE and the conclusions you arrive at and offer;
“All that,
is it in harmony and compatibility with M.Cycles (Effect)?”
and the other;
“Do not your conclusions in consideration of GHE as you uphold it, suggest that there can not be an atmosphere at all without GHG and the GHE?
cheers
I don’t see why what I’ve written wouldn’t be in harmony with and compatible with the existence of Milankovitch Cycles.
Why would you think my conclusions would suggest that?
There is no reason, for example, that a planet couldn’t in principle have a pure nitrogen or pure argon atmosphere.
And it would be warmer than without.
You mean a planet with a pure nitrogen or pure argon atmosphere?
Somewhat warmer, but limited to being no warmer on average than the radiative effective temperature, Tₑ.
The reason it would be warmer than a planet without any atmosphere is that a nitrogen or argon atmosphere could still develop atmospheric circulation patterns to transfer heat from low latitudes to high latitudes.
This would reduce the magnitude of temperature variations across the planet.
Smaller temperature variations means that ⟨T⟩⁴ can be closer to ⟨T⁴⟩, i.e., a warmer average temperature, though ⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨T⁴⟩ = Tₑ⁴ will still apply because of the absence of LW-absorbing/scattering materials.
But that is where the ionosphere comes in! No?
I’m not following. What is “where the ionosphere comes in”?
N2 A atmospheres presumably sport an ionosphere re-reflecting ir back to earth simulating your GHE.
If an ionosphere absorbs and re-radiates some thermal radiation, that wouldn’t “simulate” the GHE, it would “be” an example of the GHE.
However, to the extent that the ionosphere does this, I have an impression that this is a far weaker effect than the effect currently produced by GHGs.
I view the ionosphere as the glass in our global greenhouse. See radio communication. Ions are excellent ir reflectors and they are present in a greater number, density and locality than CO2 as an agent to effect ir down-swelling. And, as we see below, emission by the no density of CO2 is too small to explain any measurable warming.
Exactly.
The GHE and M.Cycles (Effect) are the two main pillars of the Radiative theory of climate, or should we say the already non disputable “wisdom” of climastrology,
which actually completely fail to explain the reality of the last 150 years in their own, without the further support from AGW hypothesis.
The reality of ~140 ppm of CO2 and 1-1.2C upswing.
Both Pillars of that “wisdom” support each other as an
explanation of climate… with AGW build on top of,
and further supporting that construct.
In proposition of climate;
one of them three falling, the whole premise or the construct of radiative theory of climate collapses.
As for your conclusions, do you say that our Earth with the surface at -14C temp average there, would have an atmosphere at all?
Our watery planet having an atmosphere, at -14C average surface temp.?
Just asking.
Is GHE a real feature?
Yes, as real as M. Cycles feature.
But the effect of both, in climate or Earth’s surface temp., is almost non existent.
cheers
Well, nitrogen and oxygen need to get way colder than that before they freeze out. Wouldn’t be much water vapor though.
So you say that Earth would have had an atmosphere at -14C average surface temp.
Wow, Bob.
Is it just me, or you just went @ full “de javu” on me!
😳
From your derivation:
It should be clear that in this situation, Mₜ = Mₛ. The rate at which radiant energy reaches space must be identical to the rate at which radiant energy leaves the surface, if there is nothing to absorb or reflect that radiation.”
A clear assumption that only radiative energy can be involved in the transfer. You absolutely DO NOT account for “any and all such mechanisms”.
All I assumed is that only radiation is involved in radiant energy transfer. That’s the definition of radiant energy transfer.
There are no assumptions whatsoever about what other forms of energy transfer may be present.
My statement is logically equivalent to saying “If I shine a flashlight at a wall, and nothing intercepts any of that light, then it will all reach the wall.”
An analogy worthy of some thought on my part but I will argue that there is still something missing in the essay.
Geothermal inputs are 4 or 5 orders of magnitude lower than what is coming in from the sun.
Ignoring it is a very logical thing to do.
The math was presented, do you believe it or not? If you don’t believe, refute it. Don’t just whine about how the guy offended your delicate sensitivities.
The facts about CO2’s abilities to absorb energy have been well documented for well over a century. To deny such basic science is well the equivalent of being a flat earther.
Mark,
is not about believing or not.
The math presented and the following conclusions are completely incompatible with reality… regardless of what one believes or not.
cheers
CO2 may absorb energy but it is an insignificant amount in the troposphere. TOA above equator 80 watts remaining. couple of hundred grams of mixed gases. 1000-460(insulation) 540 watts reflected. How much of 540 is retained by CO2? close to zero. As is the 460 watt insulation amount. CO2 absorbs some of the 79 watts at 15µm. Nothing below that wavelength.
Yes, the energy absorbed by CO2 at 15 microns is about 1/25 the energy supplied by sunlight at 0.6 microns (assuming the average waelength of visible light–the same assumption used in calculating radiative energy W/m2.
?w=545&h=307
The CO2 effect is over on the far left; it is as negligible as geothermal.
For anthropogenic CO2, at 287.64K (stated average global temperature) and for radiation between 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm (to account for the absorption shoulders of CO2), and to be exact: 0.29652933849 W m-2, which I address in the text below.
—–
If ‘backradiation’ from CO2 emission causes CAGW, where is it coming from?
14.98352 µm near-surface extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 415 ppm, and ~9.7 m at 830 ppm. The troposphere is opaque to 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm (to account for the absorption shoulders of CO2) radiation. In fact, it’s opaque to that radiation right up to ~15 – 20 km (TOA for that wavelength of radiation). That’s where the effective emission height of CO2 is.
CO2’s tropospheric absorption of IR thermalizes that radiation and thus increases CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection of air to the upper atmosphere (carrying with it the latent and specific heat of polyatomic molecules… more polyatomic molecules will carry more energy and will more readily emit that energy in the upper atmosphere), which is a cooling process.
Radiation MFPL decreases exponentially with decreasing altitude and vice versa due to changing air density, so the net vector in the 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm band is upward, so the majority of ‘backradiation’ which could possibly reach the surface would be from that thin layer of atmosphere which is within ~10.4 m of the surface, and the great majority of that energy is thermalized and convected. So where’s this ‘backradiation’ energy coming from that’s going to cause CAGW, especially considering that the maximum able to be absorbed by CO2 is 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2, and the maximum able to be absorbed by anthropogenic CO2 is 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2?
At 287.64 K (the stated global temperature) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (ref: NASA’s ISCCP program, data collected 1983-2004), at 14.98352 µm photon wavelength, spectral radiance is only 5.43523 W / m^2 / sr / µm (integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm of 10.8773 W/sr-m^2).
Thus the maximum that CO2 could absorb in the troposphere would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.
While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 are excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% are excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.
Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. Remember, molecules which are already vibrationally excited don’t absorb radiation with energy equivalent to the vibrational mode quantum state energy at which they are already excited. That radiation passes the vibrationally excited molecule by (unless there are degenerate vibrational mode quantum states… there are three for CO2):
CO2{v21(1)}: 667.4 cm-1, 14.98352 µm
CO2{V22(2)}: 667.8 cm-1, 14.97454 µm
CO2{v23(3)}: 668.1 cm-1, 14.96782 µm
That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.
CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.
CO2 absorbs this radiation regardless of any increase in atmospheric concentration… 14.98352 µm extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 415 ppm, and ~9.7 m at 830 ppm. Any tropospheric thermalization which would occur at a higher CO2 concentration is already taking place at the current concentration. Thus the net effect of CO2 thermalization is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convective transport to the upper atmosphere, which is a cooling process.
Tropospheric thermalization is saturated. A doubling of CO2 doesn’t appreciably reduce extinction depth at 14.98352 µm. But upper-atmospheric radiative shedding of energy to space is not saturated… more CO2 molecules will cause more upper-atmospheric cooling, increasing buoyancy of lower-atmosphere air and thus increasing convection. IOW, polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source (ie: surface) and heat sink (ie: space) due to the fact that they have higher specific heat capacity than the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2).
An increased CO2 concentration will emit more radiation in the upper atmosphere (simply because there are more molecules absorbing energy in the lower atmosphere, more molecules convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and more molecules capable of emitting radiation in the upper atmosphere), thus more radiation will be emitted to space, and that represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.
This illustrates what I’m stating:
http://imgur.com/Zxq4KlB.png
That’s a MODTRAN plot at 287.64 K for 415 ppm vs. 830 ppm CO2 for 13.98352 – 15.98352 µm radiation. A doubling of CO2 concentration doesn’t appreciably change tropospheric upward or downward radiative flux (because extinction depth at those wavelengths is low enough that it’s thermalizing nearly all of that radiation, the net effect being an increase in CAPE as discussed above), but it does change how much energy is exiting the system known as ‘Earth’, and that represents a cooling process. That cools the upper atmosphere, and since the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA and the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, and because a higher concentration of polyatomic molecules shifts the lapse rate vertically and radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it, the surface must cool with an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration. This is what is taking place, we’re just working through the thermal capacity of the planet, which warmed due to a now-ended long series of stronger-than-usual solar cycles (the Modern Grand Maximum), but it is cooling (in fact, it’s projected that we’re slipping into a Solar Grand Minimum which will rival the Dalton Minimum, and may rival the Maunder Minimum).
Zoomed in…
Note the extreme right-hand edge of that chart… negative and decreasing at an accelerating rate.
Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone
CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive scale) extends to the planet’s surface, whereas CO2 shows just a bit of warming (negative scale) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
Polyatomic molecules shift the lapse rate vertically, more of them shifts the lapse rate more vertically (which attempts to decrease temperature differential between different altitudes by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere), while also radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it… ie: they are coolants.
This is borne out empirically by the long-term and dramatic upper-atmosphere cooling and by the fact that OLR increased by ~7 W/m^2 over ~72 years even as surface temperature showed no statistically significant trend for more than two decades (said increased OLR partly caused by the increasing CO2 concentration making available more molecules capable of efficiently convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, then radiatively emitting it).
Brilliant.
I’m fairly certain the math above won’t work if you limit it to a marginal trace gas that near saturation.
I’m also fairly certain that it will work if you ignore CO2 and just use water vapor/aerosol content.
One of the facts known about CO2 abilities for over a century are its limits.
The math is irrelevant, especially it it’s the same math used to inform the 100+ climate models. Empirical evidence tends not to support AGW.
Rory, Without antagonism intended on my part, I think you have misread the head post, or tripped over the flat-earther comments and failed to read it.
The main point has nothing to do with AGW. It is a discussion about the natural greenhouse effect mostly due to water vapor.
Anyone who feels the need to begin with a preamble, filled to the gunnels with as many fallacies as he can fit in, isn’t worth reading. Surely you don’t believe this is the first time anyone has written such a “proof”, do you? The issue has never been about the role of water vapour, in general, plays in our planet’s climate system. The point is ONLY about the role of CO2, misnamed “carbon”.
If he’s not stating that the science has been misused to perpetrate a massive fraud, he’s a waste of space. If he’s redundantly restating the GHE, he’s a pompous ass.
I don’t believe the author makes this claim in this post.
Correct, Jeffery!
The author specifically said that the fact that CO2 is a radiative gas does not imply that it controls temperature.
The two propositions are separate.
In order for CO2 to drive temperature, it would have to mean that massive amounts of evidence from Earth history and more recent proxies as well as direct measurements since we have had the ability to make them, would all have to be incorrect. Like, totally wrong.
It does not.
But even if it did, it would not matter, because the earth is too cold and it would be good, not bad, if the planet warmed up a whole bunch.
The warmista case is not proven in any slight degree by acknowledging that CO2 has the radiative properties that allow it to intercept and redirect photons of certain wavelengths.
The radiative properties of substances is very well understood.
It is how all the factors interact to produce the ever changing climate regimes of our planet, that no one has proven that they have any complete understanding of.
Correct, Jeffery!
The author specifically said that the fact that CO2 is a radiative gas does not imply that it controls temperature.
The two propositions are separate.
In order for CO2 to drive temperature, it would have to mean that massive amounts of evidence from Earth history and more recent proxies as well as direct measurements since we have had the ability to make them, would all have to be incorrect. Like, totally wrong.
CO2 categorically does not drive temperature, and CO2 is categorically a radiative gas.
However one may feel about whether the terminology known as “the greenhouse effect” is apt or not, gasses that intercept certain wavelengths of photons do exist, and one of them is CO2, and another is H2O, and some people have taken to using this terminology.
Another red herring is this idea some people seem to have that if “The Greenhouse Effect” is a poor or even a wrong analogy to make, it somehow follows logically that therefore CO2 does not have radiative properties.
This too is false and is not even slightly logical.
CO2 does not control the temperature of our planet.
But even if it did, it would not matter, because the Earth is too cold, and it would be good, not bad, if the planet warmed up a whole bunch.
CO2 has been far higher in the past.
Many times.
It made for a more robust biosphere.
The Earth has been far warmer than it is now.
It was not a catastrophe, it was the opposite…it was a boon for life, and the planet was far more hospitable when it was warmer, and life prospered in profuse abundance from pole to pole, with no huge regions of our planet perpetually locked into a state of being frigid wastelands.
The catastrophe was when the Earth grew cold and entire continental regions, and even an entire continent, were wiped clean of life.
The warmista case is not proven in any slight degree by acknowledging that CO2 has the radiative properties that allow it to intercept and redirect photons of certain wavelengths.
The radiative properties of such substances are very well understood.
It is how all the factors interact to produce the ever changing climate regimes of our planet, that no one has proven that they have any complete understanding of.
Earth history proves that CO2 is NOT the thermostatic control knob of the planet.
Earth history proves that a warmer world is not dangerous.
Warmistas are liars who make up phony data and toss real data, collected by tens of thousands of people, over hundreds of years, into the garbage.
They are crooks who want to fleece and impoverish us all.
When people who know that these things are true, are nevertheless arguing with each other, instead of directing our attention where it matters, we are doing the warmistas a big giant favor, and making it easier for them to do what they are doing and want to continue to do.
First, they have nothing like the same amount of CO2 in their atmospheres: the surface pressure on Venus is about 90x Earth’s atmospheric pressure, and most of it is CO2. The surface pressure on Mars is about 1/100 that of Earth–again, mostly CO2. So the surface pressure on Venus is 90 * 100 = 9000 times greater than that on Mars.
Also relevant, although for some reason seldom mentioned in the context of warming, is that Venus is about 0.72 * as far from the Sun as the Earth, while Mars is about 1.5 * as far from the Sun as the Earth. So Mars is about 1.5/.72 = 2.0x further from the Sun than Venus, meaning it receives 1/4 of the amount of sunlight.
Venus however has high albedo. About 76% of sunlight incident at the top of its atmosphere is reflected away. Only some three percent reaches the surface directly, while perhaps another seven percent arrives after scattering. The rest is absorbed in the dense air.
Despite so little solar radiation hitting the ground, Venus is hot because it turns so slowly and its thick atmosphere and high winds keep the surface from cooling off during its long nights. Some heat might also move through the lithosphere from the day side to the dark.
A tall column of gas molecules in a gravitational field sorts itself into hot molecules at the bottom of the column and cool slower moving ones higher up that have slowed down in their climb upwards against gravity. This is the “adiabatic lapse rate”. Venus has about 60 km of adiabatic lapse rate from its effective radiation altitude down to surface. At about 11 degrees per km. Thus over 700 degrees K at surface…
See Figures 6 to 11 here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.06835.pdf
I think it’s nice that people can write a well thought out and accurate paper about the atmosphere of venus that would likley be “cancelled” if it were written about the Earth.
Sad but true. Jim “Venus Express” Hansen’s PhD thesis posited a Venusian situation which he knew to be false.
It’s akin to potential temperature in meteorology, solid physics, not really anything that can be cancelled…
That paper offers a nice analysis of the adiabatic lapse rate on Venus.
Are you under the impression that the lapse rate calculation somehow explains the surface temperature?
A lapse rate only establishes the relative temperatures of different parts of the atmosphere.
It doesn’t say anything about the absolute temperature.
Shift all the temperatures up or down by 10 K, and you’d still have the same lapse rate.
As you note, the adiabatic lapse rate explains the temperature in its classic interpretation, in a stable atmospheric column. Adiabatic means NO heat transfer. Allow radiation to exit or enter at the top or bottom of the column and the temperature is little different because there IS heat transfer. Put a radiative gas like CO2 in the column instead of N2 (which is IR transparent), and there is a bigger difference, caused by heat transfer between the “layers” of CO2. A temperature profile can be calculated. Mannabe and Moller did it in 1961…
I’m still not clear whether you think this discussion of adiabatic lapse rate has anything to do with the GHE or with explaining planetary temperatures.
To be clear, I do NOT believe the adiabatic lapse rate explains the surface temperature.
I believe it only explains the relative temperatures of surface and various parts of the atmosphere.
Venus’ temperature does not differ between night and day.
Seems the atmosphere is just to well mixed.
“First, they have nothing like the same amount of CO2 in their atmospheres”
As a percentage, they do. Venus it’s 96.5%, Mars it’s 95.97%, whereas Earth it’s a mere 0.0413%. Warmistas are constantly harping on the increase in the parts per billion (the 350 in 350.org for example) which is an expression of percentage. Clearly, as you point out, it’s not the percentage that is the all important factor, but rather the other elements you discuss.
So how does surface pressure affect “greenhouse gas effect” such as it is claimed. There is no variable in any of the models cited by this author that include atmospheric pressure, or density of the atmosphere in grams per cubic meter.
You do realize that even though Earth’s atmosphere is 100 times denser than Mars’ atmosphere, that the mass density of CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere, which is 95.32% CO2, is still massively greater than the mass density of CO2 on Earth, which is only 0.04% CO2.
Do the math … 95.32% divided by 100 is still 24 times greater than 0.04%, adjusting for relative densities.
I’m not certain what you are trying to imply but I will note that “There is no variable in any of the models cited by this author that include atmospheric pressure, or density of the atmosphere” demonstrates conclusively that the author has not considered all the pertinent variables.
I didn’t imply anything. I wrote it all down. It speaks for itself.
The commenter whom I responded to, apparently whom you didn’t bother to read, wrote:
Water is the big one, the discussion here is about the impact of a GHG between two bodies or not it does not confine itself to CO2.
Are we seeing a sensitivity in people to a well discussed point at both a mathematical level and observational level.
Good article and worth the points made.
In some ways it’s a mistake to compare Venus Earth and Mars, the differences are greater than their similarities.
Venus/Earth similar size but vastly different atmospheres, rotational period, direction of rotation, magnetic field.
Venus/Mars have very little in common other than their atmospheres are predominantly carbon dioxide but the partial pressure of CO2 is massively different.
Earth/Mars have similar rotational periods and similar axial tilts but that is all.
On Venus the atmospheric pressure has a more significant impact than on Earth. The rotational period and direction likewise. Finally Venus is 30% closer to the sun than the Earth is.
Do greenhouses work because of the greenhouse effect, or is it the lack of air movement? If it’s a sunny but windy day, it is warmer if you sit behind a windbreak.
While Venus receives twice as much solar radiation at the top of its atmosphere than Earth, our planet gets a lot more at its surface, due to Venus’ high albedo and absorption in its dense air. Since only about ten percent of solar radiation reached Venus’ surface, versus about 69% of Earth’s, our surface gets about 3.45 times as much insolation as Venus.
Our sister planet is hot because it rotates so slowly and has such a think atmosphere.
Anyone that has looked at Venus through a telescope and understands what albedo is can see that a tremendous amount of solar energy is being reflected by it’s atmosphere. You never see the surface of the plant. It’s just a bright white ball and the second brightest object in the night sky after the moon when the planet is “up”. Really a boring telescope subject.
The fact that the Venusian day is longer than it’s year is overlooked as is the fact that it’s rotation is retrograde. Comparisons with other bodies in the solar system are effectively meaningless.
They don’t have similar amounts of CO2, they have similar percentages of CO2. Venus has an atmosphere that has 92 times more pressure than Earth’s atmosphere. Mars has an atmosphere that’s less than 1% of the pressure as Earth’s.
There is actually more N2 on Venus than on Earth….
since we only talk about % of CO2, thats a valid comparision … nobody cares about the “amount” of CO2 …
I care about the “amount” of CO2. With regard to greenhouse effects, I would expect that to be far more important than the % of CO2.
Yes, to certain (I would think negligible) extent in the Earth’s atmosphere.
a) At 400ppm there are about 2500 other gas molecules for each one of the CO2 molecules.
b) I’ll assume that CO2 would absorb more energy than the other gases, thermal energy is expression of the kinetic energy of molecules Brownian motion. After few collisions with other gas molecules CO2 would soon lose it’s energy excess.
c) Let’s assume CO2 molecule absorbs 100% more energy than any other gas present. It can transfer that energy after one or 2500 (or anything in between) collisions. Either way total amount of energy in any volume (after energy equalization) would be increased by 100%/2500 = 0.04%
d) The average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 Celsius or 59 Fahrenheit).
e) That would mean that the 100% more effective CO2 at the 400ppm concentration would increase global temperature (∆T) by 0.11C.
f) If CO2 effectiveness is n x 100% than global temperature would increase by n x 0.11C
I have no idea, how effective is CO2 in relation to the other gasses, but if you do then you might calculate ∆T, i.e. if the above makes any sense.
For other planets the same principle may apply taking into account the planet’s CO2 concentration and its average ‘global’ temperature.
Jeremy, you’re going to need to put your big boy pants on and take a rush course in reading comprehension if you want to make any kind of cogent argument on this site. Not that you even attempted to.
Dr. Wentworth made the key statement on this to actually attempt to negate bogus conflations:
“Note that being certain about the GHE being real is different than being certain about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the hypothesis that human-caused increases in the concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are causing highly problematic changes in the Earth’s climate.
AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone. One can be skeptical about AGW while totally accepting the reality of the GHE.”
The CO2 AGW greenhouse gas failed conjecture to-date starts above 280ppm, and it’s on a background of water vapor, sun’s activity plus or minus, cloud cover, convection, Beer-Lambert Law, etc. etc.
… but do stick around here, because if anything happens that makes CO2’s empirically measured effect, using the scientific null hypothesis, something that is indistinguishable from zero, this site is likely to be the first and best place you will be able to read about it.
Classic WUWT rebuttal … bravo!
Venus & Mars have similar proportions of CO2 in their respective atmospheres not similar amounts. And their surface atmospheric pressures are dramatically different.
Pressure on Mars: 0.095psi
Pressure on Venus: 1350psi
Temperature increases as pressure increases.
Temperature increases as pressure is increased. When pressure is constant, temperature does not increase.
Very good Mark. Gases undergoing adiabatic pressurization heat up. Big enough delta P can cause enough delta T cause auto ignition of some hydrocarbons in air.
However pressures are never constant for long. The depth of the atmosphere is under constant change, from heating and cooling, continually altering the pressure. Just watch any barometer.
Atmospheric pressures are never a constant everywhere. The must decrease with altitude.
I can’t work out if you’re agreeing with me or trying to be sarcastic. Your response makes no sense.
He is taking the possition of one in 100% circular reasoning.
A clear effect of “must support Bob’s ‘flatearth’ circular reasoning”.
And GHE does not increase the pressure of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The physical variation of the atmosphere is thermally driven by the oceans thermal variation and it’s coupling exchange with atmosphere.
The GHGs and the GHE simply features, that vary in accordance.
Extrapolating in the proposition of the “E” @ GHE by making it sound like a real physical effect on the Earth’s surface temp. and therefor climate,
is not any different than a flatearth argument these days, according to the observed reality.
Initial condition is initial, not an outcome condition.
Else, circular reasoning will rule the day, as it actually does clearly in the whole subject of climastrology… but not only.
The triangle of M. Cycles(effect), GHE and AGW is the very base and core of the “climate science”.
And it stands invalid, as invalidated by reality.
So whatever Bob claims in this article, is/are invalid… as far as climate and Earth’s surface temp is concerned.
GHE is simply a physical feature with no saying or potential versus climate or Earth’s surface temps.
cheers
The difference is the thickness in atmosphere as pressure heats gasses that are compressed. Examples that use compression to heat gases to high temperature. diesel engines, jet engine and even heat pumps.
More accurately the pressure difference in an atmosphere results in a temperature difference. The pressure difference is a more important cause of the temperature difference than the number of GHE molecules in the atmosphere.
Compression of gases produces transient one-time heating, not ongoing heating in steady-state.
Steady-state is what is relevant to determining the temperature of an atmosphere.
You are correct that it is a steady state siruation and Stephen misstates the situation by saying the pressure “heats” the gases. In the dynamic steady state of an atmosphere the pressure maintains a temperature differential causing the effective radiative surface to be above the actual surface and allowing the surface to be warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere.
It’s true that one way one can think about things is that there is an “effective radiative surface” and that the lapse rate means that the surface will be warmer than the effective radiative surface.
That doesn’t, however, mean that one can dismiss the importance of radiative gases in the atmosphere.
The effective radiative surface would always be at the actual surface, in the absence of radiative gases.
And, increasing the concentration of radiative gases will tend to raise the altitude of the effective radiative surface because it increases the LW optical opacity of the upper atmosphere.
Thinking about this …
I’m not claiming that “one can dismiss the importance of radiative gases in the atmosphere.” Still not convinced that “The effective radiative surface would always be at the actual surface, in the absence of radiative gases.”
I’m trying to visaulize the behavior of a non-radiative gas atmosphere in terms of heat flux or energy transfer. A pure nitrogen atmosphere will clearly have a steady state temperature near the surface equal to that of the solid surface but your statement implies it might be absolute zero. Some energy must be transferred to the atmosphere through conduction. The other implication is that the surface will be colder with a nitrogen atmosphere than it would be with no atmosphere. That’s definitely counter-intuitive and needs some thought for me to accept.
The effective radiative surface real ought to be in a place where radiation is possible. If there are no radiative gases, then the actual surface is the only place where radiation is possible.
Why would you think the surface temperature would be anywhere near absolute zero?
I would expect the average surface temperature to be somewhat lower than Tₑ (close if heat storage and lateral heat transfer are efficient, and further away from Tₑ if these are not efficient), which shouldn’t be anywhere near absolute zero.
Some energy must be transferred to the atmosphere through conduction.
Yes, some energy would be transferred to the air through conduction.
There would actually still be some convection. It’s just that the convection wouldn’t ultimately be delivering energy into the upper troposphere. Instead, it would be transferring heat from the surface near the equator to the surface near the poles.
This would somewhat equalize surface temperatures across latitudes. As a result, the average surface temperature would get somewhat closer to Tₑ, while still being less than Tₑ.
In steady-state, I don’t think so. Once the surface has warmed the atmosphere to its steady-state temperature, the atmosphere would no longer cool the surface.
The only effect would be that the atmosphere would transfer heat from low latitudes to high latitudes. This would reduce temperature variations, and this would, as I said, lead to a net increase in the average surface temperature. But, that increase would be limited to not raising the average temperature above Tₑ.
So, a planet with a pure nitrogen atmosphere would be somewhat warmer than a planet with no atmosphere (unless the planet with no atmosphere still managed to have ocean currents to distribute heat between latitudes).
Near absolute zero because if only GH gases can absorb the energy then the energy will escape to space without warming the atmosphere at all. But of course that doesn’t happen because of conductive contact with the surface.
A non-GH atmosphere would transfer the heat obtained through conduction to the upper atmosphere since the gas warmed at the surface rises. What in then world happens to that heat energy?? Simple answer, and you know it: it escapes into space in the form of radiation. It is simply not true that non-GH gases don’t emit radiation. They still do in a Plank’s distribution of frequencies. GH gases simply have the characteristic of absorbing and emitting energy at specific frequencies. In fact all gases have that property. So called greenhouse gases simply absorb and emit in the portions of the Plank distribution which are most predominant at the temperature of then Earth.
The incoming radiation flux does not determine the surface temperature alone. That is determined by how fast the energy can be shed back to space or the surrounding atmosphere. As your essay states, In the absence of an atmosphere that is essentially defined by S-B.
With a non-GH atmosphere (one which doesn’t absorb in any predominant portion of the Plank distribution for the temperature) all the radiative portion of the surface emission escapes to space without warming the atmosphere. But some of the surface energy goes into conductive warming of the atmosphere: Fluxin = RadiativeOut + ConductiveOut. The implication of that is that the Radiative flux (FluxIn – ConductiveOut) is less than that required for the non-atmospheric case where RadiativeOut = Fluxin. Hence the surface is cooler with the non-GH atmosphere, counterintuitive.
“Simple answer, and you know it: it escapes into space in the form of radiation. It is simply not true that non-GH gases don’t emit radiation. They still do in a Plank’s distribution of frequencies. GH gases simply have the characteristic of absorbing and emitting energy at specific frequencies.”
That is not really a good description of what is happening.
Planck’s Law gives the maximum possible radiation at any given frequency at a specified temperature. For temperatures important for earth (~ 200 – 320 K):
“(Ie N2 has no strong emission bands in the relevant IR range.)”
Why does N2 have to radiate to space at IR? Why can’t it radiate at near IR or some other frequency?
The emission/absorption of gases are changing in mixtures and due to collisions between molecules.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
https://www.nature.com/articles/2091341a0
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0025-3_16
A way nitrogen and oxygen are capable of working as “greenhouse gases”.
Even if warming of the atmosphere wouldn’t be very efficient, neither would cooling of the atmosphere be efficient. Even if it takes time, the atmosphere should equilibrate with the surface temperature
While all gases radiate, the rate at which they radiate can be vastly different. Do you know of any experimental measurements of the emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen?
I have an impression that it is negligible compared to that of GHGs.
I believe that the primary heat loss mechanism would be via atmospheric circulation bringing the air back in contact with a colder portion of the surface.
I don’t know how fast atmospheric circulation would happen, or how efficient it would be, but it would happen, and would provide cooling to offset the warming from lower latitudes.
Sure.
Um, no.
There is some coupling strength that the gas has to the black-body spectrum characteristic of a particular temperature.
That coupling strength is going to determine both the rate it which the gas can radiate to space and the rate at which it can absorb energy radiated by the surface. There is no mechanism that would allow it to preferentially cool without causing surface warming.
So, non-GHG’s will act like very weak, very ineffective GHGs. To the extent that extremely dilute GHGs could warm the surface, non-GHGs could too.
But, I suspect that, overall, both the radiative cooling and warming effects from the non-GHGs will be negligible.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10706, doi:10.1029/2012GL051409, 2012
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
M. Höpfner,1 M. Milz,2 S. Buehler,2 J. Orphal,1 and G. Stiller1
Received 20 February 2012; revised 23 April 2012; accepted 23 April 2012; published 24 May 20
Thanks. And here’s a link to that reference.
Note that, on a per molecule basis, the results of this reference indicate that N₂ and O₂ are, respectively, a factor of 3e-6 and 7e-6 less effective at absorbing/radiating LW radiation than CO₂. That’s well over a hundred thousand times less effective.
That is, of course, partially compensated for by N₂ and O₂ being so much more abundant than CO₂. Even so, the net effects of N₂ and O₂ are 0.6% and 0.4% as large as the impact of CO₂.
So, the radiative effects of N₂ and O₂ are quite a bit smaller than the effects of the so-called greenhouse gases, but they do exist, and are not entirely negligible.
“I’m trying to visaulize the behavior of a non-radiative gas atmosphere in terms of heat flux or energy transfer.”
Earth atmosphere is 99% pure in terms of non-radiative gases.
Though one could call the non-radiative gas as being radiative gases. Ozone does not absorb longwave IR but it’s called a “greenhouse gas”. Though Ozone, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon does absorb small amounts of Longwave IR. And everything in the sky absorbs some sunlight.
And there also more than millions of tons of dust in atmosphere.
Reaching absolute purity is kind of hard- especially when people don’t even bother defining things well. Even look at it much, really, such as how much salt particles are there. Oh, it’s claimed:
” According to the IPCC report, the total sea salt flux from ocean to atmosphere is ~3300 teragrams (Tg) per year.”
or 3.3 billion tonnes
Purity is difficult in this universe. But in our Ice Age we don’t much greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. But we apparently have more as compared to the colder glacial periods.
Maybe that is your answer find coldest times in recent glaciation period, globally it should have least amount non-radiatives gases, so maybe closer to 99.9% pure.
And whatever, caused it to become warmer, wasn’t related to amount greenhouse gases.
Wherever there is an atmosphere there seems to be a lapse rate. Independent of atmosphere composition.
It would therefore be surprising that the presence/absence of radiative gases has anything to do with it.
No, pressure is in a steady state (900hpa – 1050hpa) so is the heating it produces. Compression is air particles forced closer together colliding in a steady state. Fluctuations happen close to the surface but cooling with height is the adiabatic lapse rate. “air parcel changes in response to the compression or expansion associated with elevation change”
Consider the Ideal Gas Law, which says P = ρ T (R / M) (where M is the average molar weight of the gas).
It is possible for a gas at a given pressure, P, to have absolutely any temperature, T. All that needs to happen is for the density, ρ, to adjust appropriately; it automatically does exactly that.
Pressure does not determine temperature, nor does it produce heating in steady state. Pressure-related heating only happens when you change the pressure of a gas.
In the atmosphere, an equal mass of air is moving upwards and downward. The cooling and heating effects of these air movements balance so that there is not any net generation of energy. (Otherwise, you’d be postulating a magical source of energy-from-nothing.)
This establishes an adiabatic lapse rate, but does not establish any absolute temperature level. Make everything 10 degrees warmer or colder and it wouldn’t necessarily make any difference.
Isn’t gravity considered to be one of the potential sources of a perpetual motion machine?
Add stars
All of these examples involve doing work to increase pressure. It is that work which generates heat. Static pressure does not dictate temperature. Consider a pressure cylinder containing oxygen or another gas under very high pressure. Left outdoors in winter it may be very cold indeed.
It’s not a “static” system but a very dynamic one fueled by radiation from the sun. I liken it more to the operation of a refrigerator than the examples. Energy from the sun heats the ground and the lower atmosphere which carries the thermal energy to the upper atmosphere where the reduced pressure causes it to cool.
Jim,
Unless you uphold and take AGW as true, your point can’t stand as valid.
As otherwise the way of climate in this Earth of ours invalidates your point, regardless of the way that it may be massaged.
You can’t have it both ways.
cheers
No, has nothing to do with AGW. In fact most of my posts in this thread are an a attempt to show that certain physical properties of the atmosphere other than greenhouse gases could be responsible for the observed state of the Earth’s atmosphere. My post is simply to acknowledge the dynamic existence of weather (not AGW) and it’s causes.
Jim, please do consider this;
By your own means of assessment, would you or not consider yourself as a Luke warmer?
All spirit and meaning of this blog post of Bob is, and stands,
as a premise call to Lukes… like EW.
So tell me if you can,
the grounds you stand on.
Are you or not a Luke?
cheers
Depends on what you consider to be a “lukewarmer”. here’s a Q and A to myself:
Q: is the earth warming?
A: it appears so be doing so but that may be because we are in the warming phase of a natural cycle.
Q: is the warming catastrophic or apocalyptic?
A: No, it is gradual and beneficial
Q: Is CO2 influencing the temperature?
A: No evidence supports such a conclusion and observations compared to hypotheses derived from such an assumption show it to be wrong.
Q: So you deny GHE effects?
A: No. There is scientific evidence that GHE does exist. BUT: I have seen no evidence that GHE is the main controller of or even reason for the Earth’s temperature.
Q: Why do we need any explanation for the Earth’s temperature.
A: Because the temperature of the earth would be much lower than it actually is were it not for the atmosphere. There are definitely characteristics of an atmosphere that help retain heat at the Earth’s surface.
So, I ask you. Am I a “Luke”?
Let me put it straight forward.
A Luke these days consists as a very annoying “prostitute”.
Are you one or not?
Still Mann, the ugly one does not consist to be either a whore or prostitute.
It simply consist to be a pimp.
Bob is taking the approach here of a soft and sweet ‘pimp’.
Telling all ‘whores’ there to either shut up and get on with the business, or else go elsewhere and try
the luck.
It is harsh, yes, but still fair in the end of the day.
As fair as ‘death’.
cheers
Rich,
It is a relationship. The ideal gas law is PV=nRT. If the temperature goes down then PV must change also. Since you are talking about a constant volume (pressure cylinder) the pressure will decrease also.
That means the pressure is not static. If you repressurize the tank to the original “high pressure” the temperature will rise to the same temperature. If it doesn’t, you don’t have an ideal gas.
It is a good question, because even though Mars has only a small atmosphere, nonetheless, on a molecular basis (if you were to count the number of CO2 molecules present), Mars has an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules in its atmosphere, than are contained in Earth’s atmosphere.
Further the tempreture on Mars and in its atmosphere correspond far closer to the the 3 apsorption bands of the CO2 molecule, such that CO2 is a far more efective radiative gas in the conditions present in the Martian system, when compared to those existing on Earth.
If there is a GHE on Venus it operates very differently to the argued for GHE on Earth, since the Russian landers measured incoming solar irradiance at the surface of Venus, relatively near to the equator, and it was about 3 to 5 w/m2. Compare that to the solar irradiance, at noon clear sky at the equator, of Eerth which is close to about 1200 w/m2.
Solar irradiance received at the surface of Venus does not (significantly) warm the surface of Venus, because there is all but no solar irradiance reaching the surface, thus one does not get the argument that SWIR in warms the surface, and then the warmed surface reradiates LWIS out, which LWIR is then “trapped” leading to the GHE warming.
I once calculated Mars has about 4000 moles/m² of CO₂ while Earth has about 140 moles/m². (Venus has 2.3e7 moles/m² of CO₂. Earth has about 860 moles/m² of water vapor.) So, I agree with this assertion.
However, before concluding this in any way disproves the GHE, I’d want to see a calculation of the predicted warming effect of Mars’s atmosphere and compare it with observations. The math doesn’t always work out the way that people intuitively expect that it should.
Whether or not solar irradiance reaches the surface is not actually important to the GHE.
If you look at the analysis in my essay, you’ll see that it doesn’t make any assumptions at all about where external energy enters the system.
If you’ve seen explanations of the GHE that talk about sunlight being absorbed by the surface of the Earth, that’s just because it’s a simple way of trying to explain things, not because it’s actually in any way essential to the effect being discussed.
The concentration of GHGs is only one important factor. The “effective radiating height” is also important for explaining the differences between Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Consider 3 identical planets that each have an atmosphere of 99% N2, 1% CO2. But the surface pressures of the three are 100 bar, 1 bar, and 0.01 Atm. The first planet will have the highest surface temperature, because the effective radiating height is the highest; the last planet will have the lowest temperature, because the effective radiating height will be pretty close to the surface.
(And of course, the distance from the sun, concentration of CO2, and presence of other GHG’s are important.)
You do get that the first planet has 10,000 times as much CO₂ as the third? That’s likely to as important as the issue of effective radiating height. Having the same percent concentration does not make the amount of GHG present comparable.
Venus is a lot closer to the Sun, and it has an Bond albedo of about 0.75.
That means 25% of incident solar radiation does enter the atmosphere of Venus, whether or not it makes it to the surface.
And so it is heating it up.
If I am under a thick pile of blankets, and I have a heating pad under there with me, does it matter very much, if at all, if the pad is under me, or above me, or even between the bottom blanket and the one just above it?
It probably matters a little if the pad is above one of the thick stack of blankets instead of under than all, but it is still warming me up plenty, and that heat is very slow to escape through all them blankies.
“Similar amounts”? I don’t think so, Tim. The atmosphere of Venus is many times the density of Earth’s, which is many times the density of Mars’. Not to mention that Mars is more than twice as far from the Sun. Apples and Oranges, with the apples in the fridge and the oranges in the oven.
Plus the apples do not have any water vapor, I mean watermelons, in that fridge with them.
And them watermelons are yuuuuge!
See how CO2 compares to H2O:
Now, Venus is listed as having only a small fraction of the % of water vapor that Earth has.
Earth overall is listed as 0.40% H2O in the air.
Venus is listed as 0.002%
20 parts per million.
But Venus also has 150 ppm of sulfur dioxide.
And Venus’ atmosphere is something like 90 times as dense.
So that 20ppm of H2O, and 150ppm of SO2, translates into 90 times as many actual molecules in the air column on Venus as a similar concentration would have on Earth.
So I am gonna go out on a limb here and assert that 20 ppm in a column of air that is 90x as dense, provides plenty enough molecules to close off the wavelengths that H2O blocks.
And then there is a huge amount of sulfur dioxide, which probably exists as SO2 and well as the thick clouds of sulfuric acid that blanket the planet.
Between those two, could that be what closes off the rest of any possible atmospheric windows left between the CO2 and the H2O absorption bands?
What matters is the windows, to a large extent.
Does Venus have any?
What about Mars, with CO2 and little else?
Big gaps between CO2 bands are filled with by water of Earth.
Venus has about half as much water vapor as Earth, and it is likely to be very evenly distributed.
I for one am not losing any sleep over the fact that Mars is cold and Venus is hot as Hell.
No one ever proved anything by selective attention to details.
If you have to lie about the other person’s argument, then you have admitted up front that you know you can’t refute the argument.
A grand total of nobody has claimed that CO2 is the only thing that drives temperature.
Find another red herring to fry.
Two reasons. One is the distance from the sun. The other is the density of their atmospheres. If I remember correctly, the atmosphere of Venus is about 90 times the density of the Earth’s atmosphere, which would make it about 9000 times the density of the Martian atmosphere.
The author needs to go back to the Moeller paper that first proved that CO2 had warming properties. His abstract said specifically, CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas that it can only be measured in a “completely DRY atmosphere”. If there is any moisture in the atmosphere, you cannot see the effect of the CO2 at all. Moisture is the greenhouse gas that keeps the Earth habitable, and is completely beyond control of stupid humans.
Moisture cools the tropics (not people as our sweat can’t evaporate in saturated air) and warms in places in higher latitudes(where water in most prevalent, Western Europe). Water keeps the earth habitable, not air borne moisture. CO2 is 25 / 68000 joules.
That would be right, if and only if water and CO2 absorb in the same bands. But some lines of absorption of CO2 are in bands where water vapor is not active. Thus both are additive. Can be seen in the absorption bands if you double CO2:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
For the most part, there is very little energy available in the bands where CO2 absorbs and water does not.
I doubt that that is true Ferdinand at current CO2 levels, and it would be a super inexpensive experiment (on a scale of things) with which to find out the answer. So why don’t the climate crackpots do the experiment. I think I know the answer.
Two more things: First, pressure broadening works both ways. Secondly, the original ModTran paper relied on modeling to get those teeny weeny edges right (allegedly) and the authors weren’t shy about reporting this because, as above, nobody built the equipment to do the f-kin experiment, as far as I know, even since then. If I’m wrong, please someone correct me. I could build the equipment for under a $Million. I do that kinda stuff.
…. and then lastly, I want to thank the person who sent me the link to the original ModTran paper 8 or 10 years ago. It was you Ferdinand, thanks again.
Water freezes at 0°C so at higher latitudes and has no energy below -6°C. And obtain heat from conduction (tropics to mid-latitudes) prior to evaporation. Absorption bands are outside the window 8-14µm(tropics to poles). 8µm = 976 watts emitted heat, 14µm = 104 watts of heat. This window is transparent to outgoing infrared radiation. CO2 and water vapor have no absorption in this band. The 15µm CO2 band is for mesosphere climate (-80°C to -100°C) not surface climate.
isn’t there really just one small small band where CO2 absorbs and water does not? Doesn’t CO2 absorb only a few very narrow bands while the opposite is true of water?
It’s not excellent if its wrong.
So prove it wrong.
I have!. Read what I have posted and then ask questions. Start with the sun at zenith 1kw. Then every latitude from 0° to 90° substract 11.1 watts. You will find at 45° is 501 watts. Insulation 390 watts SH, 325 NH (358 watts global), less at certain time of day. How much is reflected. What is the greenhouse effect? energy retained. Answer zero.
Maybe you mean insolation?
Isn’t it the case that if there is no atmosphere, then the top of the atmosphere is at the same physical point as the surface of the planet, so naturally Ts = Tt? No heavy math required.
Sure, but the discussion was not about there being no atmosphere. It was about an atmosphere with no components that absorb or reflect LW radiation.
I’m only making one comment here, as this one will probably blow up later today – if a moderator has time, they should replace the U+209b and U+209c codes with subscript tags (i.e., Ms and Mt). These don’t show up properly on many browsers, even my fully updated Foxfire.
Sigh. Foolish software. Subscript tags work fine in the test page. Work fine when writing the comment. DON’T work when the comment is actually posted!
I don’t have a fix in mind for this one, but it really should be working for a science site.
It is WordPress. Over at Judith’s when I posted a long very mathy comment on Monckton’s ‘irreducibly simple’ equation, she got so frustrated that she added the math stuff as a separate pdf ‘image’ that WordPress could not screw up.
Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is real. But then convection and the water cycle intervene to cancel it.
Given a system variable modification (increase in C02), there is a some lag before equalization. That is the warming (or cooling …).
Whether or not it (the lag) is in any way significant has not been determined
( … through this post or otherwise).
The results of the lag are likely and reasonably described as insignificant or incidental with respect what is accepted as weather. If it wasn’t insignificant, and it caused an amplification of the subject variable, the earth climate would be very very very unstable and easily altered.
You hit on something there — adding more greenhouse gases to a sealed test tube shows an increase in temperature (when compared to a control test tube without the added GHGs).
But the earth is not a beaker or test tube. The components of the climate system work together. Our atmosphere isn’t sealed.
To experience the Greenhouse Effect, you need a greenhouse.
Exactly.
Evaporation and water vapor turn from a positive feed-back to a negative feed-back at ocean temperatures of the order of 20 C or so, and by 30 C become an absolute limiting factor to increases in ocean temperature (as has been discussed in many blogs on this site in recent days) and atmospheric temperatures.
The clearly don’t entirely cancel it, or the Earth would be 26℃ colder than it is.
Yes, the question of how much additional increases in greenhouse gases will increase temperatures is a complicated open question.
But, it would be misleading to suggest that the GHE is entirely canceled out by other processes.
The “GHE” (abiliity of certain gasses to absorb and re-emit) is not entirely canceled out by other processes.
In the subject system, adding such a small amount of certain gasses, that absorb and re-emit, will likely fall within the range of self correction, and a portion of theoretical impact is canceled out.
On Earth, the clear evidence (based on my analysis) is that at least 26℃ of warming related to GHG’s (including water) was not cancelled out.
This does not, however, offer any clear indication about the extent to which the effects of marginal increases in GHG concentrations will or won’t be cancelled out.
Personally, I think of it as being overwhelmed by other factors, rather than cancelled out.
Almost completely cancel it out.
No negative feedback can ever completely cancel out the original signal.
Take a look at open channel hydraulics as the analogy, rather than electric circuits.
The GHE is real, and vital to our survival, mostly due to good old H2O, the dominant GHG. It is not thankfully cancelled by convection. It may well be that the tiny additional GHE of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions is cancelled by emergent phenomena, but even if that is not the case, it is fairly irrelevant since it’s such a mild beneficial warming, mostly raising night-time and winter lows in higher latitudes.
if there is no temperature rise there is no intervention.
this is a discussion about the GHE being real and it does heat the atmosphere from there its about feedback positive or negative but the temperature is higher as a result of the GHE.
You need to prove that GHE is canceled by convection and the water cycle. I am of the mind they modify some of the operations, but that they can’t cancel the mathematically proven GHE.
At top of troposphere, water content is less than 10 ppm, and C02 content is 400 ppm. The higher level of CO2 at present versus 150 years ago absorbs and reradiates more heat both up and down. Stratosphere gets colder and surface gets warmer. At some wavelengths, there are many reabsorption layers between stratosphere and ground level but not so many to outer space. Net result is some warming at surface…about 1 degree per first 100 ppm of additional CO2, 1/2 degree for second hundred ppm, 1/4 degree for third hundred ppm, and so on…or some fraction or multiple of a degree per additional 100 ppm of CO2 depending on who pays your salary.
Anyway, convection and water cycle have little to do with it at those altitudes.
the hydrosphere is anything but spherical I assume; at the Poles at 100m above sea level the air is relatively H20 scarce and at the tropics the H20 extends to the top of the troposphere as you describe : the shape of the water vapour rich atmosphere is a ?prolate spheroid (not sure of exact name for that one) – as the temperature profile of a region over sea changes its water vapour profile expands and contracts as a negative feedback loop, where water vapour becomes a means of more rapid bulk transport of energy to space – is my imagined feedback loop that maintains earths biosphere, except when clouds cover and reflect energy to space for long periods making snowball earth
An excellent post. Thank you
Not really, anyone that starts by telling us he is as certain of an empirical statement as a tautology has to be suspect.
More accurately, I am as certain of the GHE as I am of the S-B Law. The relationship between these is a tautology.
I don’t get the impression there are that many of us skeptics that deny the GHE is a factor. It just seems that the relatively few that do are loud and prolific posters. And though I appreciate your effort, I doubt it will persuade your target audience. Not because you have not presented well, but simply because of the recalcitrant nature of those you are trying to persuade.
The only arguments I recall are those that try to explain that real greenhouses are not proper analogies.
Real greenhouse work by inhibiting convective cooling. The GHE works by inhibiting radiative cooling. And the major GHG is water vapor, not CO2, hence my focus in previous comments and posts on water vapor feedback
An interesting description, but there is no mechanism that “inhibits” radiative cooling analogous to a physical greenhouse. Clouds don’t suffice.
That’s what he said.
No, he said the greenhouse effect works by inhibiting radiative cooling. That is not even wrong. it works by gasses radiating energy downward. No mechanism inhibits that.
You are missing that there are two distinct perspectives for talking about radiation, both valid.
In one perspective, one looks at the energy flux associated with radiation flowing in each direction. In that framework, one might separately measure “upwelling LW radiation” and “downwelling LW radiation.” Within that perspective, it’s noted that GHGs increase the amount of downwelling LW radiation.
In another perspective, one looks at the “radiative heat transfer”, which is the net energy transfer one computes when subtracting the flows in the two directions. Within this perspective, it’s noted that GHGs decrease the net radiative heat transfer rate from the surface to the atmosphere.
The reduction in the rate of radiative heat transfer is what is meant by saying that GHGs “inhibit radiative cooling.”
Both descriptions are entirely valid. The description in terms of “downwelling radiation” tends to elicit resistance from some people, while people tend to not “get” the description in terms of reduced “radiative heat transfer.”
It’s an uphill slog, either way, to get to a point of people understanding each other.
Shouldn’t the TOA radiation actually be higher than the Surface radiation, because a great deal of Surface Heat energy is removed from the surface by other means than radiation?
When energy gets in to the troposphere the only way to space is Radiation, but that is not how it gets there in the first place.
Surface radiation needs to be higher than TOA radiation because the surface is, on average, the hottest part of the system and radiation is emitted in proportion to T⁴.
Measurements confirm that surface radiation is higher than TOA radiation.
* * *
It helps to distinguish between radiation and radiative heat transfer.
Your argument is correct, with respect to radiative heat transfer. The radiative heat transfer away from the surface is less than the radiative energy transfer to space at TOA.
However, radiative heat transfer is the net effect after you subtract downwelling LW radiation from upwelling LW radiation.
So, it’s entirely consistent that radiative heat transfer from the surface is less than at TOA, but upwelling radiation flux is greater than at TOA.
“Surface radiation needs to be higher than TOA radiation because the surface is, on average, the hottest part of the system and radiation is emitted in proportion to T⁴.”
Please expand your system to be 30 miles above ‘TOA’ and restate ….
I’m afraid I’m not following what you’re talking about.
My understanding is that TOA (top-of-atmosphere) refers to what is seen at an altitude high enough that going higher results in to additional significant changes in the measured upwelling radiation.
If that interpretation of the term is correct, then going “30 miles above ‘TOA’” would make no difference.
Am I missing something?
Same radiation … yes.
You have two variables that you are using to make your point.
I’m afraid I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.
If the system extends to 130 km, then where is the hottest part of the system?
“Surface radiation needs to be higher than TOA radiation because the surface is, on average, the hottest part of the system and radiation is emitted in proportion to T⁴.”
I guess I should have clarified that radiation emitted is also proportional to density. The surface is the warmest part of the system where there is a high enough density to matter.
While the temperature is high in the thermosphere, it’s utterly irrelevant to the Earth’s thermodynamics. There isn’t enough gas there to matter.
I still can keep up with the logic in the above quote. Regardless of the density of the gasses.
Can we say that “the radiation at bottom of the Mesophere needs to be lower than the radiation at the top of the Mesopherre because the bottom is, on average, hotter”?
No. But we can say that “the radiation flux at the bottom of the Mesophere needs to be higher than the radiation flux at the top of the Mesopherr because the bottom is, on average, both hotter and denser”?
so, not just Temp and Radiation flux … a third parameter of density.
If colder but denser (stratosphere variation) can the radiation flux comparison with temperature be stated in a manner that means anything?
And with relatively constant temp across the Stratopause; radiation flux at the bottom of the Stratopause “needs” to be (lower?) than the radiation flux at the top of the Stratopause because …
??temperature is the same and the density varies??
For any complicated situation, one needs to sit down and do the math, instead of making generalized arguments.
“Colder and denser” is that sort of “complicated situation.”
Even figuring out radiation fluxes within the Stratopause isn’t simple. It’s not just about what’s going on inside the Stratopause, it’s also about what is going on above and below. Air below is warmer and denser. Air above is warmer and less dense. Is the Stratopause thick enough to be optically dense, or is it nearly transparent? All those details are likely to matter.
Your statement:
“Surface radiation needs to be higher than TOA radiation because the surface is, on average, the hottest part of the system and radiation is emitted in proportion to T⁴.”
After a lot of back and forth crap (mostly mine …), we get to the following:
“For any complicated situation, one needs to sit down and do the math, instead of making generalized arguments.”
Your initial statement is a generalized argument. I didn’t see any math or discussion that shows which variables are reasonably neglected.
True. My original statement did, however, relate to a less complicated comparison than the ones that subsequently entered this discussion.
I was holding the math in my head, and thinking about what could be asserted with some degree of safety.
There’s always a dilemma:
So, it can be challenging to find a way to connect and have a quality discussion about how things work.
* * *
If you’re interested, here is a bit of mathematical unpacking of the argument I was making…
Surface radiation is emitted at a rate 𝜀σT⁴.
Atmospheric radiation is emitted as 𝜀ₓρH⋅σT⁴ where ρ is density, H is the thickness of a horizontal layer of the atmosphere, and 𝜀ₓ is emissivity relative to gas mass per unit area.
So, it’s a little tricky to make a direct comparison between surface and atmospheric emissions. However, the temperature of the surface is higher, and 𝜀ₓρH is generally smaller than 𝜀 for the surface, even for fairly substantial layer thicknesses H. So, surface emissions are likely to be higher than for any layer of the atmosphere.
It is easier to compare gas radiant emissions low in the atmosphere and high in the atmosphere. In that case, wherever 𝜀ₓ⋅ρ⋅T⁴ is higher, spontaneous emissions will be higher. Each of these factors is higher low in the troposphere than high in the troposphere. (𝜀ₓ will be higher where the mixing ratio of water vapor to air is higher, and mixing ratio can be higher where temperature is higher.) So, all factors line up to ensure that atmospheric radiant emissions will be higher lower in the troposphere.
This discussion, however, leaves out a few effects.
The big thing it leaves out is that the total radiant flux in any portion of the atmosphere is a function of both what is being emitted locally, and what has gotten there from other altitudes without having been absorbed. I don’t currently have a hand-waving argument to make that I trust would tell us what that total radiant flux is at different altitudes. (I might or might not be able to come up with such an argument with further thought.)
Low in the atmosphere, I’m pretty sure it works out that total radiant flux decreases as one ascends, just as spontaneous emission decreases (though I’d be more confident if I worked through more math). Up in the tropopause, there are higher temperatures in both directions, and increasing ozone concentrations above, but decreasing atmospheric density, and all that renders me less certain about how the total fluxes are likely to vary.
Another thing the above discussion omits is stimulated emission (as opposed to spontaneous emission). I think that stimulated emission is usually a lesser effect, but I haven’t done specific calculations to back up that idea.
A slight clarification: the formula 𝜀ₓρH for emissivity of a gas layer is valid only for thin gas layers, where 𝜀ₓρH is much less than 1. As the layer thickness increases, this linear relationship breaks down, as total emissivity will remain less than 1. Also, while one could express emissivity relative to density, gas emissivities are more typically expressed relative to pressure, at a specified temperature.
Even for a thick layer of atmosphere, the net emissivity will remain considerably less than 1 because the mixed gases cannot emit at all wavelengths.
So, in comparing emissions from a warm surface (with emissivity usually well in excess of 0.85) to spontaneous emissions from a cooler atmosphere, the emissions from the surface will always be larger.
The author is the recalcitrant one with his ignorant and condescending remarks about flat earthers and math deniers. Typical ignorant rant by someone who knows far less than he claims to know.
I ignored everything else he wrote after that. I do not deny that a “greenhouse gas effect” exists. Like most global warmist critics, I reject the notion that CO2 at only 0.04% of our atmosphere serves as the sole or even a significant “thermostat” on the Earth’s climate. Water vapor is far more “controlling”, and even that is just one of many factors, not just in the world of astrophysics, but in geology, biology, oceanography, geochemistry, and numerous other fields of expertise.
I absolutely deny that CO2 is the world’s thermostat, and I absolutely condemn all who pretend to know all that is knowable to understand climate changes and who condescendingly refer to everyone else as flat earthers and math deniers.
I think the world is full of math deniers. They are called environmental activists and climate activists. They don’t believe the math regarding what it takes to make their fantasies into reality.
You have to be willfully ignorant to believe it’s possible to remove fossil fuels from our energy sources by 2030, or 2050, for that matter. I suppose it could be done if we substantially lowered our standard of living.
Of course, the activists don’t see themselves lowering the quality of their lives. They believe they are among the elites — and the elites don’t make sacrifices or compromises — only use proles do.
Translation: I know I can’t refute anything the author wrote, so I’ll pretend to be offended by some offhand comment so that I can claim moral authority.
PS: A grand total of nobody here has made the claim that CO2 is the earth’s thermostat. The fact that you have to lie about what the author wrote is further evidence that even you know you can’t refute his actual arguments.
It’s a shame that you got offended and ignored the rest of the post. It seems that had you continued, you would have discovered that you agree with the author.
Do yourself a favour and try to read it all.
“Dr.” Wentworth appears to be one of those who knows a great deal about the least important aspects of the “climate change” controversy and little, if anything, about the important things. Academia is filled with such people. If this could have been solved by a “mathematical proof” of the greenhouse gas conjecture, it would have been solved a century ago by far smarter PhDs than him … and we wouldn’t have squandered trillions of dollars and years of wasted time and effort chasing unicorns.
I like to focus on getting the foundations right.
If people can’t agree about basic physics, their subsequent reasoning is likely to be flawed.
I see little point in talking about complicated issues when people are getting the simple building blocks wrong.
There you go again, assuming you know something not in evidence. You’ve arbitrarily decided that “the GHE” is the foundation. Reading hundreds of opinions offered over the past few days, it seems that what the “foundations” are is very much in doubt. Assuming that “the basic physics” of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is in some way pivotal to deciding the most important aspects of this debate is so overly simplistic it boggles the mind.
Even if you prove the GHE absolutely, what have you proved when not one model relying on this narrow view has shown any predictive skill? Every scary prediction supported by a myopic over emphasis on the GHE has been wrong. Clearly there’s more complexity here than your hubris seems to recognize. Perhaps the GHE isn’t what we should be looking at … yet it’s the ONLY “science” underpinning the alarmists fatuous “consensus”.
You seem oblivious to the parable of the 6 blind men describing the elephant.
You’re misinterpreting what I’ve said. In no way have I said, nor do I believe, that the GHE is THE foundation.
However, the physics that underlies the GHE is a portion of the physics that is available to determine climate.
It’s very difficult to have a reasoned deliberation about what is or is not important in determining climate when a vocal minority keeps loudly proclaiming that part of the physics is wrong, when it’s not.
What are the basic physical mechanisms affecting heat flow in the climate?
I consider every one of these to be part of the “foundation” of what affects climate.
The ONLY reason I often focus on #2 is because people so routinely say things about it that are not true, and which I have the background to talk about.
If people routinely said false things about another foundational component, and I had the background to talk about it, I would talk about that as well.
If people are believing false things about any of the key ingredients of a puzzle, they are likely to reach incorrect conclusions.
It’s not that I’m inherently focused on one piece of the puzzle.
I’m focused on places where I can see that people are “getting it wrong” with regard to physics, which is an area where I have some formal training.
Beliefs about the GHE are simply an example of a place where some people (not everyone) seem to get aspects of physics wrong in significant ways.
Since you essay was only about the GHE and was in considerable detail, it would seem apparent that you consider it a primary component of the”foundation”, if not fundamental to the AGW conjecture.
Gosh, no kidding. Surely this revelation wasn’t only available to you. Others have been publishing precisely the same discussions for years and still the “consensus” true believers have got it completely wrong … book, chapter and verse. Why would you believe your contribution would be needed?
It may not be wrong, but it very well might be utterly irrelevant. It might also constitute a straw man, like your statement here.
Dear gawd, you can’t really believe all those points constitute the “foundation”. You’ve included virtually everything in your list. There’s nothing left to make the structure. Point #1, insolation would seem to be the best choice as a foundation. You must have read at least a few people saying : “It’s the Sun”.
The problem is; there seem to be a very large number of people with equal if not a superior background who see it differently. Your “proof” is for a hypothetical concept erroneously called the GHE applied hypothetically to a simplistic model of our planet’s inconceivably complex weather systems. That’s called hubris. There are thousands of people at this site with the background to talk about it, and they aren’t all on the same page.
The thing about compelling “scientific” arguments is: if they agree with observations and they don’t result in accurate predictions, they’re wrong h/t Richard Feynman.
Had you ever thought that you might be in the right church but are sitting in the wrong pew? Had you ever considered that people appear to be “getting the physics wrong” because those supporting your view have asked the wrong questions about the wrong things? You’re among, possibly, the most concentrated collection of experts in this field, anywhere on the planet.
Maybe it could turn out to be irrelevant. But, it would be useful to discern if it is right or wrong, irrelevant or relevant. I believe that a lack of understanding about whether it is right or wrong gets in the way of making a correctly reasoned discernment about relevance.
I believe that if you exclude any of those you’ll get the wrong answer, with regard to details of climate.
I believe in applying both reductionism and synthesis, as appropriation.
Reductionism in this sense means that I think it is important to get each building block right.
Synthesis means that I think it’s important to carefully put all the pieces together in a discerning way.
That may not be your approach, but it’s my approach.
So, yes, to me all those pieces are foundational.
Here you are objecting to my wanting a complex, nuanced understanding, and then a few sentences later you’re calling my analysis “simplistic.”
You’re really going to promote the argument that “the majority must be right”—on a climate skeptic website???
My understanding of some issues might be in the minority on this website, but that “large number of people” you are saying “must be right” are a small minority in the global world of science.
You are applying a double-standard if in one case you think the minority must be wrong and in the other case you think the minority must be right.
As far as “equal if not superior background”, I’m curious what evidence you have for this? What fraction of the people involved in the discussions on this website have advanced degrees in physics with a specialty in electromagnetic radiation? Or, if self-taught, have studied physics in a fully integrated way?
I agree that some people on this website know a lot.
But, it’s not clear that they know so much that I should bow down in deference and toss out everything that I learned in graduate school.
This is an instance where the distinction between simple and simplistic is important.
“Simplistic” means one has left out many important details in a way that makes it likely that the results won’t match reality.
“Simple” means it doesn’t take that much to express the argument. It does NOT necessarily mean that there is any doubt about it reflecting an aspect of reality.
There are simple things that one can say which are true about very complex systems, without requiring examining the details of those complex systems:
For example, one can say:
These are things one can conclude independent of the details of the complex system.
I presented a conclusion that applies independent of all the complex details that apply within the weather/climate system.
That’s true. But, not relevant to the current discussion.
You’re arguing that the results of complex climate models have been shown to be observationally wrong. Even if one accepts that conclusion, that is irrelevant to whether or not the particular claims I have made are true.
If you think it’s relevant, then you are lumping dissimilar things together and engaging in black-and-white thinking.
I want to judge each argument on its merits (at the level of both logic and evidence). To me, lumping things together constitutes sloppy logic and is likely to lead to untrustworthy conclusions.
I’m open to learning. But, I’m not going to just role over and accept things that don’t make sense and which contradict the foundations of physics without setting a fairly high bar for evidence.
I’m impressed by the level of knowledge that many people on this website have.
But, I’m concerned that much of that “knowledge” may be filtered through a lens of motivated reasoning.
There are some gems among what is shared.
But, there are also many things said that sound smart and evidence-based and which turn out to be misunderstandings and nonsense when you examine them closely.
My intention is not to prejudge anything. But, neither will I accept surprising claims uncritically.
Why would you want anything different in a community of “skeptics”?
Duane: I suspect Dr Bob Wentworth arrived here with the cliche that the whole place was full of ignorant deniers and wanted to ‘straighten the place out!’. I suspect he will have learnt more from writing here than many of the knowledgeable posters would have gained from his article.
There should be more like him, maybe some would realise that ‘deniers’ are not all ignorant bores.
My post was not motivated by any preconceptions, but by specific experiences I’ve been having with people in the comment threads of this website.
I am making no claims whatsoever about “most” climate skeptics.
My post was in response to a specific vocal minority.
* * *
I do learn from responses. Ideally, it is a mutual learning process.
Duane
“I reject the notion that CO2 at only 0.04% of our atmosphere serves as the sole or even a significant “thermostat” on the Earth’s climate.”
–
“I do not deny that a “greenhouse gas effect” exists”
–
You have to make up your mind.
But.
You have made up your mind.
–
The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C (-44 °F)[15] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F).
–
In the absence of other greenhouse gases, Earth’s water vapor would condense to the surface.
–
CO2 is the second most prolific GHG.
–
Therefore CO2 is a thermostat of significance
–
Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. NASA.
– Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’s surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.
–
How hot can it get!
–
I know many veteran climate scientists and do not recall any of them denying the existence of the green house effect (GHE) – accordingly this paper is a bit of a “red herring”.
Earth’s temperature is warmed and moderated by the GHE. The primary greenhouse gas (GHG) is water vapour; atmospheric CO2 is a bit player – NOT significant – NOT a primary GHG and NOT a significant driver of global warming.
The following is the cutting edge of the science:
The huge decline in fossil fuel consumption during the Covid-19 lockdown had NO impact on atmospheric CO2 increase – more evidence that Ed Berry’s latest book and paper are correct – see below.
My friend Ed says the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not man-made. The smartest people I know think he is correct.
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae, 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion.
Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored.
Think about that: Kuo was correct in 1990, and for 31 years climate science has ignored that conclusion and has been going backwards!
Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is a fiction – so small, if it exists at all, it is practically irrelevant.
“The future cannot cause the past.” Here is the proof, from my 2008 paper:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
In the modern data record, the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months. This is an absolute disproof of the CAGW hypothesis, which states that increasing CO2 drives temperature. “The future cannot cause the past.”
In my 2019 paper below, I explained why the lag is ~9 months – it is basic calculus, the 90 degree (1/4 cycle) lag of the derivative and its integral, which is the ~3 year ENSO period.
My 2008 paper remains very important. My 2008 conclusion was independently duplicated and expanded by Humlum et al in 2013, for which I am grateful.
My 2008 paper has been cited by Ed Berry in his 2020-21 book and related paper, which is at the cutting edge of climate science.
“CLIMATE MIRACLE: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – NATURE CONTROLS CLIMATE”
https://amazon.ca/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls-ebook/dp/B08LCD1YC3/
“CARBON CYCLE MODEL SHOWS NATURE CONTROLS CO2 LEVEL”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
All warmists and most skeptics argue about the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2, and whether the resulting CO2-driven global warming will be hot and dangerous or warm and beneficial. Both groups are probably wrong, because global cooling is happening now, even as CO2 concentration increases.
There is a high probability that the mainstream debate is wrong – a waste of decades of vital time, tens of trillions of dollars of green energy nonsense and millions of lives. Vital energy systems have been compromised, damaged with intermittent, unreliable wind and solar generation – a debacle.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple. The green sabotage of our vital energy systems, whether innocent or deliberate, has cost lives and could cost very many more.
Scientific details here:
“CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Repeating, “The future cannot cause the past.”
Regards, Allan
I don’t see where the author or I referred only to “scientists”.
rah – I am not disagreeing with you.
I don’t really care about the opinions of non-scientists, most of whom have not spent 10 minutes studying the subject, but still have an “opinion”,
I’ve been reading and posting on this blog for well over a decade. Kiss My ASS!
rah – re-read what I wrote. Repeating, I am NOT disagreeing with you I cannot apologize because I was not referring to you. Your ass remains un-kissed..
My essay was a response to remarks that I have frequently seen in the comment threads on WattsUpWithThat, denying the existence of the GHE.
I get that not all AGW skeptics deny the GHE.
It was simply addressing the subset of commentators who do deny the GHE.
OK – thank you Bob.
You also address any who think mechanisms other than GHE might be important as well.
Well, I address those who think that the GHE is not important to the final 26 degrees of warming in Earth’s temperature.
I do not say, or mean, that other effects aren’t important in affecting Earth’s specific temperature profile.
All my essay establishes is that the GHE is an essential aspect of determining the global average temperature.
Of course other effects also very much matter.
Allan, Dr Berry is simply completely wrong, as I have discussed with him on his blog to no avail…
He made one fundamental error: he used the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere in reverse direction, which you may do, if and only if, all CO2 fluxes are unidirectional from source to sink. Not if most CO2 fluxes are seasonal and reverse halfway a year and sinks (oceans and vegetation) get sources and reverse…
Which makes the rest of his calculations and reasoning completely worthless…
Hi Ferdinand,
I hope you and yours are well.I am very familiar with your argument, having read it for over a decade. We must agree to respectfully disagree.
I think Ed Berry is essentially correct. So do some of the very best minds on the planet.
To be clear, it is a highly esoteric point, which is not needed to dismiss the fraud of catastrophic human-made global warming.
The simple truth is that increasing atmospheric CO2, whatever the cause, is highly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) is a 50-year-old fraud, a lie from the very start, and the leading proponents knew that from the outset.
Regards, Allan
More here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/03/the-guardian-climate-tipping-points-could-topple-like-dominoes/#comment-3261402
Apart from anything else and regardless of one’s science/math prowess, that is as close to gospel as anything can be. After close to 40 years trying to make sense of this goat rodeo, looking at ALL the arguments and science (especially the geologic record) I have concluded thatno other conclusion is possible. It has been a massive experiment in social engineering and with what they have learned from their apparent success of the AGW fraud, they’re using the Covid “pandemic” as a further link in the chain locking in absolute social control.
Thank you Rory – you are correct.
To your earlier point;
Had this been recognized and acted upon 50 years ago, Marxists like Maurice Strong and all the other loonies who drafted Agenda 21 and set about with their determination to slash population growth, would have had no basis for their “altruism”. The vast sums squandered on global cooling/AGW/climate change could have been used to supply(the above) where it was needed. Affluent, healthy people with light and heat have fewer children.
Just the modest new affluence in China has reduced their population prospects to below replacement. The new policy of three children still won’t stop their shrinking population.
This huge decline in fossil fuel usage was less than 25% and only lasted for about a month. Fossil fuel usage quickly returned to near normal levels.
Mark – no
Allan, man made CO2 emissions are about 4.5 ppmv/year, of which about half is absorbed by vegetation and oceans. Or 2.25 ppmv/year remaining in the atmosphere (as mass, not the original molecules).
That means that the monthly measurements are around the detection limit of the CO2 measurements (0.2 ppmv) and a 25% reduction is simply undetectable in one month.
Only after a full year or even years of a sustained drop in emissions, the difference would be detectable in the huge seasonal and year by year natural variability…
Here is my point:
Over much of the world, the Covid-19 lockdowns are still in effect, now for ~15-16 months or more.
And yet there was no detectible impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the 2020-2021 lockdown of the entire global economy.
Does anyone really believe that we can do substantially more than this full lockdown to cut emissions, to “Save the Planet” from increasing CO2?
Based on this full-scale global test, anyone who still believes we can significantly impact atmospheric CO2 concentrations is utterly delusional.
Look at the big picture – shutting down the entire global economy for more than one year did nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations – and yet some say it can be done with little or no pain? Delusional nonsense!
Here:
is someone who thinks the global economy will be ‘shut down’ {and with ‘a lot of pain’}?
‘We’ have ten years?
“ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
33:33 per barrel available for the global
33:36 economy was about eight percent
33:38 and that in over the next few years it
33:42 will go down to zero percent
33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
33:46 actually the
33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
33:56 but there are ways and means of
33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
34:00 here on our diagram
34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
34:05 around 2030 . . .
we
34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
34:46 down to zero
34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
34:50 collapse of the oil industry
34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
Thank you Allan for a clear and cogent analysis of everything WRONG about CO2 as anything but a minuscule part of the GHE on Planet Earth. Ninety Nine Percent of the GHG on Earth is WATER VAPOR by Volume or by Percent! Virtually ALL of the atmospheric Energy Reflection is due to WATER VAPOR in all 3 States!
Allan
“The huge decline in fossil fuel consumption during the Covid-19 lockdown had NO impact on atmospheric CO2 increase”
You are looking at the CO2 value only at the bottom of the atmospheric column, most likely Mauna Loa, and it appears that your view of the atmosphere is that it is a closed system. No one has adequately measured the CO2 volume loss at the top of the atmosphere.
The study below indicates that CO2 at the top of the atmosphere is increasing at a faster rate than at surface level. There is only one source of CO2 – the surface. That’s why 2020 values did not reduce at the surface.
Regards
http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/10.10022F2016JA023825.pdf
Those that dispute the GHE know incoming energy is greater than outgoing energy.
And how does that counter the possibility of some of that outgoing energy being reflected or absorbed and retained for a time in the atmosphere?
Out of 501 received, 143 is reflected, 98 (pressure) + 260 absorbed. NH 176 is reflected, 98 (pressure) 227 absorbed. SH 111 is reflected, 98 (pressure), 292 is absorbed. Average 240 insulation + 98 (pressure) 338 watts. 20 less than 358 w-m² daytime average.
There is another method of energy transfer in an atmosphere than GHE absorbtion and emission, convection.
Jim, that is true, and it moves heat around within the atmosphere. But it cannot remove heat from the atmosphere. Only IR radiation to ‘cold’ space can do that.
Of course only radiation can remove the heat. I don’t claim otherwise. All I claim is that the surface temperature is NOT dependant only upon radiation loss since the energy at the surface is moved from the surface to the upper atmosphere by conduction and convection, not strictly by radiation.
The radiative heat loss occurs throughout the atmosphere with the “effective” surface some distance above the surface resulting in a warmer surface. I claim this is more due to the convective current transfer than to internal radiative exchanges of greenhouse gases.
There is a window between 8-14 µm where absorption doesn’t occur, transparent to earth’s infrared radiation. Water, land and gases in the stratosphere are heated by the sun. 5.5 x 10^21 insolates 71% of the solar energy where greenhouse gases contribute 2%.Clouds (form of water) absorb the earth infrared radiation at high altitudes.
And that somehow disproves the GHE?
That’s actually concrete evidence that the climate is not in steady-state, but is instead warming.
If “incoming energy is greater than outgoing energy” then if follows, logically, that the “internal energy” of the planet is increasing, and when internal energy increases, temperature increases (though things like ice melting can delay a temperature increase).
Feb-Aug yes, Aug – Feb no. Earth already at 338 watts(98(pressure)+240(Insulation)) and 501 comes in. What’s reflected, what’s recycled. 240(insulation)+98(pressure)+20(days heat),143(reflected). Snow, ice, clouds, ocean changes alters imbalance in a noticeable way.
I monitor the global climate and it is in a steady state, this year was cooler than last year. Sea ice is greater than last year. So you are wrong to say climate is warming. Seasonal change makes this period a warming one. If 667 watts of incoming sunlight strikes the earth, while at the same time surface is emitting 394 watts (394 watts of incoming energy won’t add heat to surface (like a ice cube won’t add heat to water) meaning 273 watts comes in and goes out. Now 10° S latitude sun is more intense and day is longer. At 778 (+111), surface is emitting 443(+49), same thing, first 443 of 778 won’t add heat, so 335 comes in and goes out as the next day surface still emitting 443. or slightly more if day is getting longer and sun is emitting a extra watt to 779 watts. Sorry if this seems condescending but its the way I’m able to explain this.
I don’t have much hope that the sort of analysis you’re doing looking at short periods of time, and particular regions of the globe, apparently without examining the big picture, is likely to lead to anything but confusion.
I didn’t say “climate is warming.” I said that, if the NASA data purporting to show 0.6 W/m² excess of “energy in” over “energy out” over a 10-year period is accurate, then that would be evidence of the planet warming.
I can’t imagine how you quoting figures for a particular year or season or part of the Earth could address that issue.
Physically impossible. If incoming energy was greater than outgoing energy, the earth would be heating up constantly.
NASA data does allege a 0.6 W/m² net imbalance (indicating net heating) over a decade of data. (How much rise in temperature this corresponds to is impossible to determine, without assessing how much ice is melting, and what the overall heat capacity of the system is.)
That amounts to 0.044% of the energy received at the top of the atmosphere, ~0.06% at the planet surface for the disc of the planet facing the sun.
At what level would you accept Total Solar Irradience to change over 100 years? Over timeframes involving RWP, MWP, LIA and other significant climate “dates” until today?
Would you accept an “insignificant” increase of 1% since LIA? 0.1%?
Oddgeir
One thing that’s interesting to me is the total energy involved in the measured imbalance. If my calculations are correct, 0.6 W/m² over 10 years is 1.9e8 Joules/m². If I’m calculating correctly, that’s enough to melt 0.6 m of ice, or to warm the top 45 m of the ocean by 1℃.
I suspect it may be misleading to compare the imbalance of (energy in minus energy out) to changes in the rate of energy in. The rate at which the system comes into equilibrium somehow affects the relationship between the two, so that they are not directly comparable. In general, it’s possible that a large change in total energy input might result in a much smaller energy imbalance observed at TOA.
(Though, I suppose the longer it takes the system to come into equilibrium, the more comparable the two might be?)
I imagine you’re trying to put this energy imbalance into a larger context, comparing it to changes in energy input that have occurred over historical periods?
If so, that’s not an unreasonable thing to think about.
I don’t yet have any particularly useful thoughts on the subject.
Lets go through the math.
Ocean Area -> 3.60 x10^11 sq meters -> Wikipedia
Ocean Volume -> (3.60×10^11 m^2)(1 m) = 3.60×10^11 m^3)
Ocean Density -> 1.024×10^6 g/ cubic meter -> Wikipedia
Ocean Mass
(3.60×10^11m^3))(1.024×10^6g/m^3) -> 9.2×10^16g
Ocean Specific Heat -> 4 J/gK
Q = mcΔT
ΔT = Q/mc
ΔT = (1.9×10^8)/(4)(9.2×10^16) = 1.3×10^-10 K
If you were tracking units, you would see that your result for ΔT doesn’t have units of Kelvins, but of K/m².
I supplied the number of Joules per m², but you applied this to the entire ocean, rather than applying it to a square meter of ocean.
You need to either do everything on a per square meter basis or on a whole ocean basis. Mixing the two leads to nonsense.
Otherwise, my numbers match yours.
Tracking area correctly, one finds that an energy imbalance of 1.9×10^8 J/m² leads to an ocean temperature increase of 45 m⋅K. In other words, it could warm 1 meter of the ocean’s surface by 45 K, or 45 meters of the ocean’s surface by 1 K.
Huh? Try again, in English. Or was it a ‘joke’?
I agree with rah. This site has many excellent scientists discussing relevant details of GHG models. I think we all understand that a planetary body must warm up to re-radiate all the solar energy that it receives. Perhaps, Bob Wentworth, you saw the excellent video, now many years old, in which Anthony Watts debunks a Bill Nye video which claimed to “prove” the Greenhouse Effect? Anthony showed that the video was in fact was mocked-up and thus irreproducible? That sort of GHE tomfoolery from Bill Nye simply degrades the reputation of science. [ Some have pointed out, as well, that greenhouses are not primarily warmed by the “Greenhouse effect” although the GHE is present (glass transmits visible light better than thermal radiation). But this is a red-herring: those making that statement are not denying that the planets (which are immersed in the vacuum of space) are governed by the GHE.
Sites like WUWT are not primarily about the GHE, but rather about compounding effects such as:
Observations also indicate that the Earth’s temperature seems to vary naturally, with Ice Ages and Little Ice Ages occurring in the absence of human industry. This suggests that there may be other forces than CO2 at work ??
So the value of this site is that it challenges the hegemony of the death-by-Carbon narrative, asking difficult questions such as “wouldn’t it be ironic if we undermined civilization with drastic carbon interventions, and it had no impact on the climate?”
“Recalcitrant?” Try mulish, thickheaded, contrary, blind, foolish, vain, etc.
Not a mathemagician myself, I do know GHE is real and works otherwise this would be a barren rock twirling through space. I do not accept that humans are causing the climate to change. Why? Because the climate has always changed and will continue to change, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Does not take math to see we are all being lied to by a pack of scumbags pushing their leftist political agenda. I will reserve the use of math for useful things, such as construction and ballistics, winning bets about the correct dimensions of the gorgeous female carrying that tray of beer mugs. Ya know? Important, day to day stuff.
The climate has certainly always changed.
so why can it not ALSO change when a new, additional factor arrives? One which involves a proven agent of temperature change and thus climate change?
I laugh every time I see ‘the climate is always changing’ because sure it is and now there’s a new reason why it is changing right now!
What “additional factor” are you referring to?
The climate is changing right now! It must be stopped at any cost.
That’s the delusion, we have a fingerprint control. Only where we put temperature measurements and how we calculate them do we create this illusion.
Is it because the “Ice Age Cometh” prediction that climate scientists predicted in the 1970s didn’t work out?
Does spitting in the ocean make it wetter? Of course, but I don’t think anyone will notice.
Human CO2 contributions to the atmosphere are just spit in the ocean.
What an idiot. You still haven’t shown your evidence after being asked 100-ish times. That’s because you know there isn’t any.
Even people coming to this site for the first time can see what an idiot you are by your no-shows. You are so f-kin useless, I still think you could be a false flag.
Griff doesn’t know exactly because he’s an idiot. He can’t show proof because he’s to ignorant and stupid to be able to put together an argument. But he has faith, he’s a believer
Griff is paid to toss his drive by nonsense
Ban fossil fuel for all but the Faceless Cultural Elite. No wait Griff. Ban the rich and famous as well. If you could but they won’t alter their lifestyle for you. The climate will still change due to natural variability and you need to fear the next cooling event far more than the incremental warming we are enjoying today.
What you wish to believe and fail to sell the rest of us on, because you can’t prove it, is that doubling or even raising CO2 by an order of magnitude will result in a catastrophic event in the next 12 to 100 years (minus the years that have past since the alarmists started the doomsday clock ticking). You are like petulant children demanding that Uncle Sugar remove the monsters in the closet by shutting off the air conditioning in your house in hot and humid Mid-Atlantic/mid July
Bottom line: if you can’t control natural variability, which is just as likely to throw us into a rapid ice age, it is foolish to degrade our quality of life by restricting fossil fuel usage and banning nuclear power generation on the unproven and highly unlikely hypothesis that man can exercise enough power and authority over the planet to control its climate. Which, by the way, has not changed perceptively since the UN chartered the IPCC to find an adverse link between man and the climate. Our CO2 contribution just might have an offsetting affect against the next cooling cycle.
I send this challenge out to you and every person on this board around the world. Explain how the climate, where you live, is appreciably less tolerable, temperature wise, since the IPCC’s inception in 1988. Personally, If I go back to the 1970s with bitter cold and snowy winters and hot and humid summers. I pick 2021s climate without exception. Aside from all this hyperbolic fearmongering from the ruling class and the media handwringers who carry their water.
When the climatistas actually give up all fossil fuel use and stop purchasing anything made with or with the help of fossil fuel- I’ll START to believe they MAY have something relevant to say. If they really think there is a climate disaster about to happen- they would sacrifice all fossil fuels use- do like St. Francis, actually walk the talk.
Somebody in the fossil fuel industry is starting to fight back.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/oil-gas-north-face-billboard-campaign
I laugh every time I see one of your inane posts..
How is the current change in the climate any different than past climate changes?
Again, for the intentionally stupid and obtuse, the climate changes, it always has and it always will, humans are not causing it and can not stop it.
“Again, for the intentionally stupid and obtuse, the climate changes, it always has and it always will, humans are not causing it and can not stop it.”
That argument is so worthless. Like a doctor saying to a patient “people die all the time so don’t worry about cutting back on smoking 60 a day.”
The climate changed before people existed so how do you explain that.
” June 4, 2021 1:45 pm
The climate changed before people existed so how do you explain that.”
Ummm, is that a serious question? OK climate 101. Climate changes when it is forced. Any number of things can cause a change in climate. Sun dimming, volcanoes erupting, the Milankovitch cycle. And…. increasing greenhouse gases.
OMG, that moronic analogy again. Give it up Simon. Show some scientific data, not juvenile crap.
For a start, show us, with the math(s) how humans are going to change the climate. You won’t even start the project because you know what a moron you will look like on here if you even get 1% into it.
Name calling. Hmmm.
Well, it didn’t surprise me that I won that argument in a few sentences.
No, Simple Minded, this is name calling, you juvenile twit.
Retreat! Retreat!
(What kind of being(s) can alter the climate of a planet … Thanos and other Gods. What kind of a person feels that they need to elevate themselves to that level by believing in AGW?)
DonM: “What kind of being(s) can alter the climate of a planet … Thanos and other Gods. What kind of a person feels that they need to elevate themselves to that level by believing in AGW?”
Just spitballing here, but maybe those who got beat up every day and their lunch money stolen?
Simon, how is the climate changing today that has you so concerned?
Not an argument, just the facts. As stated, for the intentionally stupid and dense. Target audience clearly reached! Thanks, buddy.
Simon,
It is not like your make believe doctor statement in any way at all.
Imagine your doctor saying “too much radiation can harm you … don’t ever fly … spending time at altitude increases your exposure and you will die sooner.”
Do you listen, and recommend said doctor to all (three) of your friends and acquaintances.
(What kind of being(s) can alter the climate of a planet … Thanos and other Gods. What kind of a person feels that they need to elevate themselves to that level by believing in AGW?)
“now there’s a new reason why it is changing right now!”
Perhaps a contributing factor- but no proof it’s the magic control knob.
A laugh when I hear “climate change” used in fearful, hushed tones. The climate is always changing, as you acknowledge. So what?
Where is the proof we have a climate crisis? Yes, human civilization contributes to climate change, but that doesn’t mean it’s driving climate change to a significant degree.
People who make extraordinary claims need to offer proof. “Could” and “may” are neither proof nor evidence. The null hypothesis has not be disproven.
Griff, most people here acknowledge some human effect on CO2 levels, not necessarily temperature though (maybe UHI). The question is: is our affect all bad. NO!
Let’s say all humans except 100k disappeared from the earth today. Those remaining 100k would STILL have to deal with changing temps, rising/lowering ocean levels, droughts, etc. You have implicitly acknowledged this.
Except they would NOT have cheap energy to help them adapt.
I have seen this message consistently on this site for years: whatever affect humans have on the climate is negligible at best and also with positive effects (e.g. greening of the planet). And the best way for humans to deal with future problems is with cheap energy. i.e. get people OUT of poverty not deeper into poverty to better be able to adapt to a change in climate.
What we are doing now will solve NOTHING, and yet destroy our ability to adapt in the future if we need to.
There’s probably many reasons why the climate is said to change. A degree or so of warming over decades, even if it were true and all attributed to co2, is not proven to change the current or future climate in any appreciable way. And “climate” is a loaded term, begging to beg the question. Ex: the world is much cooler today than it has for the vast majority of the last fifty million years. It doesn’t come close to anywhere near an average, and it isn’t proven that temp changes are “faster” than other times in the past, or that recent temp changes have made any appreciable difference in the world.
I can’t tell the difference in a degree, nor can my dog. There are no mass extinctions because of such a small change, unlikely to increase in the future, nor are there more severe weather in general, or hurricanes, or anything. If there are at all it is drowned in all the hype and alarmism.
If CO2 were the powerful molecule that you are paid to believe it is, then without CO2 changing, the climate wouldn’t change.
The fact that the climate has changed by greater amounts at times when CO2 wasn’t changing, is sufficient to disprove your belief that current changes must be caused by CO2 changes.
That is completely fallacious reasoning.
It’s like saying, “if being shot by a bullet is so effective at killing someone, then without people being shot nobody would die.”
Greenhouse effect means more energy is emitted than it actually receives and is greater than emitted to space. Receives 501 watts, reflects < 143 watts. Insulation 358 (depended on time of year and snow/ice extent), 143 + (240(outgoing IR) + 118) = 501 total out. Received and total out to space equal.
That is definitely not what the GHE means. Where did you get that idea?
That’s not the case as I have shown. 501 w-m² (45°) > 358 is it not. 1000 w-m² (0°) > 460 is it not. Only if you dilute solar energy and inflate what the surface emits then you have a artificial greenhouse effect. This is what models have done. Flattened the earth (no seasons, nights) no internal flow of insolated energy that can be doubled (480 (insulated, 240 (incoming, outgoing)) at the equator (only rise and fall by 20-40 watts). Polar regions when long periods of zero sunlight gets lower than 240 by 50-60. Models manufacture the climate with 240 watts insulation and anything above that caused by greenhouse gases. It’s not reality at all.
So, are you telling me greenhouses don’t work? Not really seeing the relevance of this to leftist scumbags lying about humans destroying the climate. Walk us through it.
“I do know GHE is real and works otherwise this would be a barren rock twirling through space” You ignore the possibilities that mechanisms other than GHE might be in play?
Just one in the myriad of beautifully intertwined players in the vast cosimic dance we call existence. 😉
So I am not a scientist, but could someone who is tell me if this is about the most useless article ever written. It appears to have the single goal of shutting down a debate that doesn’t exist. Does anyone really doubt that a GHE could exist in a closed system. I have never met this person, but maybe that’s the authors mysterious “math skeptic” to which I have also not met. I only doubt anyone’s ability to measure the GHE of carbon dioxide on earth. I’m not a mathematician, but even I can see that this simple proof is missing about 10,000 variables before it can cross that chasm. Please repost this article when you can prove that.
So you don’t believe 1+1 =2? </sarcasm>
1+1=1 Boolean logic
‘1’+’1′ = “11” for concatenating characters to form a string.
Actually 1+1=0, with a carry of 1 Boolean logic
Or you could say 1+1=10
There are 10 types if people in the the world, those that understand binary, and those that don’t.
1+1 actually can equal 3.
1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8.
Now round to the nearest integer:
1 + 1 = 3
Disagree. People who deny the GHE regularly post here.
…. not to mention the climate liars, crackpots and parasites who regularly and fraudulently deliberately try to conflate its (proposed) non-existence with its effect in the real world at levels above 280ppm, a bogus conflation that you yourself (Mark S, that is) appear to have fallen for. and you can easily read about above.
Apologies for sounding rude Mark S, but just trying to tap you on the shoulder, real hard.
Show me Mark S. I’ve been reading this blog and entertained by the comments for a long time. I’ve never noticed much denial of facts, math, evidence, proof, etc. The skepticism here is focused on assertions, claims, beliefs, dogma, and everything Michael Mann has ever said. The reason I like this site and read the comments is because they are mostly made by informed people using reason and logic.
Then there is the Griff. He is almost too perfectly illogical and seems driven by some weird faith system. The skeptic in me wonders if he is not in reality a figment of a WUWT site owner meant to generate controversy and interest.
names?
So, you can’t remember the names of the “People who deny the GHE (that) regularly post here?
I often read posts claiming the GHE is not real. I like to think that’s because the “green house effect is a misnomer” — Green houses don’t work that way.
Not so long ago, it was commonly believed the glass in green houses allowed light to enter but trapped the IR and other parts of the spectrum. It’s been shown this is not correct.
I routinely see people in these comment sections denying that the GHE exists, and ridiculing anyone who claims otherwise.
The analysis in the essay specifically shows the the GHE is active on Earth, and is needed to explain 26℃ of Earth’s temperature.
This essay is not about the particular influence of carbon dioxide.
It’s about the the GHE in general, and the portion of the community that denies the existence of the GHE.
Large problems can be sorted out by taking things one piece at a time. My essay attempts to tackle one small piece of the larger puzzle.
I doubt GHE exists. A closed system doesn’t allow the transfer of matter, energy is allowed. Matter I’m referring to 78% nitrogen, 21% that is in motion at 340 meters per second providing earth with 340 watts of insulated energy. Both in the ocean and in the air. An example is a e-bike 500 watt ebike can get to speeds of 20mph. Power (sun powered pressure) keeps air particles in motion at 340 watts per meter per second, refreshing that energy every day.
“If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials between the planetary surface (or object surface) and space.”
Or that the oceans absorb SW energy to be moved polewards
No, that sort of process can only move the average temperature from below the effective radiative temperature towards the effective radiative temperature. The math specifically says any processes not involving LW absorption/scattering can’t raise the temperature beyond that level.
Bob, you are talking about an average of the entire atmosphere while Pablo is explicitly talking about the average at the surface. the average surface temperature can clearly be higher than the blackbody temperature and that can happen (due to convective upwelling) without requiring the LW absorption.
No, my essay is about “the average at the surface.”
No, that is specifically what my essay proves cannot happen.
“No, that is specifically what my essay proves cannot happen” I see no such proof in your essay. Instead I see only assumptions that it doesn’t occur.
To “prove” something doesn’t exist I think you should at least address it. Maybe I missed where you did that.
If someone offered a proof that “Adding any two odd numbers produces an even number”, there is no need to address the special case of “But what about 79 + 23?” The fact that the proof does not explicitly address the case of “79 +23” does not make the proof inapplicable to that case.
I offered a logically correct line of reasoning that established, provided you accept the Stefan-Botzmann Law, that the average surface temperature cannot be greater than the effective radiative temperature Tₑ if there are no LW-absorbing/scattering materials in the atmosphere.
This was a result that is conditioned only on the stated assumptions. It is always true, if the S-B law is true.
So, in particular, it is true if there is no convection. And, it is true if there is convection. It is true if the Earth is heated geothermally. It is true if the Earth is not heated geothermally. It is true if polar bears live in the Arctic. It is true if polar bears do not live in the Arctic. It is always true.
Examine the logic of the argument. Everything in the argument is true if there is convective upwelling, and is also true it there is not convective upwelling.
There is not a single line of the derivation which depends on whether convective upwelling is present or not.
Jim, thanks for your comment.
I think that we have to clarify that actual surface temperatures on land are much higher during the sun-lit day than the height at which temperature readings are taken, i.e. the height of a Stevenson screen.
It is interesting that the theoretical temperature of the near surface air of our atmosphere should be plus 60ºC with a skin temperature at 10km altitude of minus 60ºC. according radiative transfer theory.
Convective upwelling actually moves energy away from the surface faster than radiation can.
The oceans are a different story.
A highly convoluted way of saying that a grey body which absorbs some of the energy received can achieve a higher temperature than predicted by the black body S-B equation.
The real issue is whether the absorption is via back radiation or by conduction and convection.
Currently, the climate establishment ignores the latter.
Once a grey body arrives at internal thermal equilibrium it will mimic a black body when viewed from outside.
Stephen, actually the article proves that atmospheric absorption of IR radiation is necessary for the observed temperature to be achieved.
It says nothing about conduction and convection which are capable of producing the observed outcome.
It mathematically proves that atmospheric absorption of IR radiation is necessary to produce the observed outcome. No other mechanism (conduction, convection, anything) is capable if there is no absorption of radiation. That is the outcome of the proof.
Not true. The proof says nothing about the other effects and explicitly ignores them. The fact is that convection demonstrably moves significant amounts of energy from the surface to the upper atmospher and MUST be considered as one of the components that keeps the surface warm!
The proof ignores those other effects in the same sense that a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 “ignores” whether it is also true that “3 × 4 = 12.” The existence of those other effects does not affect the proof.
The proof is valid regardless of those other effects.
Nothing about those other effects can possibly affect the truth of what has been concluded.
Certainly true. And utterly irrelevant.
You’re saying that a process which removes enormous amounts of heat from the surface (i.e., it cools the surface) must be considered as one of the components that keeps the surface warm?????
I’m afraid I’m not following your logic.
I am saying that anything that removes enormous amounts of heat must be considered as part of any calculation of surface tremperature and igoring it results in likely in correct conclusions.
In another post you point out that it is steady state which is important. Once that steady state is reached somethign MUST move heat from the surface to space. A transfer of ALL the solar energy MUST be present. To put it simply something has to “cool the surface” to prevent it from heating without bound.
I simply claim that convection is probably the major medium of such transfer, just as you claim radiation is the only medium.
Please point me to any place where I have ever claimed that “radiation is the only medium” for transporting heat from the surface. I never have, and never will.
What I have done is to make a more subtle argument: that certain limits can be established by considering only the radiative component of what is happening in the system.
That’s not at all the same thing as ignoring other effects, or claiming radiation is the only energy transfer mechanism.
It depends on how you define “the major medium.”
Ultimately, 100% of the energy that reaches space reaches it radiatively.
If you look at how energy leaves the surface, NASA data indicates that 65% leaves via convection and 35% leaves radiatively. So, I agree that convection is the major medium of energy transfer away from the surface.
However, if there were no GHGs, then convection would not be able to cool the surface at all, since there would be no place for convected heat to go. For convection to cool the surface, it relies on the ability of GHGs in the upper atmosphere to radiate heat to space.
Thus, convection is a very important heat transfer mechanism—but it could not cool the Earth’s surface in the absence of GHG.
And, all this talk about “cooling” doesn’t directly tell us much about the mechanisms that produce warming.
I’m not going to restate things I’ve already said but regarding “all this talk about “cooling” doesn’t directly tell us much about the mechanisms that produce warming.” I use “the term “cooling” since anything that removes heat energy from the surface is “cooling” the surface. Maybe not precise terminology but a kind of shorthand for the energy transfer.
Given that the surface is a manifold and a thermal continuum, yes it certainly does keep the coldest parts warmer! 😉
No, the proof clearly establishes that no effect not involving the absorption/scattering of IR radiation is “capable of producing the observed outcome.”
I say again that your “proof” does no such thing. It simply ignores and dismisses the possibility.
Would you be willing to actually read the proof?
Please look for any step that would be false if convection is important. If you understand what I’m saying, you will not find any such step.
It doesn’t ignore convection, it offers a conclusion that is true independent of convection.
But not independent of conduction, simply because conduction removes the possibility of negative thermal gradients that are inherent to radiative flows in isolation.
Nowhere does the proof mention a “black body.” It explicitly assumes a grey body, with an emissivity 𝜀. You have clearly not understood the argument.
No. The argument only cares about absorption of radiation, not absorption of “energy.” Conduction and convection can transport thermal energy, but they do NOT absorb radiation.
Therefore, the proof establishes conduction and convection are incapable of explaining the observed warming.
I can’t think of any way of interpreting this statement that would make it true.
Do you know what the terms “black body” and “grey body” mean?
“The argument only cares about absorption of radiation, not absorption of ‘energy’.” Conduction and convection can transport thermal energy, but they do NOT absorb radiation.”
Radiation also only transports the energy. Conduction can cause an “absorption of energy” because it is the molecular transmission of thermal energy from one material to another.
Convection is in play because it is an effective method of energy transfer which is what the entire discussion is about: how energy moves from the surface to space in a way that allows the surface to be warmer than is explainable through direct transfer of energy through radiation to space.
I don’t agree with your summary of what the entire discussion is about.
The essay shows that, without needing to look at any of the details of “how energy moves from the surface to space,” one can still draw certain rigorous conclusions that must be true, regardless of those details.
You seem to be assuming the argument presented is something different than it is.
* * *
The argument depends only on these two assertions:
Do you disagree with either of these assertions?
Do you think that either of these assertions is false because convection exists?
Strictly speaking, conduction is radiation absorption at the boundary layer.
Hmm. I think that, to the extent that a gas participates in radiative heat transfer, this would be true.
But, conduction can, and does, also reflect heat transfer through gas molecules colliding with the solid or liquid surface, and exchanging energy with the vibrations in that solid or liquid.
That would seem to be a superficially non-radiative process. Though, the collisions are, of course, ultimately electromagnetically mediated.
I don’t want to go off topic, but why is the surface temperature of the asteroid (dwarf planet) Ceres measured at about -40 F degrees? It has a radius of 180 miles. No atmosphere (obviously) Lots and lots of water-ice.
Ceres’ daytime temperature is about -100 F and nighttime -225 F.
The surface is relatively warm for an asteroid, the average surface temperature is about 235 degrees Kelvin or minus 36 degrees Fahrenheit or minus 38 degrees Celsius.Sep 25, 2019
https://nineplanets.org › ceres
Ceres Facts | Orbit, Composition, Size, Gravity & Definition – The Nine Planets
It has a transitory atmosphere also
This is not a mathematical,proof. It is a mathematical derivation based on a large number of physical assumptions and claims. In logic this is called an argument. Pure math has proofs, but physics does not, and that is far too strong a term to use. (The insults in your intro do not help.)
While I accept GH theory, it is complex and by no means settled. I know of several competing versions. Your argument does not reflect this fact. So you are overstating.
“This result can be proven if one accepts a single principle of physics:”
Conditional proof is not proof.
All mathematical proofs rely on one first accepting certain premises. (In mathematics, those premises are called axioms.)
No, in math the premises are normally true by definition. (Euclidean geometry is an exception.) In science the premises are never certain. That is the difference between math and science. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an empirical claim. The SB equation is.
Also science demands that the appropriate math be used. You can’t “prove” that the area of a 3×3 foot carpet is 6 by adding 3 and 3.
No, in math the premises are always assumptions. An axiom is something you assume to be true because you can’t show it otherwise.
I addressed the issue of “proof” in Appendix 1. What I actually proved is that the GHE is an inherent consequence of the S-B law.
Not all assumptions are axioms
David, physics does have proofs, so long as you accept that physics can be described by mathematical laws. The proof in this article has only three assumptions which are clearly spelled out. These are 1) the Stefan-Boltzmann law, a well established law of physics, is true, 2) conservation of energy is true, and 3) reasonable numbers for the emissivity of the surface
Don’t forget the partially hidden one:
4 – ONLY radiative transfer can remove heat from the surface. A clearly false assumption.
It is true that only radiation can remove heat to space. The proof still holds if other mechanisms transfer heat from the surface to the atmosphere. The outgoing energy from the planet is determined solely by radiation.
True but the argument is about surface temperature and a large portion of the surface thermal energy is moved to the upper atmosphere through convection where it is radiated into space. That can account for the surface being warmer than the blackbody temperature. The article ignores this.
Jim, this is all correct, but I think it illustrates the key point you’re missing. Greenhouse gases are the gases in the atmosphere which absorb radiation. They are also the only gases which emit radiation.
So without greenhouse gases, all outgoing radiation would come from the surface. And therefore the outgoing radiation would be determined entirely by the surface temperature, regardless of what the atmosphere was doing.
“They are also the only gases which emit radiation” Not true. All heated substances (including gases) release radiation. If only greenhose gases emit radiation then a planet without them would become extremely hot since it wouldn’t be able to radiate any energy and would trap it all.
Even if it is true that it is only the “greenhouse” gases that emit radiation, the convection moves them to the upper atmosphere and away from the surface so that the surface is warmer due to the convection rather than to the percentage of greenhouse gases.
Perhaps it isn’t quite correct to say “outgoing energy from the planet is determined solely by radiation”: It may be a relatively small amount, but isn’t atmospheric mass constantly lost to space? Since it wouldn’t be at absolute zero, it would take energy with it, right?
Of course, there is a constant addition of mass, too. Over time, is there a net gain of mass to our planet, or loss? I really don’t know.
Further complicating things, incoming mass may be incredibly cold when it arrives TOA, so it acts as a heat sink, yet it probably arrives at velocities that represent lots of incoming kinetic energy – more than enough to make up for it’s frigid temp? And, even if it lazily settled into our atmosphere, extremely cold with little to no motive energy, it still ought to provide a one-time jolt of kinetic energy to our planetary system as gravity accelerates it toward the surface.
(I admit, the net effect of mass entering and exiting Earth could be like CO2’s effect: real, yet really small)
Minute amount of internal heating too.
That would be a false assumption, but it’s not an assumption that I made.
Of course other processes remove heat from the surface.
Yet, none of those other processes can change the fact that the amount of radiation produced by a surface obeys the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Of course you made that assumption. I quote: “If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials between the planetary surface (or object surface) and space.” My emphasis.
You completely ignore all other possibilities like atmospheric convection moving the effective emitive surface higher into the atmosphere.
It sounds like you don’t like the conclusion, and so you are falsely inferring that some assumption must have been made.
My conclusion was based on a series of steps. Please point to any step along the way where something would be false as a result of atmospheric convection being present.
Yes, there is atmospheric convection. And, one could think in terms of there being an “effective emission surface” at some altitude.
None of that changes the fact that there is an actual planetary surface, with actual emission characteristics, and that one can reason (as I have) about those emissions.
If you think there is something wrong with the conclusion, what steps along the way do you think are invalid?
I don’t think anything is invalid. I just think something is missing.
If you can point to “something missing” that would change anything in the argument, I’d be interested to consider it.
Jim clearly stated that your definition of a surface is probably wrong. Where is this surface? At sea level? At the edge of the atmosphere? Define edge, etc.
By “surface”, I literally mean the surface — the interface between the solids on the land or the surface of the oceans, rivers, or lakes.
I must mean this because this is the only place where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is rigorously valid, and my argument is about a place where the S-B Law is valid.
Surely there are also several assumptions about radiation physics and GHG molecules. If you can derive the GHE without GHGs I wouod love to see it.
Plus a bunch more if I looked, especially if we get into the magnitude of the GHE. There is a paper around that argues that much of the 33 degrees or so of warming attributed to the GHE is actually a positive feedback from increased evaporation on this watery planet.
And as I mentioned, there are two very different versions of the GH physics. One says the energy of absorption is lost kinetically and this creates the effect. The other says the atmosphere is in “local thermal equillibrium” so the atmospheric warming comes from surface warming plus convection. I find the latter incoherent but am told that is the model now taught in American universities.
It would be funny if this so-called “mathematical proof” were merely qualitative!
Then too SB is a law of black bodies, which the Earth is not, so this assumption is false going in.
When one includes an emissivity factor, 𝜀, as I have done, the SB law applies to “grey bodies” as well, and Earth is certainly a grey body. So I dispute the idea that any false assumption has been made.
So, you’re assuming, without evidence, that there are assumptions?
My derivation assumes nothing about radiation physics beyond the S-B Law, and requires no assumptions about GHG molecules.
I did. Read the essay if you’d like to see it.
(Admittedly, it depends on what formulation the the GHE one is talking about.)
Unfortunately, not everything that’s been written is correct.
The argument I’ve offered says that the argument in that paper can’t be correct.
Neither of those “versions of the GH physics” seems coherent. I think you’ve misunderstood what you’ve read and heard.
There is still some debate thet the S-B law does not apply to gases.
Also true. And applied to the Earth it is merely an approximation.
The relevance to gases is well-understood by scientists, even if internet commentators often get the issue wrong.
This particular essay, however, applies the S-B law only to the planetary surface. So, there shouldn’t be any question about its applicability.
So, you have a PhD. That’s no guarantee you can’t be wrong, mistaken, or full of baloney.
To move fluid through a hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
To move energy through a thermal resistance (atmosphere) requires a temperature difference.
Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa)
That explains why the surface is warmer than ToA. No different from the insulated walls of a house. No esoteric jargon, nomenclature and handwavium, just every day engineering.
Even if GHGs could do your hocus-pocus at 0.04% they still would accomplish nothing significant.
The effective emissivity of the SURFACE is NOT 0.95. More like 0.16. 63/396 or 0.39 63/160
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon and Mercury, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.
2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires “extra” energy (violates LoT 1 & 2) which according to RGHE theory comes from
3) the terrestrial surface radiating that “extra” energy as a LWIR ideal black body which
4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change.
How the Earth actually heats and cools with Mr. 3 Legged Stool – Trailer – YouTube
Version 1.0 060421
The underlying idea of this post is an extreme simplification of the Planet Earth. A reduction to a uniform temperature. The temperature difference between polar regions and tropical regions is 139 F (South Pole minus 56 F, Singapore 84F) – can you really neglect it?
“extreme simplification”
Kind of an understatement.
Simplified to absurdity.
A 1.5 C rise in the GMST anomaly over 140 years out of a min/max range of 150 C is a statistical aberration and not a meaningful number let alone a trend.
Here’s simple.
Pull the draperies across a large south facing window at noon mid-August. Is the room cooler now or warmer?
Pull the draperies across a large north facing window at 10 pm mid-January. Is the room cooler now or warmer?
The albedo cools the lit side while the thermal resistance (aka blanket) warms the dark.
The surface gets warmer as the albedo decreases.
No albedo and the earth gets the full 394 K, 250 F.
I agree with that.
It’s actually one of the simplest ways of explaining the GHE: introducing LW-absorbing/scattering materials introduces “thermal resistance” to radiative heat transfer, thereby yielding an increase in surface temperature.
If you include the effects of water in the GHE, LW-absorbing/scattering materials in the atmosphere apparently intercept around 90 percent of radiation emitted by the surface. Carbon dioxide (at 0.04%) may intercept up to 8 percent.
There are many kilometers of atmosphere, and small effects can add up over distance.
This is something that people can and do measure. Your claim isn’t remotely plausible.
It’s a silly enough claim that I don’t have much hope for engaging the rest of what you’re saying.
Q = U A dT is not specific to the GHGs nor LWIR.
I demonstrated why 0.95 is not possible by experiment.
Just the arithmetic bookkeeping of the balance diagrams show how it is not possible.
The IR instrument readings are not applied or corrected properly.
And I demonstrated by experiment why that is.
I don’t think most folks here deny that the GHE is real. What they don’t agree with is the idea CO2 is a control knob for climate. It isn’t. One can believe that the GHE is real and still be a skeptic.
Agreed. The tough part seems to be finding any agreement on exactly what portion of the GHE can be attributed to Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
pretty much Zero is the impact. the mathematical gymnastics and many variable that overwhelm the claimed impact demonstrate the entire absurdity of CO2 as a dangerous GHG.
I don’t think there is agreement on how much of the warming (basically method of transfer of energy from the surface to space) is due to GHE either. I, for one, believe it is overrated, convective currents being the main contributor.
If you have been following WE’s emergent phenomena series you will know that the greatest GHG which is water in it’s 3 states is also the greatest coolant at the same time.
The ceres data that he analysed seemed to show a slight negative impact overall.
“One can believe that the GHE is real and still be a skeptic.”
And still be wrong. Lukewarmers fit your observation perfectly.
If you accept the Greenhouse effect, then how can you not accept that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere produces warming?
There is no doubt about the Greenhouse Effect and no doubt either there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and that it is human produced CO2.
Seriously are you that ignorant of what climate realists think on the CO2 warm forcing effect?
From what I’ve seen here, climate “realists” are all over the map wrt that and other effects.
Most climate realists accept CO2 have a warm forcing effect, that most agree it is a diminishing effect with additional CO2 added into the air.
CO2 has NEVER been shown to drive the climate, that only rational people understands.
I can agree with a lot of that because for some reason, some good scientists on here, who should know better, seem to want to write long essays about the greenhouse effect and CO2, but yet fail to mention that it’s what happens above 280ppm that is (purportedly) the anthropogenic component of any effects on global climate. I continue to lose that battle, but the game’s not over yet.
Let’s ban water.
But, Griff, there is plenty of doubt as to exactly how much atmospheric warming can be directly attributed to recent human Carbon Dioxide emissions. The doubt ranges from the extreme “all of it” to the more reasoned observational “barely measurable”.
I feel certain you’ll not accept this inconvenient doubt.
Griff, it’s that “logarithmic effect” thingy that puts the brakes on CO2’s magical atmospheric warming powers.
What that means is that the usual “more is better” logic does not apply to CO2 warming the atmosphere.
More CO2 as fertilizer though, is a different story. Plants can’t get enough of it.
Ha ha yes, griff and loydo more prominently, make posts saying that they get the logarithmic effect and then follow up with posts that clearly show that they don’t.
If I thought that they could work a calculator, I’d have them do the linear calculation – 420 over 280 times 288K. Whoaaah, I need to go get my shorts on and a long gin and tonic just thinking about that.
I’ll take the question seriously and reply to it.
That there is a GE is not in dispute. Nor is there any dispute that due to human emissions there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was 200 years ago. It does not however follow from this that raising CO2 ppm will raise temperatures.
This is a question about how the climate and global temperatures respond to forcings.
There can be no doubt that increasing CO2 will produce a warming effect. But the question is, what is the response of the climate and global temps to that warming.
There are a number of possibilities. One is that the result is to raise the global temps by the amount of forcing that warming impulse gives. That seems to be roughly 1C. A second is that this rise of 1C prompts further warmings due to increasing water vapour, and so the final destination of a doubling of CO2 ppm is about 4C. A third is that the rise leads to countervailing cooling mechanisms which result in no warming at all over a longer period. Or, it could lead to oscillations in a warming/cooling cycle.
They are all perfectly possible. To find out which if any happens you have to do observation. The question is not whether heat is being applied. The question is what effect it will have on the climate machine. And you cannot know the answer to this from the size of the heating effect.
As an example, suppose I wrap myself in an insulating quilt. Does that raise my temperature? No, because I start sweating and respond to the increased insulation by a cooling reaction. Similarly if I am outside on a hot day.
The debate and uncertainty is not about whether an increase in CO2 ppm will deliver a warming force. It will. Its about whether the climate of the earth is so constituted that this warming effect will result in a global rise in temperature, and if so how much.
This is not at all obvious, and you cannot make any prediction from just knowing the parameters of the warming effect. Just as you cannot predict my temperature by knowing how thick the quilt is in which I have wrapped myself.
Sometimes people who should know better argue that AGW is ‘just physics’. Its not, and its not about the properties of CO2. Its about something different and much more complicated, its about the functioning of the climate. Its about engineering.
The argument from CO2 is, to take another example, a bit like hoping to predict how far a car will travel on a gallon of gas based on the properties of the gas. No, you cannot do that either. You have to look at the machine itself, how much wind resistance, how much wastage in heat, how complete the combustion, how much it weighs….
The Climate Scammers depend on water vapor amplification to push ECS above 1.8 K/2xCO2 it is with GHG theory. The IPCC CMIP 3/5/6 push their ECS to above 3.0 K now with fake wv amplification. It is the WV amplification where the climate fraud lies in the atmopheric to human increases in CO2 response claimed by the scammers.
do all the mathematic gymnastics you want. the impact of CO2 in any equation to support that Hypothesis is already past its saturation point. The other variables are so large vs. any CO2 impact as to make it completely irrelevant. CO2 is Life, along with H2O and are the things that keep all us Carbon Life forms sustainable.
Well said. Leftism/Globalism/Statism are ultimately anti-human and anti-life.
You are totally right with the first sentence, and I find it funny how many down votes there are. Essentially global warming is nothing but an increase of the GHE. So if GHGs cause a 33K GHE and you increase GHGs (directly with CO2 or indirectly with vapor), that 33K figure will grow. There is really no point in doubting global warming, if you endorse the (GHG induced) GHE. And I thank you for rightfully pointing that out.
However reality is a bit more complicated. GHGs do not really cause any GHE, but that is something we are yet to learn. I mean have not posted the whole story yet. 😉
Well.. I can give you this little preview on preliminary results (it is far worse in the end..)
You see it but you deny it. CO2 has increased thanks to a warming climate. CO2 isn’t the control knob
99.9% of sceptics agree that humans are having an effect on warming, griff. That isn’t the issue. The problem is the magnitude of the effect.
The plain truth is that every single piece of “evidence” of the MAGNITUDE of man-made warming is based on statistical analyses and computer models. It has to be this way because no thermometer has ever been invented that is capable of measuring temperature “caused by man” vs temperature “caused by nature”. For pretty obvious reasons this will always be the case.
The problem is that climate is unbelievably complex while weather is chaotic, which means your statistical analyses and computer models are wide open to huge errors — and there is nothing you can ever do to change this fundamental fact regardless of how powerful your computer or statistical analyses might be.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a simple question that should be very easy to answer. Tell me the confidence level of the predictions being made about global warming and climate change. You will NEVER see these for the simple reason they’ll be pretty much zero. Climate ‘scientists’ get around this problem by just ignoring it and it’s unbelievable they’re allowed to get away with it. ANY proper scientist will tell you that a statistical analysis or computer model that doesn’t show confidence levels isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Put very simply, climate ‘scientists’ are making predictions to levels of accuracy that themselves are lower than the margins of error to which they can be predicted. It’s like saying “temperatures will increase by 2.3 degrees C, plus or minus 20 degrees C”. Absolutely nonsensical.
It still amazes me why statisticians don’t just call this stuff out for what it is, which is witchcraft. Maybe they’re just frightened of losing their jobs if they do so.
This. To prove that climate models can predict future temperature response to increased CO2 would require comparing climate model forecasts to prospective out of sample temperature data. But climate scientists have allowed themselves to reverse the null hypothesis so that the models don’t have to have proven statistical accuracy and precision. Because climate change. So now we have repeated climate model generations with advancing hindcast/forecast lines, that can never be proven wrong, just improved.
Interestingly, AR5 Figure SPM6 shows graphs of temperature anomaly vs models with the explanation: “Model results shown are Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model ensemble ranges, with shaded bands indicating the 5 to 95% confidence intervals.” This shows either ignorance or willful misrepresentation.
“If you accept the Greenhouse effect, then how can you not accept that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere produces warming?”
The situation is more complex than you appear to appreciate, Griff. Greenhouse gases are not only better absorbers of longwave radiation than the nitrogen and oxygen that make up most of the atmosphere, but they are also better emitters of it too. This means that where GHG-molecules typically are able to absorb energy from collisions with other atmospheric molecules faster than they can receive it from surface emissions (as they may do where the surface radiance is relatively slight, such as in polar regions and in the upper atmosphere for examples), their greenhouse properties flip over into ani-greenhouse properties and they act to cool the planet by providing a conduit for the faster emission of atmospheric energy to space than would be possible without them.
In short, if one accepts the greenhouse effect, one must also accept the anti-greenhouse effect that automatically comes with it in the colder regions of the atmosphere. This potentially dual nature of GHGs makes for some impossible mathematics that are currently far beyond the power of any existing computer models to embody and resolve.
Under some circumstances, then, adding more CO2 will not cause warming, but quite the opposite, in fact.
It’s true that GHG produces cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere.
Though, I wouldn’t personally call this an “anti-greenhouse effect” because it doesn’t in any way contradict the principle that the planetary surface is warmed by GHGs.
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea from.
To the contrary, these mathematics are easily dealt with, and are dealt with by every serious climate model. Even I could easily write a climate model to address this issue (though I’m not sure there would be a point to it).
There are tricky aspects to climate modeling, but, to my knowledge, this isn’t one of them.
‘It’s true that GHG produces cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere.’
It’s not just in the upper atmosphere, though. It can also produce cooling at the surface too. For example, see:
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica – Schmithüsen – 2015 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
(URL: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749 )
‘Though, I wouldn’t personally call this an “anti-greenhouse effect”….’
I think you need to take up the question of nomenclature with the planetary physics community, as the term has been in common usage for over a decade there.
‘….because it doesn’t in any way contradict the principle that the planetary surface is warmed by GHGs.’
I think the paper I have just referenced above shows that it definitely does.
‘….these mathematics are easily dealt with, and are dealt with by every serious climate model.’
Are they really? Can you show us an example?
‘Even I could easily write a climate model to address this issue’
So you say, but without your actually writing one and showing it to us, we have no reason to believe you, do we?
‘(though I’m not sure there would be a point to it).’
I think the point would be to demonstrate to readers here that you know what you are talking about and are not just making it up as you go along.
Thanks for the Antarctica reference.
That paper explicitly says “It is important to note that these results do not contradict… the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth’s climate.”
I guess a more precise statement would have been:
I’m really surprised to read your statement “This potentially dual nature of GHGs makes for some impossible mathematics that are currently far beyond the power of any existing computer models to embody and resolve.”
I have trouble imagining why this “dual nature of GHGs” wouldn’t automatically be addressed by the “line-by-line radiative transfer models” which are routinely used as a part of climate modeling. For example, such a line-by-line radiative transfer model is used in your Antarctica paper. Here is another example of a (math-heavy) paper that does line-by-line radiative transfer modeling.
Would you be willing to say what leads you to conclude that there are “impossible mathematics… far beyond the power of any existing computer models”?
I assume you are aware that such disclaimers are sometimes required to get papers past the “peer review” censors for many publications. The paper stands on its own. Disclaimers are not part of the scientific content.
Yes, it does. And, by my interpretation, the paper does not contradict the thesis that GHGs primarily have a warming effect on planetary surfaces. It’s possible that the author’s disclaimer was sincere. Your mileage may vary.
Here is part of the problem in using an average over the whole earth for 24 hours. You and many others miss what happens when 1300+ watts is absorbed by the surface at a moment in time. One example is CO2 saturation at this higher value. How much radiation actually leaves the earth with the radiation this high. Another is the level of evaporation with this high a level? How is convection changed? How about clouds?
The sun only shines half the day. You have no math that describes the actual radiation and thermalization for real, physical insolation to the earth.
Here is a simple question your linear algebra and averages can’t answer.
What occurs with the first ray of sunshine in the morning? Is it stored, re-radiated, or allocated between the two?
Does your math solution provide any insight to physical reality?
‘(The Antarctica paper ) explicitly says “It is important to note that these results do not contradict… the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth’s climate.” ’
I’m not sure what point you’re making with this, Bob. Those results obviously do contradict the “well-known (greenhouse) warming effect” of CO2 in the Central Highlands of Antarctica, because what the authors found happening there was the opposite of CO2-warming, i.e. CO2-cooling.
Perhaps I should make it clear though, that I am not arguing against the existence of the greenhouse effect. I’m just trying to point out that the greenhouse effect has two possible modes of operation – a positive mode which is already widely known and a negative mode which is less well-known. The positive mode acts to conserve energy within the atmosphere by preventing, or resisting, or retarding its evacuation to space, and the other, negative one acting in the reverse direction to extract energy from the atmosphere and facilitate its evacuation to space.
Both these opposing effects are caused by the same GHG-molecules and only the different local environmental conditions in which GHG-molecules exist determine whether they will act in the positive mode or the negative mode and what their magnitudes will be. We are dealing with a vector-space here and we would need to know what the local parameters are at every instant for each locality in order to produce an accurate global model. But as yet, we have no means of observing or measuring the local parameters across the whole globe and no means of calculating them from established prior assumptions, even with the aid of radiative transfer models, either. That is one reason why I said “This potentially dual nature of GHGs makes for some impossible mathematics that are currently far beyond the power of any existing computer models to embody and resolve.”. There are many more reasons besides that one though.
But if, after reading this, you still think it should be easy, why not try and write such a model yourself and show us all how easy it really is? Who knows, you may surprise everyone.
The results contradict the idea that greenhouse gases result in warming (not cooling) everywhere.
But, that idea is NOT an idea is, to my knowledge, promoted by those who assert that the GHE is real and relevant. The idea is an oversimplified conclusion that some people might have inferred being claimed, but which has not ever, to my knowledge, been claimed.
I, for one, have only asserted that the GHE is real at the level of the global average surface temperature.
If Antarctica gets warmer, that doesn’t “contradict” this conclusion.
It’s just an example of a place where a phenomenon that holds globally does not always hold locally.
So, while I agree that what is happening in Antartica may be different, an “Anti-GHE”, if you insist, it does not “contradict” the GHE.
* * *
Thanks for unpacking part of why you think the math is likely to be complicated.
The GHG-molecules themselves don’t have different “modes” of operation. They always process radiation in a consistent fashion.
What radiation emerges from a packet of mixed gas, and how its temperature will change, is a well-understood function of the temperature of the gas and the radiation incident on that packet of gas.
Whether that consistent operation results in net warming or cooling somewhere in the system is an emergent property of the system as a whole. It’s not a matter of the GHG-molecules behaving any differently.
Most of what you say is an argument about the limitations of any GCM computer model, namely, that the initial conditions and boundary conditions are not fully known.
I don’t know why you assert that we have “no means of calculating them from established prior assumptions, even with the aid of radiative transfer models, either.”
My first reaction is “of course we do.”
Computer models typically divide the world into a grid of cells, and model the state variables inside each cell and the flows of radiation, air, water vapor, and heat through each boundary of each cell.
One sets up boundary conditions and runs the model. After a certain transition period, the models tend to come into equilibrium, with some chaotic “weather” behavior mixed into the overall “climate” behavior. If one does enough runs, one can average out the “weather” behavior and one is left with the statistics of “climate.”
If one is particularly focused on the radiative aspects, often a one-dimensional model is used in which one looks at a vertical profile through the atmosphere, and considers the radiative transfer on a wavelength-by-wavelength basis. The math for this is a little complex, but very well understood.
Your Antartica paper relies on the results of such a computer model.
So, I remain puzzled about why you think the math is so intractable.
Unfortunately, there is a big difference between something being conceptually easy, and it being easy at the level of not taking much work.
The bigger problem is, there would be no clear purpose to it.
Currently my only motivation would be to demonstrate that it’s not “intractable.” There’s a limit to how much effort that motivation alone could justify.
I don’t really understand your assertion, so I don’t know what would be taken as disproof of it. Even if I invested the effort in building a model, I don’t know what the bar would be that I would be trying to exceed.
I’m guessing any effort would be better spent trying to understand what you’re concerned is “impossible.”
‘The results contradict the idea that greenhouse gases result in warming (not cooling) everywhere.’
No, they contradict the idea that greenhouse gases result in warming (not cooling) everywhere at the surface and in the lower-atmosphere, which is precisely where the nature of the greenhouse effect requires them to produce only warming by its definition as a surface/lower-atmosphere warming mechanism. This is the contradiction that I am seeing – a contradiction of the fundamental nature of the greenhouse effect as it is currently defined.
The authors of the Antarctica paper cited above seem to have resolved this contradiction by positing the idea of a ‘negative greenhouse effect’ to explain the anomalous cooling and I find that this resolution sits well with me, although that’s for more reasons than I have time to explain right now. (Anyway, I intend to use it instead of the more combative-sounding ‘anti-greenhouse effect’ in future, although it is basically the same idea as far as I can see.)
‘The GHG-molecules themselves don’t have different “modes” of operation. They always process radiation in a consistent fashion.’
I wasn’t meaning that they have different modes of operation internally. Only that their way of functioning in the surface/lower-atmosphere system has two different modalities that are symmetrically opposite to one another, whereby the direction of the net energy-flow through the GHGs in each mode is opposite to what it is in the other, which causes the effect they produce in each mode to be the opposite of what they produce in the other.
[BTW, the GHGs aren’t just processing radiation. They are also processing the energy of inter-molecular collisions as well. The GHE is far more complex than it is usually given credit for.]
To my saying:
“We are dealing with a vector-space here and we would need to know what the local parameters are at every instant for each locality in order to produce an accurate global model. But as yet, we have no means of observing or measuring the local parameters across the whole globe and no means of calculating them from established prior assumptions, even with the aid of radiative transfer models, either.”
you say:
‘Most of what you say is an argument about the limitations of any GCM computer model,…’
Of course it is, because a GCM is what you will end up having to construct. And the essence of my argument is that you do not have enough information about the real world climate system to be capable of constructing a model whose own behaviour will accurately reflect the behaviour of the real-world climate system. Furthermore, you currently have no means available to you to acquire the necessary information either.
‘I don’t know why you assert that we have “no means of calculating them from established prior assumptions, even with the aid of radiative transfer models, either.”
My first reaction is “of course we do.”’
What, you mean that you’re able to calculate all the local-scale information that you need which you can’t get from observation and then integrate all that into a grand unified model of the real-world global climate system that behaves just like the real thing and enables you to make accurate predictions of future climate states that can be checked and tested against observable reality in real time? Of course you can! (Laughter.)
‘Computer models typically divide the world into a grid of cells, and model the state variables inside each cell….’
Yes, but you don’t even know what all the state variables actually are, let alone what their values might be in each cell.
‘….After a certain transition period, the models tend to come into equilibrium, with some chaotic “weather” behavior mixed into the overall “climate” behavior. If one does enough runs, one can average out the “weather” behavior and one is left with the statistics of “climate.”’
And then all you will have is a probabilistic, descriptive model that has zero, or close to zero predictive skill because it does not contain enough information about the actual behaviour of the real-world climate system and the laws that govern it.
‘If one is particularly focused on the radiative aspects,…
….The math for this is a little complex, but very well understood.’
It is not enough to understand ‘the math’ very well (in your own opinion). You also need sufficient real-world information to base your model upon if you want it to reflect reality with sufficient accuracy to be useful to anybody. Suppose you were an artist who had been commissioned to paint someone’s portrait. Wouldn’t you need to observe your subject closely, deeply and in considerable detail before you lifted your brush to begin? And wouldn’t you need to keep your subject under scrutinous observation as you went along too, so as to keep checking that you were painting their portrait accurately and correctly? Or could you simply calculate what you think their face should look like without ever having seen them and then paint that instead? Substitute the words ‘model’ for ‘portrait’ and ‘global climate system’ for ‘subject’ in this analogy and that, I think, is what you are saying you can do and do it easily too.
‘Your Antartica paper relies on the results of such a computer model.’
Not entirely. The authors also obtained the same results independently from satellite observations using spectral analysis. If they had not done that but had based their conclusions solely on their radiative transfer model calculations, their results would not have been verified empirically and would have been scientifically worthless.
‘So, I remain puzzled about why you think the math is so intractable.’
Well, I hope this reply has helped to dispel at least some of your puzzlement over that, Bob. But whether it has or not, I’m afraid I have run out of time to discuss it any further, so I must bid you farewell now and give you my thanks for being such an urbane and earnest correspondent. I wish you good luck with any climate modelling adventures which you may care to undertake in future.
You are seeing a contradiction to what you have (incorrectly in my view) assumed to be the definition of the GHE.
I have never seen a definition of the GHE that asserted that GHGs should warm the surface everywhere.
To the contrary, I’ve frequently seen disclaimers that some places would be warmed, and some would be cooled, but on average the surface of the planet would be warmer.
To me, it sounds like the generic arguments made against GCMs.
I see nothing in what you’ve written to indicate that the radiative aspects are any more “intractable” than any other aspects of such modeling.
May you be well, and thrive.
Hi Bob. I’m back again after having dealt with the things that were urgently demanding my attention. I can’t say how long this happy condition will last though, so this is just a whistle-stop response to your last comment to me.
‘You are seeing a contradiction to what you have (incorrectly in my view) assumed to be the definition of the GHE.’
You may be right. To tell the truth, it seems to me that there are as many different forms of definition of the GHE as there are dictionaries and encyclopaedias to define it. (For example, see here.) Out of the definitions that I’ve seen so far, the Merriam-Webster definition comes closest to the one I had in mind. That definition looks typical of the genre to me in that it only refers to the idea of surface-warming being caused by “atmospheric gases” and not at all to any ideas of surface-cooling.
What is the correct definition of the GHE in your view?
‘I have never seen a definition of the GHE that asserted that GHGs should warm the surface everywhere.’
I don’t know what definitions you have seen, of course, but I think the idea of universal surface-warming follows logically from Sir John Houghton’s definition of the nature of GHGs as gases which are relatively transparent to incoming shortwave (SW) solar radiation and relatively opaque to outgoing longwave (LW) radiation emitted from the surface, whereby some of the outgoing LW radiation is absorbed by the GHGs and some of its energy is redirected back to the surface. Thus, by that definition, GHGs function as a surface-energy recycling-mechanism which only adds energy to the surface and never subtracts energy from it, thereby only ever causing warming at the surface and never cooling anywhere. Since the GHGs are spread throughout the atmosphere, they surround the surface and act upon it at every point and must, therefore, produce warming at every point and never produce cooling at any point accordingly.
This initial surface-warming resulting directly and immediately from the recycling of surface-energy by GHGs is the primary greenhouse effect at the surface (again, according to all the definitions that I have seen to date). However, it can cause secondary, knock-on effects, which may including localised cooling phenomena depending on the character of the local surface where the primary warming takes place. If, for example, the primary warming was to cause an ice-sheet to melt, the resulting melt-water might disperse into a relatively warm area of ocean and cool it. One can imagine many similar examples of local cooling resulting, as a secondary effect, from the primary GHE due to the direct action of the GHGs on the surface. However, the Antarctica paper attributes the cooling observed there directly to the primary effect of the GHGs in Antarctica and not to any secondary effects of the primary greenhouse warming that may have occurred elsewhere.
Having said all that though, I am not concerned so much with the largely academic question of how the traditional definition of the GHE might need to be changed to accommodate the “negative GHE” as the authors of the Antarctica paper termed it, as I am with understanding the physical processes that are involved. Evidently, when the conditions on the surface and in the lower atmosphere are right for it, the normal, “positive” GHE that one would expect to find there is replaced by a “negative” one which works effectively in the opposite direction, so that instead of recycling outgoing surface-energy back to the surface and thereby warming it, the “negative” GHE effectively accelerates the removal of energy from the surface and thereby cools it.
Why does this happen when it is the same GHGs that normally produce warming at the surface as now produce cooling? Only the environmental conditions in which the GHGs are operating are different and therefore those conditions must hold the key that switches the GHGs between their “positive”, surface-warming mode and their “negative” surface-cooling mode. I think serious climate-modellers will want to understand that environmental switch and incorporate it into their models. Doing so may look easy at first glance, but that could be because one is simply overlooking all the difficulties. Until you actually attempt to do it, how can you know how easy or difficult it really is?
I suspect the explanation of the physics is quite simple.
On most parts of the planet, the surface is heated by insolation from the Sun, and that heat then escapes to space via thermal radiation. If the atmosphere slows the flow of this thermal radiation, then that increases the surface temperature.
However, in the polar regions, the average insolation is quite low. There isn’t much solar energy going directly to the surface which is available to be “trapped” by GHGs.
In these regions, the average surface temperature is much warmer than can be accounted for by insolation. This is because the surface is significantly warmed by descending air currents that bring in air which was warmed at lower latitudes. (Warming ocean currents also play a role, particularly in the Arctic.)
However, as the concentration of GHGs increases, that increases the ability of these warm air currents to cool before they can reach and warm the surface in these polar regions. This leads to the polar surface being cooler than it would otherwise be.
In other words, GHGs do two things: they “trap” heat which has already reached the surface (via “recycling of surface-energy”), and they cool the upper atmosphere.
Over most of the globe, which is primarily warmed by insolation, the heat-trapping effect is more important.
However, in the polar regions, which are signifiantly warmed by warm air transporting heat from other parts of the globe, the “cool the upper atmosphere” effect becomes more important.
Note that the Arctic and Antarctic regions are somewhat different in this regard, in that the Arctic Ocean experiences much more warming from warm ocean currents (again, transferring heat from lower latitudes) than does the Antarctic continent.
Those ocean currents may dominate heating of the Arctic, and will act a bit like insolation, in that they bring heat to the surface, which can then be trapped by GHGs.
* * *
If there is a tendency for increased GHGs to cool the Antarctic region, on average, one might wonder how this could be consistent with worries about ice melting?
The answer likely lies in seasonal temperature variations. In the winter, when there is no insolation, then I would expect GHG atmospheric cooling to make the surface significantly colder.
However, in the Antarctic summer, insolation levels averaged over a day are actually fairly high because of the long daylight period. So, in the summer, the “heat trapping” effect of GHGs may dominate.
Thus, increasing GHG concentrations could result in increased summertime heating (and associated ice melting), along with increased wintertime cooling. And, the way radiant balance works, more extreme temperature variations generally leads to a lower average temperature. So, the net effect would be lower average Antarctic temperatures, despite warmer summertime temperatures.
* * *
So, to me, the mix of GHE and anti-GHE (in your way of thinking) seems generally understandable and unsurprising, even without doing any “impossibly difficult” mathematical modeling.
I’m curious if these explanations make sense to you?
If the explanations I’ve provided are correct, then I would expect that the relevant physics (atmospheric circulation, radiant heat trapping, and radiant atmospheric cooling) would already be present in all of the more sophisticated climate models (i.e., GCMs and whole-Earth models).
Note that, in this instance, you’re not saying the definition says that “GHGs warm the surface everywhere,” you are simply making your own hypotheses about what you imagine “should” be the implications of the existence of GHGs. Those hypotheses are not inherent in the definition itself.
This brings to my mind the difference between a definition of a concept vs. the predictions of a theory.
The role of a definition is one of conveying the general essence of an idea, not to fill in all the detailed nuances or implications or prerequisites or qualifications of that idea.
The role of a theory is to make testable predictions about how the world work. Unlike a definition, a theory is likely to involve various nuances, prerequisites and qualifications, and to offer predictions that are not always easily summed up by a simple verbal phrase.
The term GHE is a colloquial concept that refers to certain emergent phenomena that arise from the complete integrated physics theory that describe situations involving heat transfer, particularly radiant heat transfer.
It’s not the job of any definition to make explicit all the details of when and how one will see those phenomena.
I don’t think any one definition is likely to address all needs. So, different definitions could be considered “correct” insofar as they serve the needs at hand.
That said, let’s see what I can come up with…
First, I might be tempted to define a generic GHE that is not limited to radiative effects…
The Generic Greenhouse Effect (GGHE) refers to: the tendency of matter receiving thermal energy to increase in temperature when increased “thermal resistance” reduces the efficiency with which that thermal energy can be transferred to a heat sink.
(The GGHE is relevant to real greenhouses, as well as to the atmosphere, an electrical resistor on a circuit board, or a house being heated in the winter time via a limited heat source.)
The Radiative Greenhouse Effect (RGHE) refers to: in situations where radiant heat transfer is one of the significant heat loss mechanisms, the tendency of matter receiving thermal energy to increase in temperature when the “thermal resistance” of radiant heat loss is increased via the addition of materials that absorb and re-emit, or reflect or scatter, thermal radiation.
While I rather like that definition in some ways, it doesn’t express things in a way that makes the idea of a RGHE particularly testable, insofar as it only refers to a “tendency.”
An alternate definition, which is testable (even provable, per my essay), but perhaps less satisfying in other ways, would be:
The (alternatively defined) Radiative Greenhouse Effect (RGHE’) refers to: The amount by which the average temperature of matter (receiving thermal energy and losing that energy to a heat sink) exceeds the average temperature which that matter would experience in the absence of radiative reflection/absorption/re-emission effects (with the rate of energy input and material emissivities being held constant).
My essay basically proves that a RGHE’ greater than zero is theoretically possible and then shows that Earth appears to currently exhibit a RGHE’ value of at least 24℃ (with the detailed value depending on estimates of emissivity).
I’m not sure if any of those definitions are well-suited to the purpose for which you want a definition.
Regardless, I come back to the point that it is not necessarily the job of a definition to express the detailed nuances of what a theory predicts.
So, even if a popular communication about science said “The GHE refers to the way that gases which absorb and re-emit longwave radiation lead to warming of the Earth’s surface”, I think it would be unproductive to nit-pick and say “that definition didn’t say the warming wouldn’t happen everywhere!” That’s an issue of ambiguity or imprecision in the informal definition, not an issue with the underlying theory.
“how can you not accept that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere produces warming?”
But it causes what % of the warming? That’s what’s not yet determined.
Please explain how Ice Ages occurred when there was 4000ppm – 6000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
That will do for a start.
That is only half the story.
The planet goes into ice ages when CO2 is high, and exits ice ages when CO2 is low.
That is a problem for those that consider that CO2 drives temperature changes, and argue that more CO2 causes more warming.
No one has adequately explained this problem, and what switches on and off the so called warming effect of CO2.
@Bob Bentworth
If I am doubting the “GHE”, than it is not based on not knowing, but on knowing more than you do. Also it is not about the question IF there is a GHE or not, but rather what size it has and what the contribution of GHGs hereto is. And for that, we need to know the basics, that is we need to know them right and not make some erroneous assumptions, like you do.
No it is not. Learn the basic stuff..
https://www.greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth
Btw… you might find this chart on reflectivity of water (or emissivity respectively) helpful.
Not helpful at all without units labelled.
Really, is that so hard to figure out? Reflectivity is a dimensionless number between 0 and 1, so there are no units anyhow. And of course it is wavelength on the x scale.
The point is, just in case no one realizes, that the emissivity of water is 0.91. That is hemispheric emissivity, while the 0.96 Bob quotes are only the emissivity to surface normal. Bob does not know, and he does not care, cause really he has not much understanding of what he is talking. And that is just one of many blunders in his “mathematical proof”.
Thanks for the reference. Interesting. I make no claim to being an expert on specific measurements.
If we accept the premise that the surface emissivity of the ocean surface is 0.909, then that would change my computed lower bound on effective emissivity to 𝜀ₑ ⪆ 0.864. So, the calculated radiative effective temperature would be Tₑ = 265 K (-9℃). That would reduce the warming that must be due to the GHE to about 24℃.
I experience distorting my name as disrespectful. Would you be willing to try to keep this conversation civil?
Sure, sorry sometimes the tone here makes me a bit harsh as well.
Anyhow, that is not where the trouble ends, Dr.
BWentworth. The other serious problem you have, and I know you are just quoting the usual stuff, is that a world without atmosphere would still have the same albedo, which however is largely made up by the atmosphere and its components.Now we could go the complicated way and try to strip Earth of these and those components (clouds, GHGs, aerosols..), and figure out where that gets us. But of course there is a much more simple path forward. We can simply ask what surface absorptivity and emissivity are. Again, there is some uncertainty. But with regard to water, both are well known.
Absorptivity is 0.936 and emissivity, as before, 0.91 (ok, 0.909 in my calculation). So we can calculate what temperature water would take on, ceteris paribus.
((0.936 / 0.91) * 342 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 280.6K
That figure will differ a bit once land and ice (rather snow) should be included. But over all the natural GHE or atmosphere effect is only in the 8K region. And as I am yet going to explain on my site, that is not even caused by GHGs but by clouds. There are a lot of serious issues with the “GHE”, and hardly anything is like it seems.
Where does this figure come from? That figure seems roughly plausible as a figure for surface absorptivity in the absence of any atmospheric reflection.
However, it’s a bit suspicious that the exact value 0.936 has been quoted as the average emissivity of Earth. There is no reason to believe that the SW absorptivity should equal the LW emissivity. The equivalence of absorptivity and emissivity is valid only in the same wavelength range.
You are misunderstanding what is claimed (in a way that people often do).
Nobody is claiming that “a world without atmosphere would still have the same albedo.”
Nobody is claiming that “a world without atmosphere” could not have an average surface temperate that exceeds the radiative effective temperature, Tₑ, calculated for a world with an atmosphere.
What is claimed is that a world with the same albedo but no LW-absorbing/scattering material in the atmosphere could not have an average surface temperature that exceeds Tₑ.
Nobody is claiming that you would achieve the condition being talked about just by removing the atmosphere.
What is claimed is that given the albedo the planet has, its temperature cannot be explained in the absence of the influence of the LW-absorbing/scattering properties of material in the atmosphere.
Consequently, it is largely irrelevant to confirming or refuting the claims of the GHE to examine the temperature of a world without an atmosphere.
You could look at such a world, but if you do, you need to calculate a different Tₑ that corresponds to whatever albedo you have assumed.
Alright, you got me! Fact is, I misquoted myself. And that figure has a little bit of a history on its own.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/27/plenty-of-physics-flaws-accumulate-into-a-huge-ghe-hoax-the-dark-secret-behind-surface-emissivity/
There is a couple of things to explain here. Based on n2 = 1.33 I calculated a reflectivity of 0.066 and an emissivity of 0.934 (not 0.936!). Note: this calculation excluded the extinction coefficient and thus was wrong for the LW range, but it still holds true for SW reflectivity (where it is negligible). Somehow I confused the 0.934 with the 0.936 Zoe quotes.
Then I still have no insight what her number actually refers to. Again, NASA has no good data on surface emissivity, due to all the restrictions named and I am unable to read the raw data. I assume it is only some data on land.. but I do not know.
Anyhow, 0.934 and 0.936 are not too far apart, and the consequences are not quite a game changer..
((0.934 / 0.91) * 342 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 280.5K
Well, yet there is very little meat on the bone here. Essentially what you say is, the atmosphere cools the planet and the GHE (or atmosphere effect) overcompensates this so that eventually there is even some warming. Again, the net effect of it is 8K.
“denying that the GHE is real seems to me to be just as wrong-headed as insisting that the Earth is flat.”
Ironic statement.
Moon scientists correctly split incoming radiation into outgoing radiation and subsurface conduction.
~340 W/m^2 -> ~90 W/m^2 + 250 W/m^2.
The moon appears to be ~200K on average (90 W/m^2).
Only people who believe planets are flat would ignore subsurface conduction. Flat things have no thickness.
Can you please address this?
Conduction to where? Has several billion years has not been sufficient for the Moon, Earth etc. to come to thermal equilibrium below the surface?
No. That’s why the moon is ~200K, and not the ~270K predicted by merely blackbody calculations.
Moon scientists know what they are doing. They don’t neglect subsurface conduction.
Zoe, as shown in this article, it is allowed by Holder’s inequality for the average temperature to be less than the blackbody temperature. However, it cannot be greater without greenhouse gases.
“Average” temperature must be less but that doesn’t account for differences in temperature. It is possible for the surface temperature to be higher than the blackbody temperature even though the average is lower even without GH gases.
This is what he says:
“Let’s consider the case where there are no LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials in the atmosphere of the planet (or in between the object and space).”
OK. The moon is such a case.
Holder’s inequality doesn’t explain why radiation entering is not equal to that leaving.
He also tells you:
“The rate at which radiant energy reaches space must be identical to the rate at which radiant energy leaves the surface, if there is nothing to absorb or reflect that radiation.”
But he’s only thinking of an absorbing atmosphere. He’s not considering an absorbing surface that conducts below.
Holder’s inequality explains why using the average temperature (~200K) to calculate “radiation leaving” is an incorrect way of calculating this.
Radiation entering does equal radiation leaving, on the Moon.
I don’t explicitly talk about that, but that’s because the result is valid whether or not there is subsurface conduction.
Such subsurface conduction does affect the surface temperature, T, and the way that temperature varies over the course of a day or year.
However, the calculation I’ve done provides a constraint that must be satisfied no matter what heat transfer mechanisms are active below the surface and no matter what non-radiative heat transfer mechanisms are active in the atmosphere.
Zoe, I have always seen a flat earth portrayed as thick, not infinitely thin. Just think of the massive waterfalls depicted. I still want to know where all that water and sea life goes. And how on earth it gets replaced. And what is on the other side?
Thinking of this is very agitating. What is down there to pull all that water down? If you lived on a massive coin shaped planetary disk, how would gravity vary from the center to the edge? If you stood out near the ridge and threw a stone perpendicularly away from the surface, would it ‘fall’ towards the center? Wouldn’t all the water on each side form a hemisphere at the center? Couldn’t you walk along the edge? Or flip over to the other side?
I shudder to think about what laws of the universe could be derived from a flat earth as it is often depicted.
The biggest reason that the Moon is so cold (190 K on average) is because the temperature variations are so large (due to the long 29.5 day rotation period, small heat storage capacity, and lack of mechanisms for transporting heat between hot and cold places). When temperature variations are large, the fourth power of the mean temperature, ⟨T⟩⁴, ends up being much smaller than the mean of the fourth power of temperature, ⟨T⁴⟩.
The actual heat loss scales as the fourth power of temperature, ⟨T⁴⟩, and is ~340 W/m^2.
A heat loss of ~90 W/m^2 is what one would calculate for heat loss if one inappropriately calculated heat loss using the fourth power of a 200 K average temperature.
The 250 W/m^2 “discrepancy” doesn’t really require any explanation. Averaging the fourth power of temperature is the correct way of calculating radiant heat loss, and taking the fourth power of the average is an incorrect way of calculating the radiant heat loss. So, the difference between these doesn’t have much meaning. It is not the amount of subsurface conduction.
* * *
Subsurface conduction is much less efficient on the Moon than on Earth. (This is because there are no oceans on the Moon, and because there is little gas to mediate conduction between grains of regolith.)
Subsurface conduction is important insofar as it has a smoothing effect on temperature variations over the course of a rotation (i.e., a “day”). Reducing temperature variations increases the average temperature. That’s one of many reasons why the Earth is warmer than the Moon.
* * *
However, with regard to my essay, none of these details matter.
The result that I derived depends on the surface temperature, not on how the surface temperature gets to be what it is. No matter what heat transfer mechanisms are present (subsurface conduction, or convection in the atmosphere), the result I derived remains valid.
As helpful as this is, we are being told, even scolded and hectored that we must now implement material changes to our society on the speculation that human activity is causing harm. Harm to what extent? Unless and until we determine what the optimum climate is for our biosphere, and determine if any change is moving towards or away from that state, we cannot make make rational policy decisions.
You got me thinking about SI units and our insistence on living with Celsius instead of Kelvin. So many of our formulas are simple because we work in Kelvin. You could of course correct the equations. Just replace T with T-T0, where T0 is the temperature at absolute zero. (No need for a scalar for Celsius, but Fahrenheit would need one.)
It is really easy to come up with the wrong answer to physics and chemistry if one isn’t careful like the author.
Why do we feel the need to flip back and forth? Wouldn’t we be better off living in one world of units?
I of course still cook and shiver or sweat in Fahrenheit. But there is nothing magical about 32 and 212, or 0 and 100, so why not use 273.15 and 373.15?
Doing so would give a better perspective. A change from 21 to 22 seems proportionally much bigger than a change from 294 to 295. Same thing, just one looks bigger than the other.
Adiabatic heating is simpler.
While I have a basic degree in physics, I don’t claim to understand all the math. However, I have done some studies on the matter which raise significant questions as to how applicable the calculations are. I have also studied lectures about climate change available on DVD by scientists with far more education than mine, and they raise some serious questions.
One of the lectures talks about climate change, earth’s atmosphere, and how the Milankovitch cycles affect it. Those lectures give the temperature of our earth over many thousands of years along with how much CO2 it contains, and end up demonstrating that during major ice ages earth’s temperature goes down first, followed by a decrease in the amount of CO2 as the oceans change temperature more slowly and then absorb more CO2. See any good reference book for the reason why.
Then we had what is called the “climate optimum” about 6,000 years ago, when it was warmer than today and CO2 was lower, around 290 ppm. Along came humans, and after the “little ice age” in the 1600’s (which was the coldest earth had been for over 6,000 years) human emissions increase the CO2 to currently about 40% higher than during most of the 6,000 year warm period. We are still colder than 6,000 years ago. So where is the greenhouse effect? Why did we have the February cold spell so famously centered around Texas? Why do I keep reading about a cold spring in Europe?
My personal observation is that the greenhouse effect is easily overridden by the realities of our climate, and all the other things which affect it.
The De-Glaciation created more Atmospheric Water Vapor as GHG that didn’t become Precipitation Clouds, on top of just the melting as runoff – that raised the surface water of our oceans – that due to dilution lowered the CO2 level of the waters. Once this created a higher temperature during the HCO and global warming temperatures cooled the atmosphere has been fairly constant in the fluctuations of solar activities fluctuations of the Holocene. Localized temperatures do not seem to have an effect on global temperatures as other localities were warmer at the same time “Texas” was colder. Climate Change is a global occurrence and not a changing of weather patterns in localized areas.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating your lack of understanding of my post.
“One of the lectures talks about climate change, earth’s atmosphere, and how the Milankovitch cycles affect it. Those lectures give the temperature of our earth over many thousands of years along with how much CO2 it contains, and end up demonstrating that during major ice ages earth’s temperature goes down first, followed by a decrease in the amount of CO2 as the oceans change temperature more slowly and then absorb more CO2.”
(Okay I have a gripe to make. I wrote a long paragraph that because of a misspelled word, that I corrected with the spell-check and it made the whole paragraph vanish.)
When you apply the Milankovitch cycles (solar cycles) to this Holocene Interglacial it is the water content of the atmosphere that answers your own problems of warming and cooling cycles. Warming creates biomass that creates CO2 that gets sequestered during the cooling cycle to be released during the next warming cycle with a lag time of near a 100 years and the warming has already started creating more biomass long before that happens. Biomass is the sequestration of Carbon and Water in flora and fauna that only decaying and burning releases their Carbon and Water back into the environment.
You brought up “So where is the greenhouse effect? Why did we have the February cold spell so famously centered around Texas? Why do I keep reading about a cold spring in Europe?” that are localized occurrences and yet elsewhere on earth there were higher than average temperatures that were seen in the southwestern states that were drier than average – raging fires – and offset those colder areas that got Iced. But mostly it was the changed Jetstream that brought that cold front from the north to the mid west. Very similar to what happened in the LIA on a smaller scale.
If you have a problem with what I’ve wrote, point it out and give an explanation for it,
Explaining the greenhouse effect in purely radiative terms is difficult when the atmosphere and oceans are dynamic. All that really can be said is that the daily pulse of surface upward LWIR is intercepted from a direct journey to space by water vapour and so encourages the lapse rate to become superadiabatic for instability and convection to occur which cools the surface. It is true that more energy is being “trapped” in the lower atmosphere than would otherwise be the case, but if extra warmth at the poles can be called global warming then its source of extra warmth should be called global cooling..
CO2 is a bit player in all of this. Doubling of CO2 to 800ppm results in a decrease in radiative cooling of 3W/m2. Our yearly variation of solar flux due to our elliptic orbit is around 100W/m2.
The fourth power of the average surface temperature is always less than or equal to the average of the fourth power of the surface temperature. The author claims that this is Hölder’s inequality. It is not. It is Jensen’s inequality for the convex function x to the power four. It was proved in 1905 and published first in Danish in 1905 and then in French in 1906.
Interesting. It appears that Jensen’s inequality and Hölder’s inequality are closely related.
One proof of Hölder’s inequality relies on Jensen’s inequality. But, the first proof of Hölder’s inequality appears to predate the first proof of Jensen’s inequality.
Both inequalities are rather general, and both imply that “fourth power of the average surface temperature is always less than or equal to the average of the fourth power.”
It appears to me that either general inequality can be used to justify the special case of the inequality that I used.
I checked the original Hölder paper. Although not stated explicitly the inequality used by you easily follows from the paper. This raises the question about Jensen’s contribution. I think it is threefold. He identified the importance of convexity, his proof is very elegant and general, and it does not require the function to be twice continuously differentiable. Jensen also realized that a number of known classical inequalities all are a reflection of convexity. In recent years it has been shown that even Hardy’s inequality can be proven from Jensen’s inequality. This also applies to non-commutative generalizations for the parameter p in the interval (1,2] and under the trace for p > 1.
I forgot to mention that Jensen’s method easily generalizes to functions of many variables.
I understand and concur with the skepticism some regulars in this forum have for Wikipedia articles. However, it is my observation that the level of skepticism is roughly proportional to the amount of politics in the article. Sadly, claimant articles are heavily influenced by politics.
However, Hölder’s inequality and Jensen’s inequality are less affected by politics and the respective Wikipedia articles should not be immediately discounted.
Wentworth provided a link to the Hölder’s inequality article but I haven’t seen one for the Jensen inequality, so for convenience I will provide both here:
Hölder’s inequality
Jensen’s inequality
Some of the confusion stems from the fact that there are several inequalities named Hölder’s inequality. The one you reference in Wikipedia is different from the original paper referenced by Bob Wentworth. I also got confused and only discovered the difference when I read the original paper in German.
Color me puzzled.
Wentworth’s original post made a reference to Hölder’s Inequality, which was linked to a Wikipedia article. That’s the exact same Wikipedia article I linked to. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say there’s a difference?
SB radiant emissivity increasing at the 4th power of T is I believe why the GHE reverses in the stratosphere where T increases with altitude. Radiant emissivity goes up faster with diurnal UV heating and probably with significant Holder’s Inequality driving localized heating (solar /noon/zenith on ozone) radiating back to space as LWIR in the dry thin air.
Thank you so much for this. I have understood on basic principles the green house effect for some time after a very helpful interchange with Jonova. The mathematical underpinnings are very helpful to have though I am long past considering myself a math wiz. I still think it unfortunate and confusing this is called a “greenhouse” effect as I believe it was proven early in the 20th century that greenhouses warm primarily through containment (prevention of convection) rather than differential passage of shortwave/long wave radiation through he glass (or in this case atmosphere).
If CO2 in the atmosphere traps some outgoing electromagnetic energy and retransmits some of it back to the surface then that’s the Greenhouse effect. What am I missing?
The part where CO2 absorbs energy from the atmosphere and radiates it out to space. A cooling effect.
The bit after “retransmits some of it back to the surface”. And……..?
Proof or evidence?
This entire post is based on a pseudoscience assumption that the atmosphere contains net positive LWIR absorbing materials. It does not per well established physics. Gases are quantum emitters/absorbers, thus relative momentum of the gas molecules and photons matter.
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/einstein17/eng.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0020089193900286
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276048562_Scrutinizing_the_atmospheric_greenhouse_effect_and_its_climatic_impact
The only effort to refute this has been that the quantum theory of radiation only applies to ionizing radiation, but that of course is incorrect. READ EINSTEIN, 1917!
“a theory may therefore be considered correct only if it can shown that the momentum transferred accordingly from the radiation to the matter leads to the kind of motion that is demanded by thermodynamics.” – Einstein, 1917
GHG back radiation theory does not, ergo, it is in violation of the laws of physics. Namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum and Laws of Thermodynamics.
Of course back radiation (like all radiation) conserves momentum. Why in the world would you think it doesn’t?
It also, inevitably, honors the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Robert, my research as a physicist specifically required me to understand Einstein’s quantum theory of radiation. Based on that, I can tell you with certainty that your conclusions are mistaken.
I responded (here, here and here) to your prior claims about this, but unfortunately, that was in a comment thread that you were apparently no longer reading.
You are right that the quantum theory of radiation applies to gas molecules. (It actually applies to all interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation.)
However, you are wrong in thinking that there will be just as much stimulated emission as there is absorption.
You appear to be taking one thing that is true and misinterpreting its implications.
It’s true that the probability of a photon stimulating emission given a molecule in an excited state is identical to the probably of a photon stimulating absorption given a molecule in its ground state.
What you appear to be missing is that there are always more molecules in the ground state than in a particular excited state, for any material at a finite positive absolute temperature.
That means that atmospheric gas which is capable of absorbing and emitting radiation always has a higher probability of absorbing radiation than it does of experiencing stimulated emission. It will always be a net absorber of LWIR, contrary to what you have apparently been believing.
Here’s how Einstein put it in his 1917 paper:
In setting down certain fundamental hypotheses concerning the absorption and emission of radiation by molecules that are closely related to quantum theory, I showed that molecules with a distribution of states in the quantum theoretical sense for temperature equilibrium are in dynamical equilibrium with the Planck radiation; in this way, the Planck formula (4) was obtained in a surprisingly simple and general way. It was obtained from the condition that the quantum theoretic partition of states of the internal energy of the molecules is established only by the emission and absorption of radiation.
If the assumed hypotheses about the interaction of matter and radiation are correct, they will give us more than just the correct statistical partition or distribution of the internal energy of the molecules. 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 early 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.
Or, for Bob Wentworth’s edification: molecules other than GHG CAN absorb radiation energy.
Any and all molecules can absorb and radiate electromagnetic radiation.
But, the emissivity/absorptivity of different molecules differs greatly. The degree of coupling to the electromagnetic field for GHG molecules is far larger than for other molecules.
Do you dispute this? If so, on what basis?
I dispute as a general statement that “The degree of coupling to the electromagnetic field for GHG molecules is far larger than for other molecules.”
The degree of coupling for any molecule is dependent upon electromagnetic frequency. that isn’t particular for some molecules. Those called GHG just have a resonance with the portions of the spectrum which are highest in the Plank distribution of the earth.
In any case my point is that you have been incessantly saying that ONLY GHG can absorb or emit radiation. it’s not true.
It sounds like this is a pet peeve of yours?
I agree that theoretically it’s not true. But practically?
I have been operating under a belief that the emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen is negligible compared to GHGs, for all practical purposes.
I’m happy to be corrected on this point with any concrete data.
This isn’t any sort of core position of mine. I’m just reporting the best information available to me.
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.
That’s the part that seems to be impossible to get through to these people. It’s amazing the levels of mental gymnastics they go through to support a pseudoscience hypothesis.
Yes, of course. So?
The problem seems to be that you believe this has some important implication that you are not explicitly explaining.
You keep telling people “Go read Einstein!” Well, I’ve read Einstein. I still have no idea why you’re making the claims that you are.
It’s not even clear what claims you are making, which makes it difficult to address them.
Try explaining what you’re talking about. That might make it less “impossible to get through.”
I see nothing in Einstein’s words that I find surprising or at odds with anything I’ve said. So, I’m not sure why you’re quoting this.
What do you imagine that it means?
“It will always be a net absorber of LWIR”,Or in other words atmospheres will heat without bound! That’s absurd. At some point the molecules will release energy equal to that absorbed!
I see my words were easy to misinterpret.
What I meant is that, when a LWIR photon is incident on a volume of gas, that photon will always be more likely to be absorbed than it is to trigger stimulated emission. The gas will always be a net absorber of photons that enter it.
My statement was not addressing spontaneous emission. The warmer the gas gets, the more photons it will spontaneously emit. The gas will warm or cool until the amount of energy absorbed from incoming photons is balanced by the amount of energy being spontaneously radiated.
So, no catastrophic warming involved.
I was just refuting what I had believed to be a claim on your part that stimulated emission and absorption rates would be equal.
Correction, I was addressing a claim that Robert Turner had made to that effect.
Stimulated emission from infrared radiation has nothing to do with excitation states of molecules because the internal molecular modes are always active, unlike electron excitation states, which you correctly say are most often in the grounded state within the troposphere.
Whether a gas molecule absorbs or is induced into stimulated emission from an incident photon is fundamentally due to the relative momentums between the two because momentum is a vector quantity. It was the principle of relativity that led to Einstein coming to these realizations in the first place.
The internal kinetic energy of a molecule is 3/2(r-1)kT where r is the number of atoms and T is temperature. This formula shows that all molecules above 0 degrees will have internal kinetic energy in the form of activated modes of vibrations in the bonds between its atoms. These are the molecular energies corresponding to infrared absorption/emission. Incidence is due to matching frequencies between radiation and vibration whereas the total kinetic energy is stored as amplitude of the vibrations.
You’re claiming that an incident photon travelling in the ‘x’ direction will increase the temperature of a gas molecule travelling in the ‘-x’ direction, which I’ve said a million times that Einstein explained as a violation of the Law of Conservation of Momentum in 1917. That or you’re claiming that somehow as a whole the gas molecules in the atmosphere are not in random isotropic motion. Either way, it is a clear failure in logic and shows that you don’t understand the root reasoning which led to the math in the first place.
The molecular vibration modes are populated in accordance with the Boltzmann distribution. Because the energy gaps for vibrational modes are smaller than electronic energy level gaps, it’s more common for vibrational modes to be more highly populated. The ground state will still be more populated than the excited state, but the difference won’t be enormous.
For CO₂ at 0℃, the I believe the exited state for the 15 micron transition is about half as populated as the ground state.
I can’t imagine why this would lead you to say “Stimulated emission from infrared radiation has nothing to do with excitation states.”
The relative velocity determines the Doppler shift of the photon as seen by the molecule. The coupling of the transition to the photon is determined by the offset between the Doppler shifted photon frequency and the central frequency of the quantum transition.
So, yes, velocity of the molecule will affect the likelihood of absorption/stimulated emission. Both of these likelihoods will be affected by the frequency offset in an identical manner.
Whether absorption or stimulated emission will be more probably will still depend on the relative populations of the excited and ground states.
Where did I make any claim that had anything to do with this?
You’re putting words in my mouth.
But, at least you’re giving me a clue as to what you’re thinking, even if you still are not making an explicit argument.
Are you thinking that the momentum transferred by photons to molecules will warm and cool and equal number of molecules?
If so, then I agree with that assertion.
But, momentum change is not the only effect that photon absorption has.
It also has the effect of exciting a molecule into a flexing vibration. This happens regardless of whether the molecule was moving in the -x or +x direction.
The energy in this flexing vibration can and will be transferred to other molecular modes, in that molecule or other molecules, via collisions.
Thus, photon absorption contributes to heating, even if the momentum transfers do not lead to any net heating.
The statement “Thus, photon absorption contributes to heating, even if the momentum transfers do not lead to any net heating” proves you clearly do not understand R. Turner’s point and the physics as explained by Einstein. Also, just to reiterate – your “proof” is a theory not a mathematical “proof” and a theory with unproven assumptions at that.
Please review the further discussion of this issue between R. Turner and myself, which starts here, with the latest bit (so far) here.
It’s true that I don’t fully understand R. Turner’s point, because that point seems to me to be incoherent. I’m working on trying to achieve shared understanding.
I believe I do understand the physics as explained by Einstein. That sort of physics was important to my work as a physicist; it was my job to understand it.
R. Turner and others take Einstein’s words out of context and misinterpret the significance of those words in ways I find disturbing.
When Einstein talked about the the momentum of absorbed photons affect molecules, he did not conclude that this meant photons could not warm molecules.
Instead, if you follow the logic of his paper, he used considerations about momentum to answer the question “What must be the characteristics of thermal radiation so that the radiation characteristic of a particular temperature will not alter the velocity distributions of molecules in a gas at that same temperature?”
His answer was that, as long as radiation obeys the Planck radiation law for temperature T, then it will not alter the statistical distribution of molecular velocities in a gas at temperature T.
That is what Einstein concluded in his paper.
Any other conclusions are other people’s ideas being falsely attributed to Einstein.
* * *
It’s not that useful for any of us to assert that the other “doesn’t understand.”
It’s more useful to compare what we think we understand, and try to work out what understandings are more likely to be correct.
It you believe that you understand something I do not, would you be willing to express what you think you understand, so we can examine it?
I agree that not everything I expressed was mathematical proof. But, the majority of my essay was a proof.
The mathematical proof I presented establishes that, at a mathematical level, the Stefan-Boltzmann law inherently leads to the mathematical expression of the GHE which I derived (i.e., equations 1 and 2). That part is a rigorous mathematical proof.
This means that it is not logically tenable to believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann law but not believe in the GHE (at least in the way that I have defined the GHE via equations 1 and 2).
I agree that the Stefan-Boltzman law is a theory. As such, it could in principle be wrong. However, it is extremely well-supported by experimental evidence.
There are no other “unproven assumptions” in what I have presented.
If you believe there are, would you be willing to name the assumption that you believe is present? And tell me at what step in my analysis there would be a different result if I was not making that assumption?
Yup, increasing greenhouse gas concentration impedes cooling and the sun takes up the slack and at ~5800 K warms the place up until an equilibrium is reached. I didn’t read through all the math, but that’s not the axe I have to grind.
There is a persistent meme about the #3 greenhouse gas, methane, that says it has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) that makes it as much as 86 times more powerful at “trapping” heat than carbon dioxide. When the IPCC issues its AR6 assessment report, that GWP number will probably increase to over 100 times more powerful than CO2.
Given that methane is a greenhouse gas, and that it’s increasing ~6.5 ppb every year, how much should that run up global temperature by 2100? Knowing that it’s 86 times more potent really doesn’t tell us.
I bring this topic up because various local governments are regulating methane. People are being denied gas furnaces, hot water heaters, cooking with gas, clothes driers, gas grills, fire places, gas in home work shops, decorative lighting etc. This will no doubt expand to commerce and industry all because methane will cause some warming, but how much that is doesn’t seem to appear anywhere.
So just as CO2 has a basic climate sensitivity of ~1.2°C what is the climate sensitivity of methane? How much will temperature rise by 2100?
I’ve asked this question before, HERE and got 0.062 C for doubling, but that’s one guy’s answer. Here’s another from Drew Shindell, he says “By 2100 the avoided warming is from 0.4 to 0.8 C” scroll down to the comments HERE I have no idea how that value was arrived at.
In any case methane regulations are here, onerous ones are probably on the horizon, and policy makers don’t seem to have any real sense about why except that methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2. To quote a well known climate scientist, it’s a “travesty” that they don’t inquire what that means in terms of temperature rise.
The statement that methane is a more powerful GHG than CO2 is a lie.
They say it is because it stays in the atmosphere longer.
It cannot absorb more LWIR photons than CO2 because it is measured in PPB as in parts per Billion and not parts per Million.
ACO, Thanks for the reply, but 86 times more powerful or not, how much will methane run up global temperature? That’s what policy maker need to know, and as far as I know, they don’t ask that question, and it’s a travesty that they don’t.
Given that methane is a fuel, the oxidization of it will always tend to be something that happens naturally in the earth’s atmospheric oxygen. Whatever the precise details, we can be sure that any increases in methane will tend to be countered by methane’s tendency to oxidize. In other words, methane molecules as such are just more reactive, and therefore *shorter* lived in the atmosphere compared to some other things. So how methane ever gets put into the same basket with CO2 as a “non condensing” gas of concern is in itself a strange circumstance — let alone the dubiousness of thinking that it is somehow way more ‘powerful’ than other common greenhouse gases?
For some detail on why methane just *isn’t* important in the way that alarmists pretend, try the following WUWT, Dr. Tom Sheahen, article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/
“If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials between the planetary surface (or object surface) and space.”
Wrong right off the bat.
If the object has an atmosphere, the atmosphere will absorb energy from the surface through conduction from the process of collisions. This does not require any form of greenhouse effect.
The energy absorbed by the atmosphere will mix as hotter gases will rise and mix the atmosphere. Again, no requirement for the greenhouse effect.
The atmosphere will have a lapse rate.
This, all by itself, will raise the surface temperature above the black body temperature.
Imagine a gas giant planet made up entirely of nitrogen, a non greenhouse gas, will it radiate energy out to space or will it perpetually gain energy? What will the temperatures be between the outer surface and the central core?
If anything, the greenhouse effect is more likely to cause cooling than it is to cause heating, as the earth’s surface is a sphere. MORE radiation from the greenhouse gases MUST radiate out to space than back to the surface. More greenhouse gases means more radiation to space.
Thanks for providing a counterexample for those who claim the head post was unnecessary because no one here denies that the earth’s temperature requires a greenhouse effect.
The head post was wrong. Period. Atmospheres of any kind will increase the temperature of the surface of a body they encompass. The thicker and heavier the atmosphere, the greater the warming. That is simple physics.
Now, explain where I am wrong.
The radiation absorbing gases will gain energy from the surface and the air through conduction as well as radiation. Because of the curvature of the planet any absorbed energy that is radiated by these gases will have a greater than 50% chance to be radiated to space.
Without these radiation active gases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would very very slowly release the energy through black body radiation. This would allow a significantly higher amount of energy to build up in the atmosphere.
Eventually the atmosphere would be at a higher average temperature than the naked black body temperature of the planet.
No greenhouse gas need be present to raise the temperature of a planet.
As I stated above, what would the effect be of having a gas giant planet where the entire atmosphere of the planet was nitrogen for instance. Would the planet surface be equal to the black body equivalent or very much higher?
Show your work.
No offense meant, but I’m pretty sure from your comment that you wouldn’t comprehend my explanation. I’ll just mention that heat conduction between the surface and the atmosphere would go from the cooler to the warmer, a fact with which most of your contentions are inconsistent.
Sorry, but you lost me at “heat conduction between the surface and the atmosphere would go from the cooler to the warmer”. Conduction is always from a warmer to a cooler medium. That is essentially the original definition of temperature as a measuer of how fast such conduction takes place (only later shown to be equivalent to average molecular kinetic energy).
You’re right; I accidentally reversed what I meant. But it actually would have to flow from cooler to warmer to do what ASTONERII contended.
No, not true. You may believe its “simple physics,” but that’s not what physics says.
My essay, which is simple physics, establishes that you are wrong.
No. That would be true if there were a single blob of LW-absorbing material in the atmosphere. But, in practice, there are many, many layers of LW-absorbing material. That changes the net result, in terms of how much radiation goes to space vs. how much reaches the surface.
No.
Without these radiation-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, grey-body radiation from the surface would pass through the atmosphere unimpeded, allowing the surface to efficiently cool.
With radiation-absorbing gases, much of what the surface radiates never reaches space. Instead, much of the energy is returned to the surface.
Convection transports some energy from the surface to the atmosphere, which is an efficient heat transport mechanism. But, that heat then needs to be radiated to space by the atmosphere, which is a less efficient mechanism. The net effect is that heat is less efficiently transported from the surface to space, than it would be if radiation wasn’t being impeded on its journey.
“Convection transports some energy from the surface to the atmosphere, which is an efficient heat transport mechanism. But, that heat then needs to be radiated to space by the atmosphere, which is a less efficient mechanism. The net effect is that heat is less efficiently transported from the surface to space, than it would be if radiation wasn’t being impeded on its journey.”
That fits with my claims. I have been stating that convection “is an efficient heat transport mechanism” but I don’t believe that radiation from a gas “is less efficiently transported from the surface to space, than it would be if radiation wasn’t being impeded on its journey.”
Your statement that “Without these radiation-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, grey-body radiation from the surface would pass through the atmosphere unimpeded”. Assumes that conduction from the solid surface to the adjacent atmospheric molecules is inconsequential. That may be true but isn’t addressed in your essay. If true than I would still argue that is simply a way the energy gets from the solid surface into the atmoshere near the surface so that convection can take place and that convection is the main heat transfer mechanism.
If radiation from the surface is allowed to travel unimpeded through the atmosphere, then the rate at which radiation leaves the surface and goes to space would be
⟨Mₛ⟩ = 𝜀ₛσ⟨Tₛ⁴⟩ where 𝜀ₛ and Tₛ are the emissivity and temperature of the surface
Suppose that convection is efficient at transporting heat up to high in the troposphere. The rate at which radiation leaves there and goes to space could be approximated as
⟨Mₜ⟩ = 𝜀ₜσ⟨Tₜ⁴⟩ where 𝜀ₜ and Tₜ are the emissivity and temperature of the upper troposphere.
However, gas is a less efficient emitter than are solids and liquids, so 𝜀ₜ < 𝜀ₛ. And, the upper troposphere is colder than the surface, so ⟨Tₜ⁴⟩ < ⟨Tₛ⁴⟩.
It follows that the rate at which heat can be radiated to space will be lower if has to be radiated from the upper troposphere than it would be if radiation from the surface was capable of reaching space.
Convection is an efficient heat transfer mechanism, but it is “in series” with an inefficient mechanism, radiation from the upper troposphere.
That’s what makes it, overall, less efficient than what happens if radiation from the surface can simply travel unimpeded to space.
How does my statement have anything to do with the efficiency of heat conduction between the surface and the adjacent air??
Grey body radiation gets emitted by the surface, in proportion to Tₛ⁴. This is true regardless of how efficient or inefficient conduction is.
Does that radiation reach space? It reaches space unless something absorbs or reflects it. Again, this is true regardless of how efficient or inefficient conduction is.
Agreed.
No.
The process you’ve described creates a relationship between the temperature of the surface and temperature profile of the lower portion of the atmosphere. However, it in no sets the absolute temperature of either. Raise or lower all the temperatures by 10 degrees, and everything you said would still be true.
None of this raises the surface temperature above the grey body (not black body) temperature of the surface.
In steady state, the rate at which energy arrives and leaves will be in balance.
Regardless, the average surface temperature cannot exceed the radiative effective temperature, Tₑ, no matter how much nitrogen you add.
No, not true.
I think you must have some very oversimplified mental model in mind.
The real physics involves each tiny bit of atmosphere absorbing radiation and radiating in all directions in accordance with its temperature. Ideally, you’d write down differential equations to solve for how the radiation fluxes vary at different points in the atmosphere.
The net effect is that the surface mostly sees radiation from the lower, warmer part of the atmosphere, while space mostly sees radiation from a higher, colder part of that atmosphere. Warmer air radiates more than colder air, and so more radiation reaches the surface than reaches space.
“Based on everything that’s known about physics, denying that the GHE is real seems to me to be just as wrong-headed as insisting that the Earth is flat. (Any Flat-Earthers here?)”
I think that statement just undid anything you were trying to achieve in the first place. Perhaps you should put that statement at the end. You should start out trying to convince, instead of starting with the ridicule and disparagement.
Besides, I don’t know that anybody disagrees with the GHE. Anybody who’s walked into a greenhouse will know that it exists, whether it’s caused by glass or a nitrogen based atmosphere. We exist because of the GHE. I think the bigger issue with GHE is if the GHE is in fact INCREASING, and if so how much of that is caused by an increase in CO2, and I don’t see that you addressed that.
That statement was likely ill-advised. It was a reflection of my level of frustration. I regret that it likely seemed disrespectful.
There are some people who disagree with the GHE, as evidenced by many of the comments on this website.
I agree that many people do not, and are focused on other issues.
Well, the GHE can’t be caused by a nitrogen based atmosphere in the absence of other gases.
There are many topics that were not addressed in my essay.
I hoped to contribute one piece of the puzzle, with regard to those who are puzzled by that piece.
I am not debating the GHE at all. However, I believe that the conclusion from the post, quoted below, can be demonstrated to be false.
“Note that this result (that LW-absorbing materials are needed to enable the Earth to be as warm as it is) is entirely independent of any details of what happens in the atmosphere and ocean.
Convection, heat engines, ocean currents, thermal storage, turbulence, atmospheric pressure—none of these make the slightest difference to the basic conclusion.
No matter what physical processes happen on Earth, its average surface temperature would be need to be colder, if it were not for the presence of LW-absorbing materials in the atmosphere.”
Instead, I offer a simple example to show that a planetary atmosphere capable of transporting heat is sufficient to alter the equilibrium temperature of that planet. This is a simple result derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the fact that actual planets heat unevenly, unlike theoretical blackbodies.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law states that the amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. The obvious consequence of this relationship is that: any process in a planetary system that tends to reduce the temperature extremes across a body will result in reduced outgoing thermal radiation – even at the same average temperature for that body.
Consider Planet 1: It has no atmosphere and does not rotate relative to a sun that provides incoming radiation. The temperature on the light side is 400K, the temperature on the dark side is 200K. The average temperature of the planet is 300K.
Using the S-B Equation: Power = SBc x T4
where the S-B constant (SBc) = 5.67 x 10-8 (W/m2xK4), and the temperature is measured in degrees Kelvin
Light Side = 5.67 x 10-8 x 400 ÷ 2 = 726 W/m2
Dark Side = 5.67 x 10-8 x 200 ÷ 2 = 45 W/m2
Total = 771 W/m2
Consider Planet 2: It has an atmosphere that is completely transparent to all radiation and contains no greenhouse gases or water vapor. It also does not rotate relative to the sun. The atmosphere is a perfect conductor so that the temperature on the light side is exactly equal to the temperature on the dark side. The average temperature of the planet is 300K.
Light Side = 5.67 x 10-8 x 300 ÷ 2 = 230 W/m2
Dark Side = 5.67 x 10-8 x 300 ÷ 2 = 230 W/m2
Total = 460 W/m2
For Planet 1, the hot light side is a fantastic radiator of heat due to the 4th power relationship of the S-B Law. Likewise, the cold dark side is a very poor radiator.
Planet 2 is a mediocre radiator of heat across the entire body. However, the total outgoing radiation from an “average” radiator is significantly less than the total outgoing radiation from a fantastic radiator combined with a poor radiator.
It is therefore shown (in this greatly simplified example) that any process that cools the hottest part of a body by transporting the heat to cooler regions must result in a drop in total outgoing power (radiation).
Consider Planet 3: It has the same conditions as planet 2. However, it is the exact same distance from the sun as Planet 1, and must therefore have the same outgoing radiation as Planet 1 (771 W/m2).
Calculated temperature of Planet 3: 771 ÷ 5.67 x 10-8 = T4
T4 = 341K
Planet 3 is therefore 41K warmer relative to Planet 1. This is caused by the transport of heat from the hottest parts of the planet to the coldest parts of the planet via atmospheric transport.
Obviously, no planets in the solar system have a superconducting atmosphere. However, the principal still holds. Reducing the temperature of the hottest parts of a radiator and increasing the temperatures of the coldest parts – will always result in a reduction in total outgoing radiation.
It is perfectly possible for the average temperature to be less than the “blackbody temperature” per Holder’s inequality, and as you have shown here. However, the author’s point is that it is impossible for the average temperature to be greater without greenhouse gases.
Planet 3 has the exact same BB temperature as Planet 1 – utilizing the exact same incoming solar radiation and albedo in the example.
Yet it is 41K WARMER due to the atmosphere transporting heat from the hottest parts of the planet.
The 4th power function of the S-B equation is quite powerful.
Planet 3 has average temperature equal to the blackbody temperature (341 K).
Planet 1 has average temperature less than the blackbody temperature.
Neither has average temperature greater than the blackbody temperature, because that is impossible without greenhouse gases.
Surface temperature of an atmosphere can be greater than the blackbody temperature even though the average temperature is lower. This does not require greenhouse gases.
You’re right that even without greenhouse gases, the temperature would locally exceed the black body temperature in some places (like under direct sunlight).
All this proof says is that the average temperature cannot exceed the black body temperature without a greenhouse effect. At the very least this tells us that the greenhouse effect is real, since on earth Tavg>Tbb .
Other factors are definitely important and affect both local temperatures and the average temperature. The proof doesn’t say greenhouse gases are the only important factor. Just that they are definitely an important factor, and that there would be a hard limit on Tavg without them.
Since the “proof” says nothing about relative effect of various factors. it doesn’t imply that greenhouse gases are even an important factor. Just that they can or could be a factor.
Surface temperature is the temperature of the surface. It’s not a “temperature of an atmosphere.”
The conclusions I’ve offered relate to the average temperature of the surface, not to isolated variations in temperature.
For the average surface temperature to be higher than the effective radiative temperature (which is not a “black body” temperature but a “grey body” temperature) does require greenhouse gases.
Maybe I’m a bit sloppy with the wording. By “surface temperature of an atmosphere” I mean the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface. I think that’s what the discussion is about: how the lower atmosphere can be warmer than black body (or grey body) temperature.
And as I have stated before you have not shown that “For the average surface temperature to be higher than the effective radiative temperature (which is not a “black body” temperature but a “grey body” temperature) does require greenhouse gases.” You have simply assumed there is no other mechanism.
That’s not what I mean by “surface temperature.” I literally mean the temperature of the solids or liquids that interface with the atmosphere. That definition is necessary for my arguments to be rigorously correct, as I believe they are.
Since we’re having trouble understanding each other, I want to be very scrupulous about words.
With that in mind, I don’t see the term “black body (or grey body) temperature” as being clear or well-defined. (I don’t like the term “grey body temperature” because the surface of the Earth is a “grey body” and it’s at a temperature—so, why wouldn’t it’s temperature be what the term “grey body temperature” refers to? Yet, that’s not what you are using the term to mean.)
I’m talking about the term “radiative effective temperature”, Tₑ, which has a well-defined meaning, and is defined relative to the flux of LW radiation being emitted at TOA.
I am not talking about the temperature of the lower atmosphere. I am specifically talking about the temperature of the surface, and how its average can be larger than the radiative effective temperature, Tₑ.
I have shown that if (1) the S-B Law is valid, and (2) if the amount of LW radiation emitted by the surface equals the amount of LW radiation reaching space, then the average surface temperature cannot exceed Tₑ, period. No further qualifications. No dependence on whether there is or is not convection.
I have not assumed there is no other mechanism. I have presented the mathematically rigorous implications of two simple assumptions.
Do you disagree with the S-B Law? Do you disagree that if there is nothing in the atmosphere capable of absorbing or scattering LW radiation, then the amount of LW radiation leaving the surface will equal the amount that reaches space?
Do you think that the existence of convection alters either or those two assertions? If so, how??
In example for Planet 1, there is no correction for albedo or radiation as a gray body. I guess I should have explicitly written that hypothetical Planet 1 is a perfect black body.
I even did the math in the example!
Outgoing radiation is dependent on the temperature of the emitting object. The hottest point on the planet will be the point where the sun is directly overhead.
That is also the point with the maximum outgoing LW radiation. If a conducting atmosphere transports heat from the hottest portion to the colder portions, then the instantaneous average temperature for the planet would not change.
However, the outgoing radiation would change for the same average planetary temperature. It is not a linear function of temperature, it is a 4th power function. The hot spots and cold spots matter. Do the math for a planet while holding the average temperature constant and changing the temperature of the hottest spots and coldest spots. It makes a huge difference in the outgoing radiation.
Also, assume Planet 1 and Planet 3 are perfect black bodies. It appears to me that Planet 1 is at the black body temperature for its conditions. Planet 3 is also at its black body temperature for its conditions. Clearly the presence of a temperature conducting atmosphere can change the temperature of a planet WITHOUT the presence of GH gasses.
Thank you for the write-up, Bob. I don’t find anything wrong with your analysis of the ill-termed greenhouse effect. However, regarding this statement that you made:
“I’ve shown that a single principle of physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) sets a limit on how high the average surface temperature can be, and says that this limit can be increased if and only if there are LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials present in the atmosphere.”
It should probably have the addendum “in the absence of any other forms of energy transfer”. Plus, lapse rates exist in planets with very low GHG concentrations and exist in columns of “ideal” gas in the lab. Doubling the mass of these “atmospheres” changes the average T at the surface, so the “if and only if there are LW-absorbing materials” clause is not strictly true. There are other phenomena that can change the Tmax.
Thanks again for taking the time to present this.
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
It’s deliberate that that qualifier was not added, because it’s not needed.
The conclusion is valid even in the presence of any other forms of energy transfer (within the system of the planetary surface, oceans, and atmosphere).
The derivation I’ve offered establishes that that cannot be true (if LW absorption is negligible).
The existence of a lapse rate shows a certain temperature profile between the surface and in the lower atmosphere. It doesn’t determine the absolute temperature.
Make everything 10 degrees warmer or cooler and you’d still see the same lapse rate.
“It’s deliberate that that qualifier [about other forms of energy transfer] was not added, because it’s not needed.”
You expose your blind spot. You simply fail to understand or recognize that other forms of transfer ARE important.
“The derivation I’ve offered establishes that that [temperature being dependent upon atmospheric mass] cannot be true”
My reading of your essay is that you haven’t “established” it is not true but rather “assumed” it is not true.
I completely agree that other forms of heat/energy transfer are important.
You apparently fail to understand or recognize that certain conclusions can be achieved without explicitly talking about the sort of details that you are interested in.
It’s much like the way that one can establish that “perpetual motion machines are not possible” even if one doesn’t examine the specifics of every proposed mechanism for building a perpetual motion machine. (Actually, I think my argument is simpler and clearer than some of the arguments against perpetual motion machines.)
You are assuming assumptions that are not present.
Please point out a step that would not be valid if one takes convective heat transport into account.
You seem to be rejecting the conclusion, and assuming there is a mistake somewhere. If there is a mistaken step, please show it to me.
Nice proof. I would only add that you could use the simpler Jensen’s inequality instead of Holder’s inequality.
Agreed. I’d seen Holder’s inequality referenced regarding this topic. But, either works.
Would you like infinite temperature? Just set emissivity to 1/infinity. Math is easy. Physics is hard.
This post is not a proof of GHE. Just a numbers game.
The proof does rely on reasonable estimates of the earth’s surface emissivity. This is the only real assumption besides basic laws of physics. Since I’m pretty certain the emissivity of earth is nowhere zero, the proof holds.
The more important question is what causes the greenhouse effect.
And specifically, how would it change if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere.
Ignoring the death of all life on earth – keeping everything else hypothetically unchanged.
My guess – no discernible change.
All gasses are greenhouse gasses.
Its a straw man – red herring to allege skeptics don’t believe the greenhouse effect.
More important is what causes it and is CO2 the only gas that possesses thermodynamic behaviour? The only gas which undergoes thermal interactions?
No, I specifically say that it’s possible to be a skeptic while believing in the GHE.
Specific people have specifically told me that they believe the GHE doesn’t exist. My essay was to address their beliefs.
If you believe in the GHE, then the post may be irrelevant to you.
I’m making no assertion about skepticism in general.
You might consider rereading this
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/26/a-controvrsial-look-at-blackbody-radiation-and-earth-minus-ghgs/
And there seems a couple of questionable assumptions in your “proof”:
For example the question if the spectrum radiation form the surface really can be described as a black body with one temperature.
“The rate at which radiant energy reaches space must be identical to the rate at which radiant energy leaves the surface”
seems flat out wrong to me as the surface emitting into space is higher up in the atmosphere and thus bigger than Earth´s surface.
I stopped reading after that, but I am sure there are more basic problems with your math.
You are assuming I made assumptions that I didn’t.
I assumed the surface was a grey body, not a black body.
I didn’t assume one temperature. The effective radiative temperature Tₑ was calculated as the value that would exist if there was one temperature, but everything else allowed the temperature distribution to vary in time and space, without any limitations.
There is about half a percent difference in surface area. This difference could easily be accounted for in the mathematics without changing the results in any substantive way, I suspect the data is reported in a way that already accounts for this effect.
Aww I am sorry I disaggree with most of your replies, did you check out that older WUWT post?
If so, your might reconsider “There is about half a percent difference in surface area.” as the initial reflection of the incoming solar radiation is done by the 30% clouded area.
you did not use a spectral formulation for a grey body, so I can´t see how you uphold your statement “I assumed the surface was a grey body, not a black body.”
“I didn’t assume one temperature. The effective radiative temperature[..] if there was one temperature,”
Ah okay!? You do see that these statements are contradictory, right? And even the slightest mistake there would be desasterous for your estimate because of the steep temperature^4 dependence.
I’ve skimmed it, but not yet read it in full. I see it making some errors that I’ve explained elsewhere, and some seemingly bizarre agreements that I haven’t yet had time to digest. Maybe later.
I’m not sure why you think I should reconsider.
The argument in my essay doesn’t depend in any way on where incoming solar radiation is reflected.
I was responding to your assertion that “the surface emitting into space is higher up in the atmosphere and thus bigger than Earth´s surface”. The effective emission altitude for radiation reaching space is below 10 km altitude. If you look at the surface area of a sphere at the radius of the Earth, and a sphere at a radius 10 km larger, the difference in surface area is about half a percent.
If one assumes an emissivity 𝜀 < 1, as I did, that necessarily means one is assuming a grey body.
No, I don’t see any contradiction.
There are 3 scenarios considered:
0) Constant temperature. It is in no way asserted that a planet would ever look like this. This is simply a formal procedure used to compute Tₑ.
1) Variable temperature, with no LW-absorbing/scattering materials. It turns out that the value of Tₑ can be shown to set an upper limit on how warm the average surface temperature of this planet can be.
2) Variable temperature, with LW-absorbing/scattering materials. It turns out the upper limit on the average surface is higher than for planet #1.
What’s the problem you see with this?
Not particularly disastrous.
Attending to different details can somewhat shift the estimate of how much of Earth’s temperature must be due to the GHE.
And, none of those tweaks to the estimate change the bottom-line conclusion that a substantial part of the Earth’s temperature (at least 24℃) must be due to the GHE.
(The lower estimate in the link you cited is based on some known misinterpretations.)
Pressure from GRAVITY (OMG I said it! Show me to my gas chamber)
causes the lower atmosphere to heat up. O yes it does 🙂
This hotter lower atmosphere emits IR (as all hot things do).
Some of this IR emitted from the lower atmosphere strikes the earth’s surface, warming it.
How is this not a perfectly servicable greenhouse effect?
It’s not “servicable” as it stands because gravity cannot be a source of energy. What the pressure from gravity causes is a temperature differential but it cannot be the source of the thermal energy, that can only be the sun (though the geothermal heat might provide a minor addition).
This presentation is absolutely correct as far as it goes, but it misses entirely the problem with the original theory as proposed by the ad hoc committee headed by Dr. Julie Charney back in 1979. In that theory, which was accepted intact by the IPCC, two-thirds of the warming is thought to come from the increase in water vapor in the upper troposphere as a result of the estimated 1 degree of warm from the GHE. So the post is correct, but only addresses the smaller part of the theory.
I have been searching for studies that empirically demonstrate this supposed increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere, but despite vast amounts of research money being spent, this needed evidence is proving very elusive.
Without it, the global warming problem is only 1/3 as significant as thought, and ironically, if the only the GHE effect is considered, and the increased water vapor portion of the theory is excluded, the modeled predictions would come very close to match the measured results.
If anyone has conclusive, empirical evidence regarding water vapor trends in the upper troposphere, please share it.
I provided those—in fact several different derivations—in the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth.
There are two issues. One is delta WVF with delta T. AR4 had a special black box discussion asserting it was constant. It isn’t. The other is the approximate overall magnitude. My recent guest post here on feedbacks and ECS showed that actual is about half of modeled in CMIP5.
Thanks Rud. I’ll check them out. Did you intend to link them? I can also search the site for your previous posts.
I think you run into trouble when you discuss the greenhouse effect in terms of a “global average temperature”, which is an artificial construction that can’t be sensed by any living thing actually on the planet. It’s like calculating the average musical tone in a Bach sonata. All the math in the world won’t help the layman understand what you’re talking about. Wouldn’t it be better to discuss the GHE in terms of things people actually experience like actual high and low temperatures, and how the GHE tends to bring both ends towards the middle? More greenhouse gases, less temperature variation, that sort of thing?
“More greenhouse gases, less temperature variation”…
Exactly!
Now consider the climates of the humid tropics and the arid deserts. If the rise in CO2 had a measurable effect then these climates would be converging – but they aren’t. I take this as empirical evidence that CO2 has little effect on the Earth’s climate. No models needed.
I’m sorry but when I see statements like the following:
“If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials” (emphasis mine) my BS indicators go on.
In my thermodynamics classes I was told that there are three methods of thermal energy movement: Radiation, Conduction and convection.
To claim that only one can move energy away from the surface is obviously incorrect. In fact the amount of energy in winds and other air movement demonstrates to me that convection must be a very strong player. I’m also quite certain that atmosphere in direct contact with the surface must pick up quit a bit of heat by conduction (molecule to molecule energy transfer). Even in the air itself, energy collected by radiation absorbtion is transfered to other molecules through conduction (otherwise only the absorbing molecules would be heated, not the entire atmosphere).
I argue that these non-radiative properties are a significant cause of raising the effective radiative surface of the atmosphere and (due to pressure differences and their effect on temperature) cause the surface to be warmer.
I don’t deny radiative absorption and that will have some effect on surface temperature, but to make calculations based on that being the ONLY cause is, in my opinion, incorrect.
That’s why I didn’t make any such claim.
I didn’t talk at all about what “moves energy away from the surface.” That’s irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Convection is definitely a powerful heat transfer mechanism.
However, efficiently transferring heat between the surface and the atmosphere doesn’t have the power to warm the average surface temperature above the radiative effective temperature. That’s what my derivation establishes.
Hmmm. In the absence of radiative gases, the effective radiative surface would always be at the planetary surface.
So, LW-absorbing gases are a requirement for the that effective radiative surface to be raised.
I would think the height of the effective radiative surface would likely be determined by that optical properties of the upper atmosphere, not by the efficiency of thermal transport in the lower atmosphere. Though, convection would set the temperature difference between the surface and that effective radiative transport surface.
I didn’t make any calculations based on that being the only cause.
What I did was calculate what CONSTRAINTS radiative considerations put on the possible effects of other factors.
The calculations totally allow for the possibility of convection. They just say that convection, in the absence of LW-absorbing materials, can’t raise the temperature beyond a certain point. And, Earth’s average temperature is at a point where LW-absorbing materials must be part of the explanation of the final 26℃ or so of warming.
Certainly, the actual temperature is determined by an interplay of different phenomena.
We argue in circles but disagree significantly in the role GHE plays in the near surface temperature and in their importance for retaining heat near the surface and in transmitting radiation into space. I’m not going to belabor the point and try to address every agreement and disagreement with what you say but the crux of the disagreement may be in the statement that your arguments “say that convection, in the absence of LW-absorbing materials, can’t raise the temperature beyond a certain point.” i don’t see where they do.
I’m not talking about “near surface temperature”, but surface temperature.
And, I’m not talking about the issue fo “retaining heat near the surface”; I’m presenting results that, mathematically, must be true regardless of what happens “near the surface.”
I get that you don’t see this.
I guess that for some reason, unknown to either of us, you are unable to follow my argument.
If you have any question or concern about a particular step, I’d be happy to try to explain it.
Why do you never hear about shortwave absorbing or scattering materials? Is it because of the energy of SW radiation?
You do, although that’s not necessarily the language used. Clouds, for example, both absorb and scatter SW radiation.
The lower atmosphere is not warm because it emits IR.
The lower atmosphere emits IR because it is warm.
Agreed.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
All very well, but whilst the world blames increasing atmospheric CO2 as the principal cause of global warming, when it can’t be observed in a scientific experiment in the wild (which it never has) then the cause of any warming must be something else.
The GH effect is only circa 30C if you expect the balance temperature to apply at sea level.
Only a small quantity of radiation is both absorbed and emitted back to space at sea level. When you consider the altitudes at which radiation is reflected, absorbed and emitted it is obvious that the actual “surface” for radiation and therefore temperature balance is much higher up. This in turn greatly reduces the GH effect required, judging by the above it is about 10 to 15C.
And considerable amounts of energy are moved from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere by convection, not radiative absorbtion.
With a proper emissivity calculation, the effect might be as small as 26℃.
However, there is no assumption that “the balance temperature to [applies] at sea level.”
The derivation I’ve offered doesn’t require radiative balance at all. Hence, there is no assumption about where the balance temperature applies.
The reasoning I’ve offered says that, given the amount of radiation emitted by the top of the atmosphere, 26℃ of the Earth’s average surface temperature requires LW-absorbing materials to explain it.
You’re apparently thinking about a different reasoning process about the GHE. The reasoning process I’ve used doesn’t have the sort of “loophole” that you’re trying to squeeze through.
What material absorbs SW radiation that is far in abundance than trace gases in the atmosphere. What is this material that covers 70% of the earth, why doesn’t he acknowledge this material that possesses an average of 334 watts of energy. And Msurface (w/o extensive snow) temperature would be 9°C not 15°(a hemisphere in summer conditions). If Msurface is greater than SW average 501 w-m² (which its not) you don’t have a greenhouse effect. 240 insulation of which 94 absorbed by water, 240 outgoing radiation (143 reflected+117 emitted by the surface 260 w-m²).
This chart clearly shows that CO2 CANNOT absorb any more energy – it has maxed out. All of Wentworth’s math is theoretical, not linked to reality, to experiments. “When reality does not match the math, the math is wrong”
The 501 solar heat that comes in to heat the earth, only represents half of the wavelengths from 8µm to 14µm. So that chart shows where TOA has runs out of energy from earth. Above 14µm level is ultra low energy that is unsafe for humans. 11-9µm wavelengths is safe (represents surface energy) for humans. Don’t be fooled into thinking its significant. If the ocean heat content is 5.3 x 10^24 equivalent to 340 watts. Ocean temperature will rise a insignificant amount the 12 hours of sunlight and reflect any energy above that.
How can you use a chart about carbon dioxide to prove my argument was wrong when I made no claims whatsoever about carbon dioxide in particular?
All of the ice core charts clearly show that CO2 lags temperature increases and stays high after the temperature plummets https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vostok-ice-core-records-for-carbon-dioxide-concentration-and-temperature-change-CO2-lags_fig2_340835138
I wonder about very high daytime surface temperatures in arid desert areas emitting into clear, cold nigh time skies
Since the earth atmosphere is not uniformly absorbent and the surface temperature is dramatically non-uniform, with the alignment constantly shifting between them, could this effect the “average” rate of surface temperature gain?
Thanks for the clear exposition. Although most here wouldn’t deny the greenhouse effect, the comments demonstrate that a few do, and it’s nice to have a post to point to for an additional way of arguing it.
That said, I expect no more success with your more-elegant approach than with my attempt (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/#comment-3257341) to provide an explanation that’s more intuitively appealing.
“deny”? What a strange word to use.
Btw, Bernard Lodge told you why your explanation was wrong.
There is an alternate explanation that is just as valid for the temperature of the earth. And, it is the reason the temperatures directly under the sun are warmer than on other places on earth.
First, an analogy.
Place a turkey on a rotisserie and let it spin. Stop it and measure the temperature of the turkey on the OPPOSITE side from the heat source. You will find that it is warmer than when started. Eventually, the whole turkey is browned, yet the heat source is only on one side…just like earth.
When the sun strikes the earth, these things happen:
1. The surface is warmed.
2. The atmosphere is warmed.
3. The atmosphere nearest the surface rises (convects) MOVING HEAT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
4. Cooler atmosphere sinks (subsidence) and is then warmed by the surface until IT TOO rises.
5. Thus the boundary layer atmosphere is heated.
Earth spins on its axis, and the sun heats the side that is toward the sun. Heating is fairly rapid, since it is direct sun on the surface. When the point on earth that was heated during the day rotates out of the sun, these things happen:
1. The earth surface radiates. The rate of radiation is proportional to the temperature of the surface. A hot surface radiates at a higher rate than a cold surface. Basic thermal law.
2. As the earth radiates, its surface temperature drops.
3. The atmosphere in the boundary layer is STILL heated from the day’s sun.
4. So called ‘greenhouse gases’ radiate. But 99% of the atmosphere is NOT greenhouse gases, so they aren’t radiating.
5. Non-greenhouse gases must be cooled at night. How does that happen?
6. Non-greenhouse gases can only be cooled by collisions with cooler molecules. That happens from the surface up. Atmosphere at the surface is cooled. Atmosphere in contact with those cooled molecules is cooled.
7. The cooling takes place from the surface toward the boundary layer.
8. Cooling is MUCH slower than daytime heating. Think of a sawtooth wave.
When the sun returns, it begins warming the surface again. But the atmosphere in the boundary layer would cool MORE if the sun did not reappear as it always does.
That means, the atmosphere contains residual heat, at all times, as a result of the ‘rotisserie effect’…heating when facing the sun, and slowly cooling when not. Then heating again before the atmosphere cools to what some call the ‘blackbody’ temperature, which it certainly is not. At best, it would be a graybody, but that’s another subject.
Basically, earth is like a rotisserie, and the sun is the heat source. Just as the turkey heats on all sides, so does the earth. Just as the turkey contains residual heat from when it WAS facing the heat source, so does earth.
Weather balloons show everything I have said here. We don’t measure the temperature of greenhouse gases, we measure the temperature of the NON-GREENHOUSE gases. That’s what we walk around in every day.
No greenhouse gases AT ALL needed to explain any of this. In fact, if all the greenhouse gases were somehow removed, the earth would HEAT, and STAY that way at a new equilibrium. Why? Because the sun’s energy would raise the temperature during the day, but there would be no greenhouse gas radiation at night, so ALL of the cooling would take place from the surface up. Again, that is a much slower process than heating by the sun, so the earth’s temperature would rise. Again, basic thermal laws. No radiation needed, except that from the sun and from the surface.
The greenhouse ‘boogyman’ with it’s sister boogywoman Co2, is absolutely meaningless in terms of earth’s average temperature. (Whatever that means.)
There is as much legitimate disagreement about the true nature of the atmospheric “Greenhouse” and the Greenhouse Effect as there is about all of its causes and mechanisms. Until a universally accepted model is produced, there will be debate about it. Science is advanced by a process that to some resembles a barroom fight.
So the introduction to this supposedly reasoned and sophisticated and science based argument includes: “I know many readers are deeply skeptical about AGW. I encourage you to consider finding a way to honor your beliefs without denying the reality of the GHE.
Based on everything that’s known about physics, denying that the GHE is real seems to me to be just as wrong-headed as insisting that the Earth is flat. (Any Flat-Earthers here?)”
Why would I waste my time reading this article given this introduction? Had I written anything like that in any of my lab notebooks, I can tell you what my professor would have said.
I “encourage” Wentworth to write scientific articles that leave politics and sophomoric insults out.
Right. The main problem with this article is the tone, with early reference to flat earthers and so on. It is insulting and arrogantly written. It suggests that nobody rational could possibly disagree with the straw man presented. There is no new information presented. It is also wrong.
There are situations where a body can be a lot hotter than these limits. Consider the sun for instance, and any of the billions of stars. The Sun is very much hotter than constrained by the incident radiation that falls on its surface. Also the Earth has a hot molten core, and so, in the absence of the sun, the surface would be warmer than that suggested by this formula. This might be negligible at the moment – I’m not sure. But again it falsifies this ‘proof’.
Furthermore the earth spins which causes temperature changes due to friction of mobile surface objects, fluids and gases, and is subject to tidal forces from the moon, these may also impact the temperature of the surface.
so while I’m not disputing the strawman of the SB law and Jensen’s inequality, and I am not disputing the greenhouse effect is the most likley candidate for explanation as to why the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly what it is – given the dominant impact of the sun, I do think this article is rubbish and the author would do well to consider the philosophy of science, and the power of humility, until they come to the table with some insights or data which are new.
I do regret my tone. It was a product of frustration.
Have you looked at the proof? It makes no mention of “the incident radiation that falls on its surface.”
So, talking about the Sun is not a disproof. It’s in no way relevant.
The proof is totally independent of the source of heat. Even if Earth was 100% warmed by energy from the hot molten core (or from friction or tidal forces), that wouldn’t in any way invalidate the argument.
You do realize you’ve just walked away from your entire proof, don’t you?
What makes you say that?
The proof is all about three quantities: the surface temperature T, the LW radiant exitance from the surface, Mₛ, and the LW radiant exitance from TOA into space, Mₜ.
There is nothing in the proof that relies on details of the heat source.
So, how do you see my statements as “walking away” from my proof?
Actually you are right in a way.
After talking about incoming energy “Suppose a planet (or object) absorbs shortwave (SW) radiant energy” you do not mention incoming energy again at any stage.
And that makes your definition of the greenhouse effect shoddy in the extreme. There is no such thing as a greenhouse without incoming energy. If you were being honest you would have described your post as proof that the atmosphere acts like a blanket.
So by choosing a misleading definition you walked away from your proof before you even started making it.
That’s not entirely true. I write “To the extent that radiative balance applies, one could alternatively use the average absorbed insolation to calculate Tₑ.”
So, under the assumption of steady-state energy balance, my analysis gives the standard result, which does relate to incoming energy.
But, even then, it doesn’t care where the incoming energy comes from, or where in the system that energy is absorbed.
I didn’t say there is no incoming energy. I’m offering a formulation such that, when outgoing energy is in balance with incoming energy, produces exactly the sort of predictions one would expect.
But, it also says something clear about what must be true if exact steady-state energy balance doesn’t apply.
That’s not “shoddy” — that’s offering a little something extra.
Every version of the GHE amounts to “the atmosphere acts like a blanket.” (Though, people don’t always seem to understand the implications of blankets very well.)
Nothing but weasel words.
And still condescending to those you deem to be poor souls who do not understand the implications of blankets.
Has anyone actually denied GHE or the existence of LW-absorbing (or scattering) materials? I think the question is what is the contribution of co2.
I think there is reasonable doubt about the contribution of all GHE.
“More LW radiation is emitted by the surface than reaches space.”
I didn’t read any further because this claim doesn’t hold up to the very, very, VERY first sniff test:
Are we building a crust or not?
If we are, LW radiation OUT is higher than SW radiation (and any other radiation) IN.
Oddgeir
Why do you think this has any connection to the claim that I’ve made? I said nothing about SW radiation IN.
“If we assume an average surface emissivity 𝜀 = 0.94, then equations 1 and 2 lead to:
Your’re building up LW heat there. As we’re building a crust, there can be no LW heat build-up.
And yes, you DID say something about SW in:
“Under an assumption of “radiative balance,” the average insolation is equal to the ⟨Mₜ⟩, the average rate at which LW radiant energy is emitted into space.”
As I said, we’re building a crust. There is no radiative balance. We’re losing heat to space.
Oddgeir
You keep using this phrase and I don’t have the slightest idea what you mean by it. Without an explanation, your words have too little meaning for me to be able to usefully engage.
Except you’ve missed the entire point. The science/math has never been the problem. The problem is the politics, the lies, the corruption of data and the disregard for history. We really didn’t need yet one more math whiz exercising his brain ad nauseam, while insulting those of us who are addressing the actual problem … massive scientific fraud and malfeasance.
… “But, but, but … the Greenhouse Effect is Real. Here, I can prove it.” It REALLY doesn’t matter which theory is correct. If it isn’t properly applied, who cares what you proved? You’ve addressed one minute aspect of a confoundingly complex system without addressing the elephant in the room … CO2 and human causation.
Straw man!
The fact that the total majority of posts and arguments are about different things than the original post subject makes sensible debate here just about impossible
Well, if the original post was in fact a mathematical proof there could be no discussion. Maths is like that.
But the original post is not a mathematical proof.
The math looks correct on first pass. There are two important points.
1. The inequality establishes why a planet with circulating atmosphere and oceans has a higher average temperature than a planet without atmosphere or oceans.
2. The predictive power of the math shows that attempts to model the climate system are not going to advance calculatuon of ECS, because this is not what is driving temperature.
What is driving temperature is opacity of the atmosphere to establish an upper bound. Circulation then lifts actual towards this upper bound.
I’ve no doubt the GHE is real, but how did the earth and all its life-forms manage when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher?
The fear in AGW circles is the increase in CO2 concentration is going to lead to a runaway GHE which will be catastrophic for life on the planet.
If CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past then why did this catastrophic scenario not come to pass?
The physics and maths are correct, but there are obviously other mechanisms which overcome an increase in CO2 meaning CO2 is not the temperature control knob.
To quote something from Jurassic Park, ‘Life finds a way’.
Come on. No one said there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect. Toy models need to consider physical reality in the atmosphere. It is silly to do calculations, ignoring the key physics that limits the greenhouse warming effect.
The question is how much warming will occur without feedbacks from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Is the warming for a doubling atmospheric CO2 less than 0.5C, 1.2C or as high as 3C?
There are periods of millions of years, in the paleo record, when CO2 was high and the earth was cold and visa versa. Why is that true? Toy models must explain all of the observations.
It is interesting that there are peer reviewed “one-dimensional” studies, published 40 years ago, that predicted a warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 0.24C and 0.17C (see below for links.) Why is that true?
There are phenomena/physics which limits the greenhouse effect.
For example the absorption bands of water and CO2 overlap. That fact reduces the incremental warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Below 5 km, in the atmosphere, roughly 80% of the heat transfer is via convection, not radiation.
As one moves higher in the atmosphere, cosmic radiation produces, free charge in the atmosphere. The effect of free charge in the atmosphere is to limit/constrain the greenhouse effect.
Before the CO2 molecule can release the absorb infrared radiation, the CO2 molecules transfers energy to other molecules and to free charge. i.e. The time between molecular collisions (in the troposphere) is small compared to the average time required for CO2 to re-emit the absorbed radiation.
The free charge in the atmosphere, logically moves energy to either side of the water, CH4, and other greenhouse gases absorption bands.
i.e. It is logical that the atmosphere is not neutral as one move higher up in the atmosphere. This effect limits the greenhouse gas warming.
The IPCC general circulation models (GCM) have more than a 100 free variables that are subjectively set to produce the ‘predicted’ warming.
What anchors the subjective GCM calculation that produces warming of 3C to 5C, and our thoughts is the Hanson calculated no feedback warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 1.2C.
It is interesting that there are peer reviewed “one-dimensional” studies that predicted a warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 0.24C and 0.17C.
The infamous without ‘feedbacks’ cult of CAGW’s calculation (this is the so called 1 dimensional calculation that predicted 1.2C to 1.4C surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) incorrectly/illogical/irrationally/against the laws of physics held the lapse rate constant to determine (fudge) the estimated surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
The so-called one-dimensional radiative convection model is a toy model. Toy models are widely used in science and are very useful if there are conceptually correct.
The problem is the cult of CAGW, Hansen in this case, 1) fixed the lapse rate for the study and 2) ignored the fact that the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor in the tropics which greatly reduces the greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere due to the infrared frequency overlap of water and CO2, and ignored the effect of free charge in the troposphere.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
..In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2.
There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1. In the figure, line B shows the FLRA giving a uniform warming for the troposphere and the surface. Since the CS (FAH) greatly changes with a minute variation of the lapse rate for 2xCO2, the computed results of the 1DRCM studies in Table 1 are theoretically meaningless along with the failure of the FLRA.
In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2.
Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This
gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.
In the physical reality with a bold line in Fig.2, the surface temperature increases as much as 0.1~0.2K with the slightly decreased lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km.
Since the CS (FAH) is negligible small at the surface, there is no water vapor and ice albedo feedback which are large positive feedbacks in the 3DGCMs studies of the IPCC.
…. (c) More than 100 parameters are utilized in the 3DGCMs (William: Three dimensional General Circulation Models, silly toy models) giving the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K claimed by the IPCC with the tuning of them.
The followings are supporting data for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.
(A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
(B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
(C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.
I’ve seen comments on this website that have said exactly that within the past week.
If you’re not saying that, then this particular essay likely won’t be relevant to you.
Evidence please. Links are best.
‘the “Greenhouse Effect” does not exist.’
Oh that’s where all this comes from. In that exchange you wrote “You seem to be debunking a presumed meaning of the term GHE which doesn’t match my understanding of the term.”
So you have a semantic difference of opinion and then you go on to write this article about a definition of the GHE which ignores incoming radiation and chooses your own definition but without mentioning the well known meaning of the term ie an analogy to a garden greenhouse.
Bonus points for a link to any place where your definition of GHE is widely accepted as something other than an analog to a garden greenhouse.
It doesn’t ignore it.
It generalizes it.
I realized I could express things in a way that addressed incoming radiation, but also addressed other cases.
Everyone agrees that comparing the atmosphere to a garden greenhouse seldom does anything but stimulate confusion and disagreement.
It’s not fair to insist that one has to use an analogy that nobody likes.
Not fair? An analogy that nobody likes? And yet you wrote an article purporting to prove that very thing.
A good snake oil salesman knows when it is time to move on to the next group of suckers. Choose wisely.
Mr. Bob Wentworth, Ph.d. (Applied Physics), from Stanford, graduated in 1989, appears to be a Member of The Center for Nonviolent Communication. If this is the correct Mr. Bob Wentworth, Ph.D. (Applied Physics), then he is, apparently, “…a CNVC Certified Trainer, coach,…”. His areas of interest appear to be, Business, Counseling, Emotional Intelligence, Healing, Leadership, Mediation/Resolution, Parenting, Relationships, Restorative Justice, Schools/Education, Social Change, Spiritual Growth. Mr. Bob Wentworth, Ph.D. (Applied Physics) appears to be from Eugene, Or.
I wonder why Mr. Bob Wentworth, Ph.D. (Applied Physics) isn’t doing applied physics somewhere. Why has he chosen a career in Social Justice? Couldn’t cut the mustard in the real physical world?
This article is bunk. Mr. Wentworth does nothing to contribute to the discussion of CAGW, unless you want to count his condescending, patronizing, insulting, argument from authority logical fallacy as a contribution. The are much better Climate Believers, some with real credibility, posting and commenting on this site than this yahoo.
Why was he even given the time of day here?
“Why was he even given the time of day here?”
Because he is a friend of Willis, B.A. Psychology.
Heh. They should exchange degrees.
I rather got the impression he was missing the point, as well. Frankly I’ve lost interest in the science, except in general, because the issues concerning the fraud are fr more important and compelling. Eventually all these analyses start to look the same. It’s all hypothetical. It fits allegory of the 5 blind men arguing over what an Elephant looks like. They’re all right and all wrong at the same time.
Okay, here’s my $.02 worth: since CO2 is such a menace that people have to go to great lengths to explain why we don’t need it, but fail to take into account that it’s a byproduct of animal respiration and it keeps plants (which we do need) growing, then perhaps it should be taken into consideration that CO2 is, or may be – the only cotton-pickin’ thing that is keeping the planet habitable right now.
Would you rather live on Snowball Earth?
Here’s a little light reading in regard to my question:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/43/11333
Title: Formation of most of our coal brought Earth close to global glaciationI know – it’s just one article, but the snowball Earth period the Cryogenian period was before the Carboniferous, and — well, it seems that a COLD planet is really not all that rare. If it were, we wouldn’t have ice ages, would we?
Now, if that isn’t enough, when CO2 levels decrease substantially because plants of all kinds essentially live on CO2 + H2O (not to mention other chemicals), then (to put it simply) the carbon molecules are bound up in plant matter. If plant matter dies and decays into combustible materials such as coal and swamp gas, then stabilizing the ambient/general temperature slows and ends. All the coal that has been dug up for a VERY long time and used by Hoomans for cooking and heating and refining metal ores comes from plant matter. (Not including petroleum here; different source – but not ignoring it.) Without a warm climate, plants will simply NOT grow. Period.
It’s entirely possible that the only reason we aren’t having another ice age dumped on us right now is due to the use of carbon-based fuels and other products. Just sayin’.
So please inform me how, if all carbon-based fuels including petroleum and plant matter are eliminated exactly how I’m supposed to believe that you think the planet will be better off, when in fact, we could easily find ourselves facing really serious cold, snowy weather. And if we have winters when the snow won’t melt, and the snowy periods continue with zero meltback, please let me know exactly how your were planning to find food.
See Greenland photos, etc., and tell me how WARM it is there. I believe the Arctic ice/snow mass is higher this time around, never mind what’s going on up in Iceland and other areas where the snow doesn’t always melt back. And please remember, while you’re at it, that the Sun is currently manifesting a weaker output, which might account for the outdoor temperatures being lower than usual in May 2021. (That’s THIS year.)
So in essence, while I was a bit long-winded about what I said, most Hoomans would rather be warm and well-fed than cold and starving and having to hunt for food. But that’s just my view of it.
Would you like fries with that?
Sara,
We are currently living in a Ice Age, have been for 34 million years. Human evolution is said related to this cooling period causing more grassland in Africa. It seems to me the change climate in Africa [warmer, cooler, drier, and wetter]had something to do human waves traveling out of Africa.
And in last 2 million years was coldest period of this 34 million old Ice Age, which is called btw, wiki: “The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
And in last two million we had dangerously low CO2 levels.
Other call it an Ice Age, it’s also called an Icehouse global climate.
I prefer to call it, an icebox climate- because some process is causing our ocean to be
refrigerated. Basically it’s falling denser cold water from polar region.
One could call falling cold water is a short term “warming effect” but ocean basins fill up with this very cold water, and our cold average temperature of ocean depth, is why we are in a icehouse climate.
Or only thing need change is average temperature of all ocean, which averages about 3.5 C, to being 10 C, and no longer in icehouse climate or Ice Age.
And not much a problem if the entire volume of ocean was 10 C rather than 3.5 C.
I can’t happen quickly, but if by magic {or huge space impactor] were to cause ocean to warm from 3.5 to 10 C, there would a lot ocean thermal expansion- or meters of global sea level rise.
But I don’t think people have to live on the beach they are currently living on and I think it would better if we started living on ocean.
But anyhow ocean not warming much, thermal expansion only been about 2″ over last 100 years, and not likely rise 1 foot within another 100 years. And in 100 year, a few million people will probably be living on Mars. And main thing of much use on Mars is the CO2 atmosphere. There is more CO2 in Mars atmosphere then in Earth’s atmosphere.
gbaikie —
No argument from me. What I found in looking at the length of time over the last 600,000 years, +/- 50K to 75K, is that the COLD periods have been longer than the warm periods, both in the Americas and in the other side of the planet.
Not counting the brief disruption from Toba’s eruption, in addition to whatever it was that erupted south of the city of Ur (where Noah lived), there were events like Toba that reached North America and sent the local tribes into hiding in caves. (Found that in a history book on Native American legends,) And we don’t really know how early those migratory clans came over here by way of the (now islands) Aleutian land bridge. We don’t even know how many groups migrated across that land bridge, or when they started, so that’s a real mystery.
However, to make one large volcano completely responsible for that doesn’t work for me. There is a dormant volcano in Iran. It is Damavand. Mt Damavand is located 70 km NE of Tehran and 70 km south of the Caspian Sea. It is the second highest volcano in Asia. The highest volcano in Asia is Kunlun in Tibet.
The volcano contains a volume of 400 cubic km and overlies the active fold and thrust belt of the Alborz Mountains. Source Volcano Live – John Seach
http://volcanolive.com/damavand.html
The point is that even with the technology we have now, we can’t truly date the start and finish of something, and no, we are NOT out of the woods with this long, slow slide back into the ice fields. That is what really worries me – that, and the denial by the ecohippies and their ilk that the Eearth is “burning up”, when it is not.
“As a physicist, I’m as certain of the reality of the Greenhouse Effect as I am that 1 + 1 = 2.”
Definition of greenhouse effect:
The transparency of Earth atmosphere allow the intense sunlight to reach and warm the Earth surface. There is little doubt about that.
There is also little doubt that Earth surface is mostly covered with ocean, and that the ocean is likewise transparent to sunlight.
Within an inch of sunlight passing thru ocean water, this ocean water is far more transparent to sunlight as compared to the large and more massive Earth’s atmosphere above it and no long wavelength infrared radiation can pass thru that inch of water.
Most of sunlight energy [visible and shortwave IR light] reaching Earth surface is passing thru an inch depth of ocean surface water and for energy to leave the ocean, convection heat transfer is only way the heated water reaches skin surface of the ocean, whereupon it can radiate long wave IR, but as suggest above Earth’s surface atmosphere does not radiate much infrared radiation energy.
And not mentioned in definition above is most energy transfer in lower atmosphere is convectional heat transfers. Also not mention is at lower temperatures {below say 100 C] even in vacuum not much infrared energy is radiated- a lunar surface in vacuum will trap the warmth of the sun {though Earth’s ocean water and atmosphere traps much more of warmth of the sunlight].
What is foundation of Greenhouse effect theory is the model of Ideal thermal conductive blackbody surface. And in terms of a planet or spherical body, at 1 AU distance from the Sun
the spherical model would have an uniform temperature of about 5 C in a vacuum.
The moon is similar to a blackbody in vacuum but the Moon does not “act” like an Ideal thermal conductive blackbody surface.
The lunar surface when sunlight is at zenith, can heat to 120 C. And Ideal thermal conductive
blackbody does not heat anywhere near 120 C, instead the warmth of sunlight “perfectly” transferred {it’s an ideal thermally conductive surface] and lunar surface is certainly not an ideal thermal conductive surface. Rather the lunar surface is close the opposite, if say 10 meter square area of lunar surface is shaded from Sunlight, the 10 meter square area would be cold spot surrounded by a lunar surface at a temperature of 120 C.
On Earth one can do something similar, but with the lunar surface it would be more of a extreme difference.
So with Ideal thermal conductive blackbody surface, the hottest the surface gets is about 5 C and the coldest a surface gets is about 5 C.
And btw, one could do something like this with the lunar surface. If you use deep water which is being mixed- the surface of the water in sunlight at zenith could be colder than 5 C.
But the Ideal thermal conductive blackbody doesn’t absorb heat, it transfers the energy of sunlight to entire surface of sphere.
Silver or copper are pretty good at transferring heat, but aren’t anything like ideal thermal conductive model’s “abilities”. But big block of copper could transfer heat fairly short distance and like water, absorb a lot heat. And large block of say copper as with deep water, could likewise remain around 5 C instead heating to 120 C. And if only 5 C, a square meter surface radiates 340 watts {a lot less than compared to 120 C surface}
On Earth and when and where the sunlight is 1000 watts square meter, no thing is radiating 1000 watts of Longwave IR- even if you in a dry hot desert. And with ocean it’s much less than compared to a dry hot desert. With the desert one has conventional heat loss, and greater different of warmed surface and air, the more the convectional heat loss- so max surface temperature is having hottest and driest air, say 50 C air temperature allowing surface to warm to 70 C, allowing most amount longwave IR radiation, but having thick atmosphere prevents it reaching space. Or if Earth had Mars thin atmosphere, more of it would radiate directly into space, thereby have loss in terms planetary energy budgets- lower
global average temperature.
A desert is not going to get hot in one day- if have some cool weather, then in few day after this it could get hot. This related to global air temperature, if higher, one could get less cool weather. An aspect of global temperature is that most of surface temperature makes the global average temperature. Or most of Earth surface is ocean. Roughly one can say the cooler wetter air of Ocean is causing land to radiate less energy directly to space.
Though average ocean surface temperature is higher than land average temperature, cooler air only in sense of how hot air can get in desert. So warmer average air temperature of ocean warms land area, or make more moderate land air temperature {land air temperature don’t get as cold}.
But more important aspect related climate is temperature of entire ocean.
Or one could say because out entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, Earth is in an Icehouse climate whereas what called a greenhouse climate has average temperature of more than 10 C.
In past interglacial periods the warmest ocean got was about 5 C. And difference between a 3.5 ocean and 5 C ocean is enormous.
“A mathematical proof of the greenhouse effect”.
It is only possible if the greenhouse effect is a mathematical object. Otherwise it is an oxymoron. Could you provide a mathematical proof of any physical law?
Both Newton and Einstein did in physics since the ‘laws’ are just time tested theorems that work, like that figure skater spin thingy called conservation of momentum. Or. emily Noether’s theorem that for any ‘conservation law’ there must be a corresponding underlying symmetry. What is your point?
Please see Appendix 1, where I addressed this issue.
You stated “The reality of the GHE effect is equivalent to the reality of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.” Not true, the GHE is much more complex. You introduced an extremely simplified model with God keeping the planet surface at a constant temperature, and calculate that an introduction of a barrier to an outgoing radiation increases the surface temperature. True, and very simple, but you hide the whole complexity behind a statement “On Earth, ∆M is generally positive. ” You don’t compute it, you just postulate it.
The details of how the GHE works may be more complex. But, concluding that it says there is a maximum temperature that can be achieved in the absence of LW-absorbing/scattering materials is not complex. It’s mathematically trivially derivable from the S-B Law, as I have done.
No, did not assume the planet’s surface is at a constant temperature. I calculated a parameter, Tₑ, that is equivalent to what would happen on a planet of constant temperature, but I allowed the actual temperature of the planet, T, to vary arbitrarily in time and space.
Well, the idea of a “barrier” suggests something like a wall, but it could simply be the introduction of LW-absorbing gases.
I didn’t actually show that it increases the surface temperature, but that it makes it possible for the average surface temperature to be warmer than the previously imposed limit.
I don’t postulate it. What I meant is that on Earth the measured data consistently indicate that ⟨∆M⟩ is greater than zero.
That’s not even the interesting part of the result.
The interesting part is that on Earth, the measured average surface temperature ⟨T⟩ is greater than the limiting value, Tₑ, that would apply if there were no LW-absorbing/scattering materials in the atmosphere.
Bob, with a negative ∆M, would your approach prove that Stefan-Boltzmann law causes global cooling?
condescending, insulting. self-important. self-contradicting. naive, gullible. endless appeals to authority
Examples
We’re told that Flat Earthers are brain dead rock dwellers yet, this guy uses the childish assumption of a flat non-rotating earth to derive the average temperature – using a function that moves as the fourth power.
What sort of maths is this?
next……
Quote”””(The more typically quoted figure of 33℃ would result if one assumed an emissivity 𝜀 = 1.)
The emissivity of Oxygen Nitrogen mix is 0.02. That of CO2 is 0.000
next….
Whether earth is flat or not is ONLY relevant to people who THINK it is important- based on what they were told by other self-important self-promoters looking to gain power/control/money over others.
To everyone else in The Real World, it matters not one jot.
next…..
Quote:”Earth’s atmosphere includes LW-absorbing-or-scattering materials such as water (in the vapor, liquid and solid phases), aerosols, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorinated gases”
Oh that’s interesting. No Oxygen or Nitrogen then?
next…….
Quote:””Given that Earth’s atmosphere does include LW-absorbing and LW-scattering materials which allow there to be more LW radiation emitted by the surface than what reaches space, the average surface of the Earth can be no higher than 294 K (21℃).
Mr: Read Take In And Understand The Words Of Your Own Authority (Stefan)
Stefan explicitly stated that objects radiate according to their own absolute temperature and their own emissivity.
It matters not one whit what other objects are near or far, what temperature they are or what they are made of.
yet you come out with that.
Finally……
Define exactly where The Surface Of The Earth Is as far as the sun, the effective radiant surface actually is.
The surface comprising soil, dirt, liquid water is under layer of ‘fluid’ (bearing down with weight of easily between 5 and 10 tons per square metre – the weight of it is irrelevant apart from to suggest how much there is)
That fluid might be considered = water.
So, if you were at the bottom of a swimming pool that was between 5 and 10 metres deep (on the Surface Of Earth as you imply) – how would the colour of that water (impurities like all the gases you mention) affect the temperature of the top of the water i.e. The surface that earth radiates from
On a no-atmosphere flat earth the bottom of that pool would be the colour of the Moon, almost actually pitch black.
The black surface would absorb the solar radiation and the precise degree of blackness (Albedo) would tell how much solar power was absorbed into the bottom of the pool
Quote:”This imbalance is evidence that Earth was not in steady-state, but experienced a net warming over the decade of measurement.)
Yes. OK. Fine
Because out in The Real World, not a Mathematical Ivory Tower, people have been cutting forest, building cities and ploughing, tilling, paddy fielding and have changed the Albedo
Sir, you are an Ivory Tower dwelling self-important self-promoting bullying muppet spouting BS who gets his kicks from being all those things.
Get A Life.
A life that does not involve trashing the lives of everyone else.
Bob,
FYI, I think it is easier to show Holder’s inequality by numeric example, using say a summer high/winter low as an example.
carefully not stated is that water is the dominant greenhouse gas and its present in up to 100% (humidity) concentrations compared with .04% CO2…
100% humidity means the air is completely saturated, in other words, if there were any more water vapor in the air it would start to precipitate out (given a condensation surface or nuclei). Relative humidity is the ratio of the water vapor actually in the air divided by the total amount of water needed for the air to be saturated, then expressed as a percentage. I’ve always thought that it is much more useful (to me at least) to describe the air in terms of dew point, rather than relative humidity, which is often misunderstood. Still, there is often 100 times more water in the air than CO2 anywhere tropical.
Very few skeptics question the greenhouse effect.
All alarmists present the straw man lie that anyone who questions the climate crisis narrative or any aspect of climate science is questioning the greenhouse theory. They think AGW=dangerous warming and refuse to accept any information to the contrary.
Most people who say AGW is fraud are talking about the dangerous warming meme not the greenhouse effect.
True. My comments here are not to claim no GHE but rather to point out there are mechanisms other than the GHE which are in play and which can account for the fact that GHE based models are usually wrong.
rubbish paper ! greenhouse is only physics confirmed by measures !!!
to summarise.
Ergo all the fuss about CO2 is a complete and utter waste of time money and energy.
But the ‘greenhouse effect’ of course is real.
–haven’t read thru 200+ responses here, so maybe this question has been answered, but–can someone explain to me, a retired pyjhysician with minimal formal training in physics, how a photon absorbed by a molecule, with 3 degrees of freedom (ie “GHG”), at its resonant frequency, increasing only the vibrational energy of that molecule, then re-radiates the equivalent energy at that same frequency, can affect the translational energy ( temp is average kinetic energy of constituent molecules by the Kinetic Theory of Gases)–) of the other non-GH molecules in the atmosphere?….
….Secondly, on the quantum level, that absorption/re-radiation process supposedly takes place instantaneously. Our natural tendency is to try to visualize quantum phenomena based on our macro-world experiences (It MUST take SOME time, right?) …Can we be allowed to claim that The GHE works by delaying the exit of radiation to space? Instantaneous (ie-zero) x any large number is still instantaneous.
I’m no expert, but until one come along, here’s what I think:
Joe, we can all actually learn this stuff qualitatively if not quantitatively.
Each of us has his own opinion, I suppose. Mine is as I stated.
Just to see how opinions differ on the number of degrees of freedom, you may want to consider https://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_degree_of_freedom_of_carbon_dioxide.
As to (3), I’m inclined to agree with Will Happer’s Questions 2 and 3 answers at http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180319_docket-317-cv-06011_na-1.pdf:
“CO2 molecules radiate very slowly, requiring about a second to lose energy by emitting a quantum of infrared radiation. But a CO2 molecule can also lose energy in nearly every collision that it has with an N2 or O2 molecule; these happen about a billion times per second at sea level.”
Again, though, that’s just me (and, apparently, Dr. Happer).
But I’ve noticed that you tend to look at the world differently, and, hey, everyone’s opinion is the product of his experience; yours seems to differ from mine. I respect that.
I just don’t agree.
CO₂ has 3 translational modes, 2 rotational modes, and (I think) 4 vibrational modes. So, more than 3 degrees of freedom.
CO₂ absorbs a photon, at which point it is typically in a flexing vibration. It then collides with a another molecule, which is likely a non-GH molecule. This collision randomizes the energy carried by the two molecules, distributing the energy among the various degrees of freedom in some random way.
It’s simplistic to think of temperature as being only about the “average kinetic energy.” It’s about that, but it’s also about every other energetic mode of the system, including rotations, vibrations, and electron excitations.
In gases, collisions are the primary mechanism for distributing energy between molecules, and between different energetic modes.
In CO₂, a collision will typically happen before a molecule that has absorbed a photon has time to re-radiate.
However, collisions will continually be putting some CO₂ molecules into an excited state from which they can radiate.
It’s not as simple as molecule absorbs photon then re-radiates. Usually, it’s molecule absorbs a photon, collides, then another molecule that has experienced a collision radiates.
No, re-radiation definitely does not happen instantaneously. For the CO₂ transition of most interest, I believe it takes more than a second on average.
The language of “delaying the exit of radiation” is easy to misunderstand.
It’s not about the duration of any physical process. It’s about the overall rate of energy transfer.
Suppose that without GHG, a surface would emit 100 W/m², and that energy would directly reach space. But, suppose GHG absorb a lot of that radiation, and emit a lot of the radiation back towards the surface. Maybe only 30 W/m² reaches space. The net rate of energy transfer from the surface to space has been reduced. To achieve energy balance with the incoming energy, the surface needs to heat up so that it radiates more, so that 100 W/m² actually reaches space. Maybe that will mean the surface gets hot enough to emit 300 W/m², so that 100 W/m² will reach space.
So, “delay” really means “the rate of energy flow is reduced.”
Does that help at all?
“One of the reasons the surface of the Moon is cold on the average (197 K) that is surface temperature varies by large amounts between locations over time”.
And what about the Earth? The temperature on the sand surface in the deserts on summer can reach 330-340 K and for Antarctica ice it could be less than 183 K. In Siberia the difference between summer and winter temperatures could be about 70-80 K. .
But from this follows the question, how correct is it to represent the Earth as a kind of physical body with one temperature (arithmetic mean?) And compare this temperature with that calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation?
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is derived for an absolutely black body (ideally, a cavity with a narrow opening). How much does the Earth differ from such a body and can this difference be taken into account by introducing only the emissivity coefficient as it is done in the article? At least the 33 K temperature difference mentioned in the first IPCC report (1990) is obtained by introducing the value of Earth albedo 0.3 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Naturally, the albedo changes both between different sites and over time.
Is it generally correct to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate body temperature from the amount of energy? Any physical body at a temperature other than 0 K emits energy in the infrared range, but this is an irreversible process. In other words, this energy cannot return to the body and change its temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation contains only energy, temperature and constants, but in reality the body temperature depends not only on the absorbed energy, but also on the body mass and heat capacity of the substance (the basic equation of thermochemistry).
If the basic physical idea is not substantiated – the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for calculating the average (?) temperature of the Earth, then there is no point in discussing the mathematical proof.
Aleksandr, you have it nailed.
Yes, there are noticeable temperature variations, though much smaller than the temperature variations that exist on the Moon.
How correct is it? It’s absolutely correct, in the sense that one can do the computation, there are rigorous mathematics that can tell you something about how one average relates to another.
It absolutely does not tell you everything important about what’s going on on the planet.
Introducing only an emissivity coefficient does a pretty good job, as long as the emissivity is high, as it is for a majority of the Earth’s surface. It doesn’t tell you anything about variations with wavelength of the spectral emissivity. That could introduce some mis-impressions regarding how the emissions would interact with the spectral absorption characteristics of a particular GHG. But, for most relevant materials, the spectral emissivity doesn’t have sharp discontinuities. So, the magnitude of any errors introduced are likely to be pretty small.
The arguments in my essay don’t have any dependency on spectral details, so for purposes of the essay, using simple emissivity coefficients shouldn’t introduce any errors at all.
To be entirely rigorous for a gray body emitter, you would need to know the spectral emissivity as a function of wavelength, and adjust accordingly. This shows up as the emissivity being effectively a function of temperature. But, for most solid and liquid materials, the emissivity is only weakly a function of temperature. I’m not certain about the magnitude of the effect, but I suspect it’s negligible for most purposes.
In my analysis, I’m going the other way around–from temperature, I’m calculating energy emitted. Similar considerations apply.
But, in my Appendix 4, I’ve already addressed the subject of variations in emissivity in a way that I believe to be wholly adequate for purposes of the analysis.
That’s a rather odd way of talking about things. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
You’re introducing unnecessary complications.
The radiant exitance from a surface doesn’t depend at all on body mass or heat capacity. It only depends on the surface temperature.
Mass and heat capacity are relevant if you’re trying to predict changes in the temperature of a body.
But, once the temperature has been determined (by whatever means), those issues don’t affect the amount of radiation emitted. It’s only about emissivity and temperature.
So, I believe the assumptions used my my analysis are quite rigorously correct.
About the temperature difference on the Earth and the Moon.
Of course, the temperature difference on the Moon is greater, but what does this have to do with the greenhouse effect? There is no water on the moon and no atmosphere (generally atmosphere, not “greenhouse gases”).
“There are rigorous mathematics that can tell something about how one average relates to another”.
Mathematics gives correct results if the physical relations underlying the calculations correctly describe real phenomena and processes. One of the averages mentioned is the global average temperature. Its value from the point of view of statistics is incorrect, if only because the accepted value of 15оС was calculated without taking into account Antarctica (2nd IPCC Report, 1996).
The calculation of the average temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on the representation that the Earth behaves as a single body, the property of which is described by this equation. However, the facts indicate significant differences in temperatures of different parts of the Earth’s surface and it is completely unclear how these values can be averaged.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, strictly speaking, allows you to calculate the amount of radiated energy based on the temperature of the radiating body. The question is, is it possible to calculate body temperature using this equation? There are too many approximations and estimates in the heat balance of the Earth to give a positive answer to this question, not to mention the heterogeneity of the surface.
So, I believe the assumptions used in my analysis are quite rigorous correct”.
Any assumption requires proof. The best evidence is facts. Faith is not a substitute for proof.
I don’t know what you mean by “the representation that the Earth behaves as a single body.” The derivation explicitly assumes that surface temperatures can vary by place and time.
I don’t see why is would be “unclear how these values can be averaged.”
Scattering of light requires particles suspended in the atmosphere of roughly the size as the light wavelength. For wavelengths > 4um (“LW” in cli-sci-speak), these have to be quite large, likely smoke or ash. With typical aerosols, there is very little scattering at wavelengths > 2-3um.
Considering Mr. Wentworth claims he has provided a mathematical proof I do not believe he is open to debate. On paper the stated assumptions likely do guarantee a certain conclusion.
It is probably not arguable that the existence of an atmosphere does, in fact, have many interesting effects on the temperature profile between the surface and top of atmosphere. On this, the existence of a temperature effect from atmosphere, we can probably all agree.
I believe the current discussion in the comments is about the relative importance of different heat flux mechanisms. The language of “heat-trapping” of OLR in general is vague enough to allow many different interpretations.
It’s easy to enough to suggest that the observed top of atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation is a consequence of the various processes occurring in different layers of atmosphere. Upper layers are most certainly dominated by radiative effects, including SW and LW absorption/emission etc. For example, the stratosphere and thermosphere are most certainly dominated by SW interception with much less to do with LW interactions.
Observed flux density must always be related to the layer’s temperature profile.
The most interesting discussions pertain to the different flux mechanisms in the Troposphere and boundary layer, and perhaps the Mesosphere. Each of these layers have similar lapse rates despite tremendously different properties of gas composition or concentration. What they do have in common is a relative density profile. I do not think it is productive to underestimate the the relative importance of non-radiative flux mechanisms in these layers.
Sure, greenhouse gases most certainly do intercept and re-emit LW. Some picture this as a blanket or jacket. However, when factoring in the actual movement of air (mass) and energy (convection/advection) in a turbulent dense fluid it seems reasonable that this motion could completely overwhelm calculated “back”-radiative effects. It’s like having a blanket but the blanket is full of enormous holes with air rushing through with significant force from different directions. In this conceptualization the presence of the blanket is largely meaningless, even though the blanket is technically there.
I concede I am not a physicist so I would not be able to describe these processes in a way that Mr. Wentworth would find acceptable. However, I consider myself a keen observer with better skill in statistics and empirical modelling as opposed to mechanistic descriptions.
Overall observed longwave radiation from top of atmosphere probably simply responds to temperature changes in the dense lower layers. I suspect CERES estimated OLR will be higher when temperature is higher, and lower when temperature is lower. This is intuitive and I do not believe this notion breaks any physical constraints. However, these measurements do not give us any insight into the relative importance of different flux mechanisms, of which radiative flux is merely one of several.
I thank Mr. Wentworth for opening up another opportunity for discussion. I expect that if he truly believed the science is settled there would be no reason to do so.
JCM
This guy Wentworth is an out-right twat of the first order,
Utterly disgusting having a-holes like this skeptical science adored twat anywhere near here.
And before the luke-warmer brigade start whining about my my opinions of this vermin who felt free to speak his mind, think on this, no-one gives a flying-phuk what you think least of all me so keep the false worthless virtues to yourself as all you luke-warmer gatekeepers of the enhanced GHE are vermin and no amount 0f worthless words and virtue will change that fact
Have a nice day.
“Well tested for 137 years” In reality has been untestable for 137 years. Einstein disagreed with the greenhouse gas premiss and wrote a paper disputing it
Link?
No link, but it’s a paper he wrote in 1917 .Greenhouse gas theory works in the lab , but from observation not in the real world ,at least not with respect to CO2 .
Who is the pipsqueak Einstein compared to the World Historical Genius Mikey Mann, winner of multiple Nobel Prizes (in his own warped mind)?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/04/21/albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/
When Mr. Stokes writes “link” it’s the equivalent of him relying on “consensus”, claiming settled science, calling you a conspiracy theorist or providing a math proof of the GHE. It doesn’t mean he’s interested in becoming better informed. Anyone can check that fact … unless he believes that no factual information exists outside the internet.
It just means I don’t think Einstein did write such a paper, and no evidence is offered. If someone can tell me where it is, I’m curious. But not hopeful.
https://inspirehep.net/literature/858448
This was provided by John Tillman at 3:40 pm today.
OK, I see the link is to a commenter on Tallbloke, which seems to be creating a buzz here. I’ll go with Bob Wentworth above:
“Robert, my research as a physicist specifically required me to understand Einstein’s quantum theory of radiation. Based on that, I can tell you with certainty that your conclusions are mistaken.”
In fact Einstein’s paper is in now way “disputing a greenhouse premise”. I find it hard to see anything that could be considered even related. The Tallbloke comment leads to a quote, which merely says that the expected amount of momentum is transferred.
The quote was not merely that. It also said:
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.”
I don’t pretend to understand any of it, but you can bet the phrase wasn’t omitted by accident. This is a standard ploy of the Left and especially “warminists”. Potholer54 is a master at truncating quotes to alter meaning … then declaring, “but they’re your words”. I watched Lord Monckton eviscerate him in a debate and PH54 claimed victory. These people are clowns … dangerous clowns.
I worked out this whole goat rodeo from 1st principles two decades ago. The science simply doesn’t matter. What matters is the number of logical fallacies they need to use in their discussions. This paper used over six, just in the preamble aside from the author being a pompous ass.
Yes, of course. So what? How is that relevant to the greenhouse effect? Are you claiming that molecules can’t absorb radiation?
In many explanations of the CO2 greenhouse effect (and these are legion) we are emphatically told that within the atmosphere, only CO2 interacts with IR. (And maybe water if pressed on the issue.) But nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to and devoid of any interaction with IR. This is false and Einstein explains why – the absorption-emission story is of negligible importance in the transfer of energy from photons to gas, including IR photons. Most of it is momentum transfer.
As established in other comments, nitrogen and oxygen do have some interaction with IR, but on a per molecule basis, this interaction is over a hundred thousand times weaker than the interaction that CO₂ or water vapor have.
This is partially compensated for by the much greater abundance of N₂ and O₂. But even so, the impact of these gases is less than 1% of the impact of CO₂.
That is not remotely true.
Consider, for example, the absorption of a 15 micron photon by a molecule of CO₂. That photon carries 1.3e-20 Joules of energy and 4.4e-29 kg-m/s of momentum.
When that photon is absorbed by a CO₂ molecule with a mass of 7.3e-26 kg, that momentum is transferred to the molecule, resulting in an increase of kinetic energy of 1.3e-32 Joules. This is only one trillionth of the total energy of the photon.
The remainder of the 1.3e-12 J photon energy (all except one part in a trillion) is transferred to a flexing vibrational mode of the molecule.
So, the momentum transfer is a negligible facet of the process, from an energy transfer perspective.
Whatever you read in Einstein’s work, you appear to have badly misinterpreted it.
” But nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to and devoid of any interaction with IR. This is false and Einstein explains why”
Well, it’s obviously true, else we’d be like Venus. But Einstein says nothing like that. He doesn’t say they interact, in your quote. He only says that if they interact, there is an expression for the kinetic energy. In your quote, he specifically refers to the frequencies at which they absorb and emit. That clearly envisages that there can be frequencies where they don’t.
Anyway, the non-absorption of far-IR by O2 and N2 was experimentally shown by Tyndall, long before Einstein.
Reality is, as most times, more complicated than a simple experiment:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
https://www.nature.com/articles/2091341a0
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0025-3_16
I wish the two of you every happiness.
You missed my point entirely (not unusual for a warminist). The point is using the supercilious “link?” gambit so popular with you people. You’re really not nearly as clever as you wish you were.
Personally I don’t give a crap about “who’s on first”. This thread is a pointless waste of space. Whether the GHE is or is not real and now proven beyond all doubt, by this arrogant “genius” is entirely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. The “science” doesn’t matter any longer. This same argument has been restated endlessly. They’ve lost all credibility. Any simpleton can see that the “consensus scientists” are ALL wrong. Anyone who has not worked out what IS going on is an idiot!
Thank you. I think it was essential to add this to the body of reliable and foundational knowledge to be found on this website. Not a scientist, so I like simple things. I could point to this for my associates who may think I am some kind of ignorant denier.
GIGO
Water vapor and the oceans have much more effect on the atmosphere’s temperature than anything else.
I think the whole argument becomes a lot easier if you use T^4 to determine average surface temperature in the first place. ie, define average temperature as the 4th root of the average of T^4. You then have a simple calculation of the average surface temperature given incoming [solar] radiation x, say, and [GHG] radiation y. The equilibrium surface temperature is then k.x^(1/4) for [solar] only, and k.(x+y)^(1/4) for [solar}+[GHG].
Except that that is not the whole equation, because ocean evaporation bypasses the [GHG]s. IOW there is more going on than radiation.
You are trying to do this without so much as a differential. Equilibrium will change as the earth turns. T^4 changes with moment to moment. You can’t get anything when using averages. T^4 will simply be too small at some times (midday)and too large at others (night).
We’re talking about an equilibrium that takes many years to be reached, possibly even millenia. There is no need to take the daily cycle into account, even annual averages would be easily sufficient. Bear in mind that by using T^4 when averaging you are effectively averaging the outgoing radiation.
What? Every energy budget diagram I’ve ever seen is based on a 24 hour average, not a millennia average. Even then the earth is not at equilibrium. Every monthly Global Average Temperature is based on daily data. Granted that ice cores and other reconstructions may have time frames of 25 – 1000 years but they aren’t applicable to what is being discussed here.
A fun article. I don’t recall anyone credible here on WUWT disputing the existence of the GHE, but a fun article nonetheless. Thank you.
Bob Wentworth said:
“Based on everything that’s known about physics, denying that the GHE is real seems to me to be just as wrong-headed as insisting that the Earth is flat. (Any Flat-Earthers here?)”
So, you start off with an unsupported assertion, an ad hominem attack and a straw man argument! Quite a trifecta! I was waiting for you to add that “The science is settled”! Also, accusing people who might disagree with you of being either denialists or flat earthers is not usually how people interact on WUWT.
Having said that, I do disagree with you.
You talk of radiative balance and the SB equations. I suspect that you believe that any photon will raise the temperature of anything it hits … even if it is only a tiny increase in temperature. If you do believe this, then despite the majesty of your mathmatical prowess, you are still wrong!
In the real world, nothing is ever at equilibrium. Everything is seeking to be in equilibrium but equilibrium is never achieved – by anything. I would recommend that it is better to try and explain what is happening in that real world by simply accepting that every object has its own temperature and that nothing is ever in equilibrium.
For example, the universe is made up of countless objects that have different individual temperatures. Every object is cooling, unless it is warmed up by a different, warmer object. There is a temperature gradient from the warmest object to the coolest object. Every warmer object is passing heat to every cooler object, either by conduction, convection or radiation – it does not matter which. However, cooler objects do not pass heat (temperature) to warmer objects. They may pass energy, but it is lower energy than the warmer object already has, so molecular vibration (temperature) does not increase. This can easily be demonstrated by experiment: place an object at 100 degrees on a table. Then, place a second object, also at 100 degrees next to it. The temperature of the first object will not increase, despite the arrival of new photons. Similarly, we know that ice cubes, though cold, do emit photons. However, no quantity of ice cubes has enough emissions to boil a cup of water – because those emissions are of lower energy.
The bottom line is that no cooler object can ever raise the temperature of a warmer object, either through conduction, convection or radiation.
The rate of temperature increase that a cooler object will experience from a warmer object depends on a) the temperature of each object b) the distance between the objects c) the masses of each object and d) the specific heat properties of the objects (some objects naturally heat up/cool down slower than others).
So, this boils down to an amazing conclusion; the temperature of any object in the universe is only determined by all the other objects in the universe that have a higher temperature than itself. This is entropy explained. This is the second law of thermodynamics explained.
Your math proof uses the SB equations and based on objects being black bodies (perhaps with an albedo adjustment) and that all emissions increase temperatures. In the real world, all emissions do not increase temperature, as I describe above using simple experiments. So you math proof appears to be incomplete.
Finally, nobody cares about whether O2 or N2 act as insulators … that is not the greenhouse effect at issue. The big question is: following some combustion, what happens when one molecule of O2 is replaced with one molecule of CO2? What happens to the earth’s temperature? When you work out the math solution for this, remember that a molecule of CO2 has greater mass than the molecule of O2 that it replaces.
Following your elegant tautological proof of a hypothetical problem, I look forward to your next mathematical proof of this real world problem.
Best regards
You only missed his opening appeal to authority and the implied argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacies.
At that point I stopped reading because nothing that followed could have any value. By definition logical fallacies are not valid arguments, therefore what follows is likely a load of malarkey if it requires a string of fallacies to introduce it. As you say, it’s just another tautology like all the rest. He missed the point and doesn’t address the real issues.
Bernard, you have hit the nail square. (By the way, Bernard was my dad’s name.).
Too many folks want to take the radiation from a given temp and split it among the various sides of a shape. For example, a plate would radiate 1/2 of it’s SB radiation in each direction. A square I guess would have 1/6th going out each surface. It doesn’t work that way. I can show the Planck discussion about this if someone wants. A body radiates the same amount in all directions. Using your example, can you imagine a heated block with one surface white hot and another totally cold?
CO2 or any other GHG doesn’t radiate 1/2 up and 1/2 down. They radiate based on the SB equation IN ALL directions.
You mentioned the mass and specific heat of objects. That determines the temperature change for a given amount of energy. The equation is:
Q=mcΔT
What do you think these values are for soil and for CO2? Does anyone think CO2 has enough mass or high enough “c” to raise the temp of soil by a bunch?
I can’t believe none of this is done with advanced calculus. You should read Planck’s treatise on heat radiation. IT IS done only with calculus. One example that slays me is the use of a flat earth and a 24 hour average with simple algebra for radiation balance. That isn’t the way the system works! Think about it, at maximum the surface gets what 1300+ watts/m^2? What does that do for convection or for saturation of CO2 at that moment in time?
I was working one day trying to model the real process of energy absorption and the first thing you see is the need for a sin θ to see what the energy distribution is in real time. When was the last time you saw a sin or cos function. The next thing is what happens with the first ray of sun? Is it absorbed and stored (raise the temp) or re-radiated (temp cooled)? If re-radiated it won’t raise the temp of the surface. When does absorption stop and radiation begin? As the earth turns all of these need addressed and simple linear algebra with averages just don’t cut it.
I am curious how you would use the theory of GHE to explain why the temperature near the core of Jupiter is estimated to be significantly hotter than the surface of the sun, somewhere around 20,000oC. Jupiter generates much more internal heat/energy than it receives from the very distant sun. Jupiter reflects more than half the sunlight that hits it. Its atmosphere is essentially 100% hydrogen and helium with only trace other gases (all < 0.003%; yes some very small amounts are GHGs like CH4 and H2O).
Seems to me there is another process at work here ? i.e. the density of the atmosphere, adiabatic compression. So why could this process not be the main/only contributor to the higher temperatures on earth instead of the GHE which you suggest is entirely responsible for the difference in temperature between what is calculated by using the S-B equation and what it actually is?
Another point that I think challenges the relevance of the assumed GHE is the conclusion of the IPCC AR5 Report which indicates that the increase in average global temperature is almost entirely due to an increase in night time low temperatures, while day time high temperatures have essentially not changed. The incremental effect of anthropogenic CO2 induced GHE should be much more significant (and observable) when the sun is shining during the day and when IR is at its maximum. Seems to me CO2 cannot explain this observation, but the urban heat island effect or may be increased water vapour can.
They have to have a mental defect to believe that 60% of radiative heat burning their face when they walk outside in the daylight is back-welling 15 micron band long wave radiation.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“The rate at which LW radiation is emitted by the surface of the planet (or an object) is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Mₛ = 𝜀𝜎⋅T⁴, where 𝜀 is the emissivity of the surface, 𝜎 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature of the surface. (This quantity Mₛ is technically called the radiant exitance from the surface, and is measured in W/m².)”
I don’t dispute that there is a “greenhouse effect”… I dispute its name (an actual greenhouse works by preventing convection of energy away from the space in question… so unless we’re naming the homonuclear diatomics (the molecules which cannot emit at TOA, thus causing TOA to emit less energy per volume, thus slowing radiative cooling at TOA, thus lending less buoyancy to convecting air parcels, thus lessening convection) as ‘greenhouse gases’, it’s misnamed); its mechanism (a lot of the temperature differential is due to the lapse rate, which requires just enough inbound energy to balance radiative outflow at TOA to maintain); and its purported cause (an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration can be shown to cause more radiative emission at TOA (more molecules of higher specific heat capacity convecting more energy from the surface, and more molecules radiatively emitting that energy at TOA), which represents an overall increase in loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’).
You’re misusing the S-B equation, taking part from the radiant exitance of a BB object (the T⁴ part), and part from the radiant exitance for graybody objects (the 𝜀 part).
As such, you assume emittance to the equivalent of 0K.
A BB object assumes maximum radiant exitance, and maximum radiative absorptivity… equivalent to assuming emittance to a 0 K ambient, and absorption from an ∞ K ambient. Graybody objects, however, take into account the energy gradient.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan2.html#c1
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
You assume the condition on the right, whereas reality is the condition on the left.
Energy only flows if there is an energy gradient. That energy gradient is set up by the object’s surface molecule’s magnetic dipoles generating a radiation pressure. It is the energy density differential between cooler and warmer object which determines the radiant exitance of the warmer object, for a system with only two objects. For a complex system consisting of many objects, it is the energy density differential of a multitude of objects, but the same principle holds.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy gradient.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
You misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for real-world objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) slows radiant exitance of the warmer object. The differing energy density between objects manifests an energy gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
In light of the above, perhaps you can present your argument in terms of the correct usage of the S-B equation.
Now, onto your Quora claim that CO2 causes warming, you presented this graphic:
That graphic doesn’t show CO2 ‘trapping’ energy, it shows it thermalizing and down-converting it, transferring it to primarily water vapor. That’s why the left-hand side of that graphic rises higher than it otherwise would, that energy is being emitted at longer wavelengths. The 294K Blackbody Emission line is misdirection… apply a lower-temperature BB curve, and take into account the fact that CO2, O3 and H2O are thermalizing and down-converting that energy, which causes the graph to the left of where those molecules are absorbing to be higher.
You are misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and inappropriately mixing the “radiant heat flow” perspective and the “radiant energy” perspective.
Yes, warmer objects absolutely absorb radiation from cooler objects, and this is not a violation of the 2LoT.
The cooler object reduces the net radiant heat transfer between objects in the “heat transfer perspective.” But, in the “radiant energy” perspective, this is the same as no change in radiant exitance, but instead energy being absorbed in both directions.
Read, comprehend, learn:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-and.html
A warmer object has higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
By what mechanism do you claim a photon to ascend an energy gradient when it’s got a chemical potential of zero, when Helmholtz Free Energy is zero?
I suggest you study on quantized standing wavemodes in a blackbody cavity, realize that blackbody radiation was once known as cavity radiation, realize that the wavemode nodes are always at the surface, and as such, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no photons are absorbed or emitted by the surface.
Energy cannot flow unless there is an energy gradient, and it most certainly cannot flow against an energy gradient. Energy does not flow from lower to higher energy density.
Reading the reference, I note a number of logical errors and obviously false conclusions, which leads me to be suspicious of the rest of the material. Many of the claims are not consistent with what I learned in my thermodynamics and optics courses. I don’t have time right now to untangle the bits of truth from the places where the author’s analysis goes wrong, as it clearly does.
And yet you’ve not elucidated these purported “logical errors”, all while you claim that energy in the form of photons is able to ascend an energy gradient, thus allowing energy to flow from cooler to warmer, a blatant violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, without external energy doing work upon the system. Strange, that.
For two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, the objects will emit into the intervening space until that space’s energy density equals the energy density of the two objects, whereupon a standing wave will be set up between the two objects within that intervening space. Just as in a cavity, the standing wave’s nodes are at the surfaces of the objects, thus no energy can be emitted nor absorbed, and the standing wave is quantized just as it is in a cavity.
Should one object change temperature, that standing wave will become a traveling wave in the direction of the cooler object, with the group velocity of that traveling wave proportional to the energy differential between the two objects.
I don’t want to fight over details until I can “get my ducks in a row.”
The “energy gradient” framework you’re speaking from doesn’t match the ways I’ve been taught to think about such systems.
Within the frameworks I’ve been taught to use, there is not understood to be any violation of the Clausius Statement in anything I’ve said.
My understanding is that Causius only requires that the net flow of radiant thermal energy be from hot to cold, and that this involves photons flowing in both directions, but with more flowing from hot to cold than vice versa. My understanding is that this is the standard interpretation of how radiant heat transfer works and is consistent with the Clausius Statement of 2LoT.
As I mentioned in another answer, even with a standing wave, one can decompose that into two fields, one traveling in each direction.
Yes, a standing wave is two waves from two sources traveling at different vectors… that does not imply that the energy from the cooler object is being absorbed by the warmer object.
Again, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the standing wavemode’s nodes are at the object’s surfaces… no energy can be transferred. If A is warmer than B, the group velocity vector of the traveling wave is toward B, not only does A not absorb any energy from B, but the energy is moving away from A.
If no energy can be absorbed at thermodynamic equilibrium, how do you propose that it can magically be absorbed out of thermodynamic equilibrium, by the warmer object?
You’re misinterpreting Clausius… again:
2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense… “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body“) states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system… not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale, not ever . Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“. Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
Now think about that… free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If free energy is zero (or negative), no work can be done upon the object in question, so no energy can flow to the object in question. So what you claim would result in a perpetuum mobile of the first kind.
Thinking more… you claim that photons from a cooler object incident upon a warmer object must be absorbed… but it requires energy to perform work to push those lower energy density photons up the energy gradient of the higher energy density object. Again, a perpetuum mobile of the first kind results from your claims. You must either claim energy manifests from nowhere to do the work of pushing those photons against the energy gradient (a violation of 1LoT) or you must claim that 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense) can be violated. Neither is the case.
Your take on radiative energy transfer is unphysical. I’ve told you how it works in the real world. Read, comprehend, learn.
Heat is definitionally an energy flux. So your “radiant heat flow” and “radiant energy” statement makes no sense on its face.
2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense… “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body“) states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system… not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale [1], not ever. Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“. Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
The solution presented in the cite is not a ‘non-consensus’ view, the mathematics and concepts are taken from the book Thermal Physics by Philip M. Morse, Professor of Physics at MIT, co-founding editor of Annals of Physics, co-founder of MIT Acoustics Laboratory, first Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, founder of MIT Computation Center.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
I don’t know that there is standard language for the distinction that I’m making. But, it’s still a meaningful distinction.
If you have two objects A and B, and an electromagnetic field between them, you can decompose that field into components corresponding to radiation flowing from A to B, and radiation flowing from B to A. You can associate an energy flux with the flows in each direction. In this perspective, energy is flowing in both directions. That’s what I (perhaps awkwardly) termed the radiant energy perspective.
Alternatively, you can look at the radiant heat flow between A and B. The radiant heat low will numerically match the difference in the two energy flows as computed in the other perspective.
My understanding of the Clausius Statement has always been that it refers to heat flux, but that it does not preclude adopting the perspective in which energy flows in both directions, so long as the larger flow is in the direction from hot to cold.
Thanks for the citation. Looks interesting. Though, I’m not sure I’ll have time to digest it in the immediate future.
If A is warmer than B, no radiation can flow from B to A. Energy does not flow against a gradient, and photons from B will have chemical potential of zero, because A will have higher energy density at all wavenlengths.
Your take on radiative energy exchange doesn’t take into account T_c except in the final balancing of the heat flows by subtracting the purported ‘cold to hot’ flow from the real-world ‘hot to cold’ flow.
You assume both hot and cold objects emit effectively into a 0 K ambient, and absorb all radiation incident upon them. That’s unphysical.
Heat is energy in motion. Nothing more. There is no “heat flux”, heat is an energy flux. You have a fundamental misconception about what heat is.
2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense… “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body“) states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system… not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale, not ever . Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“. Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
Now think about that… free energy is defined as the capacity to work. If free energy is zero (or negative), no work can be done upon the object in question, so no energy can flow to the object in question. So what you claim would result in a perpetuum mobile of the first kind.
Thinking more… you claim that photons from a cooler object incident upon a warmer object must be absorbed… but it requires energy to perform work to push those lower energy density photons up the energy gradient of the higher energy density object. Again, a perpetuum mobile of the first kind results from your claims. You must either claim energy manifests from nowhere to do the work of pushing those photons against the energy gradient (a violation of 1LoT) or you must claim that 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense) can be violated.
You should know that a macroscopic 2LoT violation has never been observed, and 2LoT is even more rigorously observed at the quantum scale:
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
To put a finer point on it:
A photon is a persistent perturbation of the EM field above its ambient (at ground state, the quantum vacuum)… raise that ambient field energy density, and the photons are subsumed in the ambient EM field, and are thus no longer persistent.
Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero.
The above is the underlying physical mechanism as to why photons from the colder surface not only won’t be incident upon the warmer surface, they won’t even be emitted into the intervening space (assuming the intervening space has equilibrated with the warmer object).
Bingo! I got to find time to look up Planck’s discussion on reversible vs irreversible processes concerning heat radiation. What you just said rings a bell.
Yes, the Clausius Statement (“It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a lower-temperature body to a higher-temperature body.” without external energy performing work upon the system) and the Kelvin-Planck Statement (“It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.” without external energy performing work upon the system (or system energy being dumped to a lower-energy reservoir)) are equivalent in their consequences. Any process which violates the Clausius Statement also violates the Kelvin-Planck Statement, and vice versa.
All processes on Earth are irreversible (although some are more irreversible than others). Reversible processes are idealizations.
The atmosphere is a heat engine, converting heat to work. Water is, quite literally, a refrigerant (in the strict refrigeration cycle sense). CO2, by dint of its higher specific heat capacity as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, can also be considered a refrigerant, although far less efficient than water (because water also has high latent heat capacity).
Anyone who claims CO2 ‘slows down’ energy flow from surface to space as compared to a planet without an atmosphere is presenting a false equivalency… we have an atmosphere. We must compare apples to apples (atmosphere with CO2 vs. atmosphere without CO2; or atmosphere with low CO2 concentration vs. atmosphere with high CO2 concentration). And CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space) by dint of that higher specific heat capacity and its ability to radiatively emit.
It is the homonuclear diatomics which are actually the ‘greenhouse gases’… they can pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics can; they can convect just as the polyatomics can; but once in the rarefied upper atmosphere, they cannot as effectively emit (they can emit if their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision, except in the rarefied upper atmosphere, collisional processes occur far less frequently, and radiative processes dominate), thus a higher proportion of homonuclear diatomics will reduce the radiant emittance per volume in the upper atmosphere, the upper atmosphere cannot as effectively cool, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, lessening convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by preventing energy being convected away.
The other side of that coin is that an increasing proportion of polyatomic (radiative) molecules will more readily emit energy in the upper atmosphere (and their higher specific heat capacity will more efficiently transit energy surface-to-upper-atmosphere). This has the effect of attempting to make the lapse rate more vertical by transiting more energy to the upper atmosphere and thus make upper atmosphere temperature closer to surface temperature… except those same molecules radiatively cool the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it.
That’s partly why the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term and dramatic cooling (even as the troposphere experienced no statistically-significant temperature trend for ~2 decades), and since the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation), and since the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, the surface must cool with an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. The surface warmed due to a long series of stronger-than-normal solar cycles (the now-ended Modern Grand Maximum), the sun has entered a quiescent phase which is predicted to rival the Dalton Minimum (and may rival the Maunder Minimum) and we’re working through the thermal capacity of the planet, but empirically, it is cooling… 0.76 C over the past 16 months, to be exact, erasing approximately half the warming since 1901.
The cite mentioned above does not refer to the PNAS reference, it refers to the ObjectivistIndividualist reference. That’s what used the mathematics and concepts from the book Thermal Physics.
I appreciate the references to both the PNAS reference and to Thermal Physics by Morse.
While the ObjectivistIndividualist reference may rely on Morse, that source also explicitly says they are arguing that consensus science is wrong regarding regarding the parallel plane black body radiator problem. So, it looks like the views presented are not mainstream.
That doesn’t mean they are wrong. But, it does raise the bar significantly, with regard to the quality of evidence they need to present.
There are a huge number of “crackpot” physics theories in circulation. It can be difficult to untangle unconventional assertions to determine if they represent real science or a misguided individual fantasy of being being one of the few who “know the truth.”
I’m interested in the ideas you’re sharing.
And, I’m not ready to accept the assertions of ObjectivistIndividualist without considerably more investigation.
Corroboration from other credible sources would help. Unfortunately, it looks like it will take at least a few weeks to get access to a copy of Morse. I haven’t found similar claims yet in any of the other thermal physics resources I’ve looked at.
If one is assuming graybody objects emit as though in a 0 K ambient and absorb all radiation incident upon them (essentially treating them as idealized BB objects with ε<1, as I stated in my original post), that energy can flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system (a blatant violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law), that one can merely subtract a fictional ‘cold to warm’ energy flow from a real ‘warm to cold’ energy flow without unforeseen consequences (such as violation of Stefan’s Law), then the person doing that is demonstrably wrong.
You have done all of the above. And rather than sitting down, reading, comprehending and learning, you chose to argue that your point of view was somehow correct… and I notice that you downvoted most of my posts (which were correct and proved you wrong), while upvoting your own posts (which were wrong)… that’s the sort of behavior we expect from wild-eyed climate fanatics, not from physicists, who are supposed to maintain an open mind and attempt to nullify their own hypotheses.
As such, I’ll take my victory and dance off stage-right.
I’m sorry for my relative silence in response to your posts.
On a day when I’ve got scores of comments to respond to, I have limited time for processing comments with the level of substance you’re pointing me towards.
I’m feeling somewhat skeptical about your interpretation of the physics, since it does not seem to be in alignment with what I learned in graduate school, but I am also taking it seriously. If I’m missing something significant about how all this works, I want to know about it. I’ve ordered Morse’s “Thermal Physics” and a few other resources, to give me more context for digesting your other sources. Unfortunately, it will likely take me a few weeks to receive those.
May you be well, until next we speak.
Your “radiant energy perspective” is unphysical, it treats real world (graybody) objects as idealized blackbodies (assuming maximum radiant exitance and maximum radiant absorptivity), then attempts to balance the equation by subtracting ‘cold to hot’ energy flow from ‘hot to cold’ energy flow.
That’s not how the real world works. I told you how it works in my other replies. I suggest you damp your hubris, read, comprehend and learn.
Given that I’m assuming emissivities and absorptivities as less than 1, I am not treading gray bodies as black bodies.
I am not compensating for failing to treat gray bodies as gray bodies.
I am treating radiative heat transfer in the way that every thermodynamics textbook I have ever seen says that it should be treated.
If you’re not taking into account T_c (as you did not in your original treatise, to wit):
… then that is exactly what you are doing… you’re assuming T_h is emitting into essentially a 0 K ambient and absorbing all radiation incident upon it, and you’re assuming T_c is emitting into essentially a 0 K ambient and absorbing all radiation incident upon it, then attempting to balance the equation by subtracting the ‘cold to hot’ flow from the ‘hot to cold’ flow.
It’s a neat way of accounting for energy flows, but it is unphysical, a blatant violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s law… it can be shown that your take on radiative energy flow doubles energy density in a cavity space at thermodynamic equilibrium.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-nested-black-body-shells-model-and.html
To better illustrate what I’m speaking of above…
First, a disclaimer: I am definitely not an artist. I can’t draw a straight line to save my life, I can’t free-hand draw, I have no photo-editing skills whatsoever. I still (poorly) draw stick figures to represent people. The orange line in the image below is very likely not correct, nor to scale. The image was edited in Paint, and I pixel-by-pixel filled in the orange line… that is the extent of my graphic artistry abilities.
But when I state: “apply a lower-temperature BB curve, and take into account the fact that CO2, O3 and H2O are thermalizing and down-converting that energy, which causes the graph to the left of where those molecules are absorbing to be higher”, this is a very rough graphical approximation of what I’m talking about:
Thinking about it a bit further… it might be possible to arrive at a fairly accurate global temperature by balancing the empty area under a lower-temperature BB curve in that graph, with the area above that lower-temperature BB curve. Adjust the BB curve until the empty area under the curve (the absorption by CO2, O3 and H2O) equals the filled area above the curve (the extra emission at some regions of the graph because that energy is down-converted and transferred to other molecules, which emit it).
lf I recall correctly Willis Eschenbach has had several articles here at WUWT on the subject of ‘belief’ in how green house gases act.
His explanations, with diagrams, are a lot easier to understand than a mass of mathematics – at least for a layman.
Problem.
Even according to NOAA,
“The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit.”
This is considerably more than the 294 K calculated by Dr Wentworth.
And, as the surface cooled, through 1000 K, 500 K, 373K (first liquid water appeared)
Dr Wentworth’s calculation stubbornly refused to accept reality.
As Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
If it doesn’t agree with reality, it’s also wrong.
Still no GHE. Dr Wentworth has fallen victim to the GHE delusion.
Ah but 1 + 1 = 10.
And the greenhouse effect is ameliorated by the water cycle. There’s this thing called “latent heat of evaporation” that climate activists don’t seem to understand.
My point being that isolated processes do not a climate system make.
LW is continually being absorbed and re-emitted by gases with the right spectrum response. But once that energy is absorbed by water droplets it becomes locked up in latent heat of vaporization until the reverse phase change occurs. Which takes place in the troposphere where that re-emitted LW can be radiated to space.
Consequently the water cycle acts like a conveyor belt for energy bypassing most of those pesky CO2 molecules.
I am not skeptical about the GHE but I am quite certain that maths can’t be used to prove anything in the physical world. Mathematical proofs only apply to the fantasy world of mathematics where everything follows an agreed upon set of rules and definitions. The interface with the real world is data and as much as anything can be proven in science, the proof relies on a coherent explanation of the underlying physical process which is supported by data that are consistent with the explanation. Mathematics helps us decide if the data have the expected patterns but the math in no way constitutes a proof and while math is used widely in science, it is not science. Mathematics could be replaced by little piles of coloured beads, which are compared by weight and science would proceed well enough. In fact I think that one advantage of using beads would be that we would no longer have to endure hours of mathematical scribbling by experts who can’t visualizer a physical process well enough to explain it in our other codified system of rules and accepted definitions that is called language.
Dr Wentworth, I have one issue wirh the math. The Hölder’s Inequality ⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨T⁴⟩.
Temperature is an intensive property. Simple averaging of temperatures will not conserve matter or energy if the samples are from dissimilar materials.
How can the conclusion be correct if energy and mass are not conserved?
I expect that the Holder Inequality is violated in the strict sense that (a+b)/2 is not equal a/2 + b/2 for dissimilar matterials because T = energy/(mass * specific heat) so you are in effect adding fractions wirhout a common denominator when averaging temp of dissimilar materials.
“How can the conclusion be correct if energy and mass are not conserved?”
It’s math. Properties of numbers, whether they are K, joules or dollars.
Nick,
And Lord Kelvin used “math” to show that the maximum age of the Earth was 20 million years. He was wrong.
Don’t be stupid. If your calculation doesn’t agree with reality, it’s wrong.
Dr Wentworth is obviously wrong, if the Earth was created in the molten state. His “math” is just another delusional alarmist attempt to show the existence of something he admits he can’t even describe.
Pseudoscience at its finest.
Lord Kelvin also used math to show that the heat of then sun was due to then gravitational energy of asteroids falling onto its surface. But it’s not pseudo science, rather a lack of knowledge of physical principles yet to be discovered.
Jim,
Lord Kelvin lacked knowledge. His maths was fine.
Dr Wentworth flies in the in the face of reality. His maths may indeed be correct, but completely irrelevant. As I said, his calculations will give the same temperature for the surface, regardless of the actual temperature.
He is delusional.
His Maths is wrong because he has ignored the principle that The Stephan-Boltzman law is untrue, but also that even if OK it only applies in a state of thermal equilibrium. The Earth – Atmosphere system is not because he claims the temperature is rising! The underlying error is that temperature and radiated energy are not equivalent, the thermodynamic properties are completely different and CANNOT be conflated. The same error is present in all the climate models, energy transfer is not as simple as a difference in temperature.
Nick, you are not correct. The problem is that 1/2 + 1/4 is not equal 2/6. Temperature is an implicit fraction of energy divided by mass and head capacity.
So when you add the temperature of dissimilar materials you are adding fractions without a common denominator. And a some point to compute an average you must sum the temperatures.
You could use the median temperature, but not the average.
Nick those numbers have units
Try the holder equation on the left side with Tonnes and the right side with Grams … you said it doesn’t matter 🙂
Now look at the formal definition of T which was correctly given to you.
It’s true that you can’t bring to different materials together, average their temperatures, and expect that together they will equilibrate to the average temperature. But, that’s not what I’m doing with the averages.
Energy is conserved in the equations involving the radiant exitances. That’s what guarantees energy conservation.
All the averages in my analysis derive from those equations that do conserve energy, so the averages are valid expressions of that energy conservation.
I never had an issue with Greenhouse Effect being real. That makes sense. I have a problem with the AGW crowd and how they frequently use methodology that has no place within the scientific method. (e.g. using terms like “consensus” to silence questioning)
I did see an interesting video today that is short that also I think explains a lot of the problem I believe we are facing in science today. It is most definitely at work in the climate change narrative. I have no affiliation with the source of this video.
“What is science?”
https://odysee.com/@OtherThings:5/WhatIsScience:a
Is this “proof” about a FLAT EARTH disk.
Failed.
Follow the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU
Cheers
Bobby told Lucy, “The world ain’t round…
Drops off sharp at the edge of town
Lucy, you know the world must be flat
‘Cause when people leave town, they never come back”
{“Small Town Saturday Night” written by Pat Alger and Hank DeVito}
“If there were no LW-absorbing (or LW-scattering) materials in Earth’s atmosphere, and it emitted the same average LW radiant exitance (upwelling LW radiation) to space (which would be expected in steady-state if the absorbed insolation was held constant), then the average surface temperature could not be warmer than Tₑ = 259 K (-14℃).”
Earth’s atmosphere keeps the sunlit side cooler by scattering of blue light, absorption of solar near infrared by water vapour, by cloud albedo, and by convection. And it keeps the dark side land surface warmer by longwave from the atmospheric thermal reservoirs of water vapour and clouds. But it’s not the atmosphere keeping the ocean surfaces warm at night.
“One of the reasons the surface of the Moon is so cold on average (197 K) is…”
Lack of thermal reservoirs to keep the night side warmer. The sunlit side is hotter than Earth’s sunlit side. Obviously spreading the illuminated disk area over the whole sphere at 278.6K minus the albedo doesn’t work for the Moon. But spreading it over just the sunlit hemisphere and averaging that with dark side mean gets close.
394K * 0.5^0.25 = 331.3K
minus 12% albedo
331.3 * 0.88^0.25 = 320.9K
and averaged with a dark side mean of 95K, is a global mean of 207.9K.
Bob; there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the greenhouse effect is real however you state;
“This result demonstrates that the presence of LW-absorbing and LW-scattering materials in the atmosphere is mathematically essential to explaining at least 29℃ of the Earth’s current temperature, provided only that one accepts the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.”
and I utterly disagree with this comment. It strikes me that your are making exactly the same mistake that many of the global warming supporters make. Specifically you assume that if there were no GHG’s in the atmosphere nothing would change except the greenhouse effect. Maybe the last part of your comment should read
“provided only that one accepts the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and one ignores the other direct impacts of the greenhouse effect”.
There are many such impacts but lets focus on just 1. Wind rain and the like are all manifestations of mechanical energy, after all we can and do convert both to electrical power. The source of this mechanical energy is heat from the sun. That means Earth’s atmosphere is the working fluid of a heat engine and as such must obey the principles for heat engines discovered by Carnot in the late 19th century. Specifically there must be a hot junction where heat enters the working fluid and a cold junction where heat energy is lost from the working fluid. The hot junction is obviously Earth’s surface. The cold junction is the tropopause (it cannot be the poles because of coriolis forces on a spinning globe plus it would require temperature inversions at the poles which would preclude energy transfer from atmosphere to surface).
But energy can only leave the working fluid (the atmosphere) at the tropopause by radiation (the surrounds are all warmer than the tropopause and lower stratosphere) and without GHG’s there cannot be any radiative loss. No energy loss from the cold junction means no heat engine. Convection would not occur and the entire atmosphere would become isothermal and saturated with water vapour. Thus no evaporation, no rain, no clouds, no atmospheric dust no weather. Firstly energy received by the surface would not be 234 watts/sqM but 340 watts/sqM giving an average surface temp of around 273K not 255K. But more importantly, the peak insolation at noon would be around 1340 watts/sqM. Given the very short time constant of soil and other materials in the absence of evaporation the surface temperature would rise to over 100C (think of beach sand or concrete on a hot summers day), of course at night it would be far far below 0C. So do GHG’s make Earth warmer or colder – crude answer – both. Better answer they ameliorate temperatures raising the minimums and lowering the maximums and without that life on Earth would not be possible.
Using a topical analogy: to ignore this is about the same as saying that a plastic sheet stretched over the mouth and nose would protect almost perfectly from airborne pathogens without also acknowledging that it would suffocate one – a rather more serious outcome.
” without GHG’s there cannot be any radiative loss.”
Huh? That means a red hot ball of steel in space would not cool off.
No, you just define steel as a greenhouse gas.
No, I do not assume that.
I offer a result that applies if the net energy flow through the system remains the same. I don’t assume the net energy flow will remain the same; I just offer a result about what would happen if it did.
Everything else is allowed to change, and the conclusions must still hold.
There ARE temperature inversions at the poles, and they do not preclude energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface. Have you examined actual circulation patterns on Earth?
Given the presence of GHG, the tropopause does act like the primary “cold junction.” But, the poles also fulfill this function, to some extent.
I believe there would still be some convective circulation to the heat sink at the poles, though it would be weaker than the convective circulation that currently occurs. I’ve worked through some of the math, and an isothermal configuration appears to lead to pressure differentials that would necessarily lead to convective circulation patterns developing.
Interesting idea that your scenario would lead to the atmosphere to the atmosphere becoming saturated with water vapour. I guess maybe it would. I never though about the way that radiative cooling is responsible for drying of the atmosphere.
If there is, as I expect, circulation to the poles, that would also seem likely to produce a drying effect.
There are two categories of planetary warming.
Any mechanism that equalizes temperatures around the globe, or over the course of a day or a year, will tend to raise the average temperature, but can only do so up to the level of the radiative effective temperature, Tₑ.
Materials in the atmosphere that absorb/scatter LW radiation can raise the average temperature beyond Tₑ, via mechanisms that are not about simply moderating temperatures. (On Earth, at least 24℃ of warming beyond Tₑ has happened.)
As you point out, GHG create warming through both mechanisms, in part through their promotion of convection.
Net effect is that GHG both moderate temperatures and produce net warming. Both are important.
One of the problems with blogs like this is that it is not possible to deal with a complex issue in sufficient detail. To put more detail into my comment about the poles not being a viable cold junction; Since Earth is a rotating sphere, as air rising at the equator moves out to higher latitudes it ends up moving faster than the still air around it. That means it is thrown outwards in the plane of rotation which can be resolved into an upwards force and a force pushing it back towards the equator which inhibits movement towards the poles. It is the reason we have 3 coupled circulations, the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the polar cell. Basically, no GHG’s means the atmosphere cannot lose energy. That means it cannot cool and water vapour cannot condense. Without cooling the can be no convective loop ie: no Hadley cell. Without condensing water vapour there can be no clouds and so on.
As regards your comment about the effective radiative temperature I assume this is about looking at the planet from a point outside the atmosphere. Energy in must = energy out and since both are only via radiation (surrounded by vacuum) if we know energy in the SB law gives us the effective radiation temperature. But you are assuming energy in is constant whether or not the are GHG’s and that is not the case. As I have pointed out Earth at present absorbs about 240 watts/sqM because it has an albedo of 0.3 but most of that is from clouds. Water has an albedo of about 0.04 and dry land has an albedo of 0.14 (same as the moon) and the planetary surface is 70% water. So without clouds Earth would absorb closer to 340 watts/sqM and from SB that would give it a Te of around 273K.
We live on the surface of this planet and if we consider energy balance for the surface, (NASA energy balance diagram will do as a reference) what we se is the NET energy loss is 40 watts/sqM radiation to space. 358-340 = 18 watts/sqM NET loss to the atmosphere (energy absorbed by atmosphere – back radiation from atmosphere) 18 watts/sqM from convection and 86 watts/sqM from evaporation. The 18 watts/sqM net loss to the atmosphere is simply a reflection of the fact that the atmosphere is colder than the surface (emissivity must = absorptivity). That is essentially a requirement for convection but if there was no convection the atmosphere would be at the same temperature in which case that loss would drop to zero. Convective and evaporative losses are directly due to the heat engine. Thus of the total surface loss 86+18+18=126 watts/sqM is due to the “heat engine” impacts of GHG’s. Only 40 watts/sqM is due to radiation to space. From an incremental point of view we are WAY past the point where radiative loss is the dominant surface loss mechanism. GHG’s have blocked much of the radiative loss from the surface but they have created other loss mechanisms which are now dominant and can be expected to have a determining impact.
You give me the impression to Te is all. But the current Te is 14C which most people and much of the plant life would find uncomfortably cold. Even if it increased to 17C I doubt anyone would die of heat prostration or that plants would start dying out. It is the daily, seasonal and latitudinal changes in temperature that are the main issue and it is these that GHG’s ameliorate. My concern about your focus on Te is that it gives the impression that a rise in Te would be of concern (which is the claim of the CAGW supporters) whereas in fact it is not the issue.
Just in passing on a related subject, if your analysis is the whole picture, one would expect to see Earth’s net energy loss to space falling as CO2 levels rise or at least stay steady if Earth’s warming time constant is very short so that the planet is always in thermal equilibrium. This parameter is termed outgoing longwave radiation or OLR for short and has been monitored by NASA since the satellite era. This monitoring shows OLR has been rising not falling steadily as Earth warms which is of course what one would expect from SB but begs the question, what is driving the warming? The answer is absorbed solar energy is rising and this in turn is caused by a progressive reduction in cloud cover. So, how does rising CO2 lead to reducing cloud cover?
No.
You, like many people, assume that a claim is being made about what the temperature would be “if there were no GHG’s.”
But, the claim is always actually a claim about what would happen “if there were no GHG’s AND the energy in is unchanged (albedo and emissivity are unchanged).”
It’s not an assumption that the albedo wouldn’t change; it’s a constraint on the situation about which a claim is being made.
Yes, of course cloud albedo would go away if water vapor was removed from the atmosphere. To achieve the same albedo, you’d have to do something else–maybe spread titanium dioxide over a majority of the land mass?? But maybe that would screw up the emissivity? And yes, you’d have to compensate for the impact of vegetation dying too.
In practice, it would likely be very difficult to engineer having the same albedo and emissivity if you took the clouds and vegetation away (and ice sheets expanded). But, it’s not meant to be a practical experiment one would really do. It’s purely a thought experiment.
For better or worse, the assertion is not, and never has been, what many people seem to assume it to be.
It’s not about what would happen if you literally took away the GHG’s. It’s about what would happen if you took away the LW absorbing-and-emitting properties in the atmosphere while keeping the absorbed energy in the system unchanged.
It’s not as do-able an experiment as the one people are imagining is meant. But, it’s more meaningful, in that it provides information about the actual impact of the LW absorbing-and-emitting properties, in a way that would not be as clear if you allow confounding changes to things like albedo to creep into the comparison.
This isn’t a perfect comparison, but it’s a little like… Someone says “a candle gives off light that can make a room lighter” (relative to a room where all other conditions are unchanged). If someone who doesn’t understand the claim wants to test that theory, they might turn out the overhead light and light a candle at the same time and say, “no the candle makes things dimmer” (violating the constraint of all other conditions being unchanged). The experimentalist in this case is changing other variables in a way that hides the effect that was being claimed.
If you allow the albedo to change, you are muddling the effect that people are trying to talk about when they talk about the GHE.
Dr. Wentworth:
Your analysis excludes any mention of the actual control knob of Earth’s temperatures, which is the amount of dimming Sulfur Dioxide aerosols circulating in our atmosphere.
Their effect FAR exceeds that of greenhouse gasses, if they indeed have any effect at all.
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t seem to lead to any relevant article?
Bob Wentworth::
???Scroll down to the second review article, and click on the PDF link.
Burl Henry
Thanks. (For others’ convenience, here is the link.)
Wentworth showed himself completely unaware of the importance of convection as a means of moving huge masses of warm, moisture laden air rapidly through the troposph
ere where it can emit directly to space and deny to the bypassed’GHG’ much of a roll as a ‘captor’ and re-emitter LWIR. This is the reason for the absence of the troposphere “hot spot” woefully longsought by modelers.
Bob your
planet or body?? is
far too quiet a place to be anywhere near a real ITCZ.
The particular analysis I have offered is valid no matter how much convection occurs, and no matter how effective it is at moving huge masses of warm, moisture laden air rapidly through the troposphere.
This is true on two levels. First, the mathematical analysis is unconditional: it is valid whether or not convection is present.
Secondly, convection fundamentally cannot entirely bypass the role of GHGs. Yes, convection can efficiently transport heat to and beyond the tropopause. But, at that point, heat can reach space only via the emissions of GHGs. And those GHG emissions are less efficient that radiative emissions directly from the surface would have been, because the temperatures are lower.
So, GHG’s play a key role, whether heat is lost directly from the surface, or convected to high into the atmosphere.
But, none of my analysis above depends on any of those things being true. The analysis transcends the details of how heat transfer in the atmosphere functions.
Bob; I understand where you are coming from. There is no doubt that GHG’s block radiation from the surface at the GHG absorption wavelengths and replace it with radiation from the top of the GHG column – typically the tropopause. Since the tropopause is colder than the surface energy loss is reduced. I also understand the frustration you feel with people who keep insisting the “green house effect” does not exist. I fully share that frustration. My point is not that your analysis is wrong but that it paints a distorted and ultimately incorrect picture because it assumes the total impact is determined by one effect whereas there are several impacts. The simplest “proof” of that is the behaviour of OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Based on your analysis alone one would expect that OLR would be falling as CO2 rises. After all, GHG’s do indeed reduce total energy loss to space so as CO2 rises it should reduce energy loss (ie: OLR) further. That reduction in energy loss could realistically be expected to be driving warming. Maybe if one assumes Earth’s time constant is very short it would follow that Earth’s temperature was always more or less in equilibrium in which case one could argue OLR should be constant as Earth warms. However, as the NASA measurements show OLR is rising as Earth warms and further at exactly the rate one would expect from Earths climate sensitivity (3 watts/sqM/C) if there were no perturbing factors. So the experimental findings suggest rising CO2 has no detectable incremental impact on energy loss to space. The paradox is resolved by recognising that the radiative impact is not the only impact of GHG’s on Earth’s temperature, there are several others both direct and via feedbacks.
In fact, looking at the data it would appear that the warming is due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and that the changes in ASR seem to be closely correlated with changes in total cloud cover. That begs the question, are the changes in cloud cover caused by changes in CO2 (the correlation between the two is not good) or by something else eg: Svensmarks thesis?
ALL gases emit radiation, not just GHG’s. They do so in the Plank distribution of frequencies (and all also have their own specific absorption/emission bands). It’s just not true that “heat can reach space only via the emissions of GHGs”.
While this is, in principle, true, as far as I know the effect is extraordinarily weak, to the point where it is reasonable to neglect this effect for most practical purposes.
Are you aware of any data concerning the measured emissivity of non-GHGs?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
https://www.nature.com/articles/2091341a0
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0025-3_16
Not emissivity but absorption. Wouldn’t call it neglectable according to the links above.
Thanks. That’s really helpful (especially the paper that’s not behind a paywall).
It appears that the impact of N₂ and O₂ are about 0.6% and 0.4% as large as the impact of CO₂, respectively, despite N₂ and O₂ having far higher concentrations.
On a per mole basis, that makes the radiative impact of N₂ and O₂ about 3e-6 and 7e-6 that of CO₂.
So, it appears that N₂ and O₂ are over a hundred thousand times less efficient radiators than is CO₂. However, this is partially compensated for because there is so much more of these gases.
I would really like a better equipped lab to reproduce this (and think about the best possible setup):
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf
Cause if IR can really heat any gas and IR-spectrometer are just not picking this up, it would have big implications.
Planks law defines the maximum amount of thermal emission vs frequency for a given temperature. The actual thermal emission also depends on emissivity. Bob you are completely correct. Nitrogen and oxygen have negligible emissivity in the thermal IR band (about 4 to 50 microns). From memory nitrogen does have significant emissivity in the microwave region but the Plank maximum for that frequency at the temperatures of interest is negligible. Indeed the definition of a GHG is one which can emit energy in the thermal IR band. If nitrogen and/or oxygen emitted thermal IR energy they would by definition be GHG’s and the entire discussion over CO2 would be utterly irrelevant.
After wading through the gratuitous insults I got about as far as reading about this “average temperature of a planetary surface” before bursting into laughter. It rather reminded me of the physics joke of the proof which only applies to spherical chickens in a vacuum.
So tell us more Bob Wentworth, about this average temperature you so glibly include in your statement of what you set out to prove. I dare you. Oceans? Mountains? Nope. It’s spherical chickens all the way down.
Yes there is most certainly a phenomenon very poorly designated as the greenhouse effect. But you have failed to produce anything which could possibly have any practical application.
Still feeling smug?
I never felt smug. I regret expressing myself in a way that apparently gave that impression.
I felt frustrated with others’ facile rejections of things I have every reason to believe to be true.
Why do you so glibly assume the concept is meaningless or ill-defined? Every bit of matter on the planet has a temperature. In principle, the temperatures of everything at the surface of the planet could be measured, and be averaged on an area basis.
What significance does that information have? It depends. There is a lot it doesn’t tell you. But, different values are likely to be significant if either (a) the magnitude of the differences are large, or (b) the distribution of relative temperatures between different places doesn’t change too radically.
If your article had merit you wouldn’t need to be trying to justify it’s sloppiness now.
Sounds like your “proof” only applies to spherical chickens in a vacuum.
I waded through this, well written article, but came up laughing. Mathematically proven GHE in the physical atmosphere of the planet?
Why the flat earth insult?
I could have written his article in around 20 words. Here goes … if energy out is less than energy in then something must be causing the imbalance. I call this the GHE.
The flat earth thing? Hubris?
You do realise the planetary GHE is just a theory and actual greenhouses use convection, right?
Yes and yes. And what I wrote was my characterisation of his article not my own views.And in fact my characterisation of his argument had a more fundamental flaw. He does not look at energy in.
If I had another go at characterising his argument it would read “if energy out is less than what might be expected then something must be causing the difference and I call that difference the GHE”.
Nearly everyone knows that greenhouses work by blocking convection.
That is inaccurate.
Not happy, Bob.
Yes there is a GH effect.
Yes your maths seems OK.
–
Variations in Emissivity
This would lead to an effective emissivity = 0.89.
–
Lost in the term emissivity is the idea that substances of low emissivity somehow do not send all there energy back to space.
But all objects must and do send all there energy back to space.
Take
Aluminium foil 0.03 Aluminium, anodized 0.9
Because it is not a blackbody it never absorbed the energy in the first place!
All the thermal energy that goes out reflects all the energy that went in.
Emmisivity of absorbed energy is 100% for all objects.
Effective Emmisivity is the actual amount of energy absorbed compared to what an equivalent blackbody would have absorbed..
Hence changing the effective emissivity of 0.89[ would lead to Tₑ = 263 K (-11℃). This is still about 26℃ colder than Earth’s observed average surface temperature.]
To emissivity 100%, the correct figure, should give you the true Earth’s observed average surface temperature typically estimated to be about 288 K (15℃),
The rate at which LW radiation is emitted by the surface of the planet (or an object) is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Mₛ = 𝜀𝜎⋅T⁴, where 𝜀 is the emissivity of the surface, 𝜎 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature of the surface. (This quantity Mₛ is technically called the radiant exitance from the surface, and is measured in W/m².)
Hence
The average LW surface radiant exitance ⟨Mₛ⟩ and the
average LW TOA radiant exitance being emitted to space ⟨Mₜ⟩.
are the same amount of energy.
Just the TOA surface area[SA] is a lot larger than the SA of the
earth .
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the TOA temperature at the top of the atmosphere is 255 K, which equals –18 oC or 0 oF. It is substantially less than Earth’s average surface temperature of 288 K, which equals 15 oC or 59 oF. This top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is the same as what the Earth’s surface temperature would be if Earth had no atmosphere but had the same albedo.
–
The GHG effect is simply the Temp at the bottom compared to the effective radiating TOA temp which surprise, surprise is dictated by how much CO2 and water vapour and other atmospheric gases to carry them in exists.
–
Since there is a height component, hence a pressure component some people get a bit carried away with the pressure effects only.
Not realising that these are totally dependent on whether the atmosphere contains GHG.
ALL the gases in the atmosphere are capable of carrying heat (i.e.. molecular) energy not just the GHG. All the GHG do is absorb radiation in certain parts of the EM spectrum and retain it as molecular kinetic energy. The parts of the EM spectrum they absorb happen to be the primary portion of the Plank distribution which apply to the temperature of the Earth.
Nope, nobody assumes this.
Typically a substance with low emissivity ends up heating up to a higher temperature so that it can radiate all the necessary energy back to pace.
Not if you define emissivity the way everybody else does.
Very poor rhetoric Bob Wentworth. When you use the term nobody you pretend you are speaking for everybody.
That’s what charlatans do.
Bob Wentworth
Thank you for your reply
“Typically a substance with low emissivity ends up heating up to a higher temperature so that it can radiate all the necessary energy back to space.”
–
just as long as all the energy in is counted as going out rather than a % as per the emissivity.
“Emmisivity of absorbed energy is 100% for all objects.
Not if you define emissivity the way everybody else does.”
–
purely defining it the same way you have
“Typically a substance with low emissivity ends up heating up to a higher temperature so that it can radiate all the necessary energy back to pace.”
–
all the necessary energy is 100%.
Hope you are not undercounting.
Thanks for your supportive article re GHG
Thank you Bob for your reply and your efforts to show the GHG effect.
–
–
“Nope, nobody assumes this.”
–
You did state.
Variations in Emissivity
This would lead to an effective emissivity = 0.89.
This could imply your figures use only 89% of the energy going back instead of 100% .
That’s the way I read it, I did not see this comment “Typically a substance with low emissivity ends up heating up to a higher temperature so that it can radiate all the necessary energy back to pace”.linked to it anywhere.
Thank you.
The term “emissivity” has nothing to do with how much energy ends up going back to space.
It’s just a measure of how efficient a bit of matter is at emitting thermal radiation, at a given temperature, compared to an ideal “black body” radiator.
It sounds like you didn’t understand the relationship between emissivity and energy radiated to space, and that resulted in some confusion.
I’m hoping that things are clearer, now that you’ve seen the comment about temperature simply rising to whatever level is needed to ensure balance between energy in and energy out.
So, heat lost in the ocean is GHE
I tend to think if more energy is lost in ocean as compared
energy found to come from ocean.
It’s either a failure to measure this or global warming.
Yes, that is the author’s idea. It is not mine.
Nor is it mine. It’s a mischaracterization of anything I’ve said.
So, does that make you a climate denier?
The problem for you Bob Wentworth is that your work is so sloppy you don’t recognise the implications of your sloppiness.
You are an exceptionally unpleasant person to be in conversation with.
Do you have anything to offer other than insults?
Bob,
You wrote –
“You are an exceptionally unpleasant person to be in conversation with.
Do you have anything to offer other than insults?”
What is the relevance to your misguided attempt to “prove” the existence of something you can’t even describe in any useful way?
Why would you bother feeling “insulted” by someone’s words? What good would it do?
You may wish to reflect on the words in your article. Don’t start what you can’t finish.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
No, heat lost in the ocean is not GHE.
Forrest,
Or if the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years (and it has), then energy out must have exceeded energy in (which it did).
I call this the proof that the GHE is a delusion.
Agreed. I can only repeat that my characterisation was of the author’s ideas and not my own.
No. Forrest mischaracterized what I wrote.
Nope. The GHE does not require any imbalance between energy in and energy out of the system as a whole.
What I said, more accurately, was that if energy radiated by a surface exceeds the energy that reaches space, that allows the surface to have a higher temperature. This is possible only if radiation absorbing materials are present.
In the usual case of steady-state equilibrium, this amounts to saying that, for a given level of energy into the system as a whole, the surface can be hotter than a certain limit only if radiation absorbing materials are present.
Bob,
You wrote –
“What I said, more accurately, was that if energy radiated by a surface exceeds the energy that reaches space, that allows the surface to have a higher temperature.”
And that is completely impossible – at night for example. Or over four and a half billion years.
You are just talking nonsense. Your pointless calculations refuse to accept that the Earth is a big molten blob, with a thin congealed skin, sitting in an environment much “colder”.
Try making it warm up. All you have is heat from the sun.
You are just being silly.
Which part do you believe is impossible? I cited data showing that, averaged over 10 years, the energy radiated from Earth’s surface greatly exceeds the energy exiting from TOA into space.
Bob,
Averaged over four and a half billion years, the Earth’s surface temperature has dropped. Substantially.
If you don’t accept that the Earth’s surface was once molten, just say so. An explanation for your belief would be appreciated.
The problem is that your irrelevant equation is just stupid if it gives the same result whether the surface is molten, over 373 (before the first liquid water), or whatever it happens to be now.
/sarc on
If you want to believe that the Earth was created cooler than it is now, and has been heated by the Sun, go ahead. Just say so, and I won’t challenge your belief. I hope you will afford me the same consideration if I insist that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe precisely 12 seconds ago, as a joke!
/sarc off
You appear to be deluded, and refuse to state whether you believe that the Earth’s surface was originally molten. I don’t blame you – it makes your subsequent assertions about the GHE look stupid.
In that case, all you have done is written a convoluted fairy tale, which no one is likely to buy.
Of course I accept it. I just don’t follow why you believe it is relevant to the current discussion.
I don’t know what result it is that you think is being predicted. You’re telling yourself some story without sharing it. Hard for me to respond.
Well put. I think that gets to the fundamental flaw in Bob Wentworth’s article.
You cited data Bob Wentworth? And there you were claiming you were presenting a mathematical proof.
Or are you one of those strange fellows who classifies statistics as a branch of mathematics?
Forrest,
He’s just another cultist who probably believes the nonsense he writes. Delusional.
Point blank refuses to accept that his “formula” produces temperatures which bear no relationship to facts. Then claims that the Earth’s surface cannot exceed a certain temperature which is obviously has in the past!
Lurches, slides, prevaricates – anything to prop up the concept of a GHE which he can’t even define!
As I say, just another cultist.
The question is not whether the so-called greenhouse effect exists (even though it’s nothing like a real greenhouse). The question is how much influence they will have in future. CO2 had a big impact when their concentration was low, but as its concentration increases its has less effect on temperature.
It revolves around the wavelengths of infrared radiation the gas absorbs. That absorption is limited by the physical structure of the molecule. At the moment it’s absorbing 100% of radiation in some wavelengths and the all that can happen with increasing concentration is that the 100% band widens slowly towards the limits of the wavelength band over which CO2 absorbs.
FWIW, you can find all this in my new (and inexpensive) book “How the Atmosphere Works: an introduction for people interested in climate change”.
Hi John I agree. 2 points, the current CO2 column at line center has an absorbance of around 3000 so at line center 90% of the surface emission is absorbed in the first 10 meters. To all practical purposes the CO2 absorbs surface emission and replaces it with emission from the top of the CO2 gas column (the lower stratosphere). Since the lower stratosphere is colder than the surface, emission intensity is lower (as defined by Planks law) only over the line width of course so total emission is lower. One point, the absorption profile of gases are lorenzian functions which are very close to gaussians. They never go to exactly zero so as concentration increases the effective line width can increase essentially without limit. Not an issue for Earth although maybe significant on a planet such as Venus.
Did you see my comment at 7:26 pm regarding other impacts of green house gases.
Not many deniers of warming or a warming effect, the argument is the human causation and the extreme sky is falling bs. We are told it is all human caused yet simple Calcs show human co2 is only 3 percent of the total annual production. Then there is much more greening that would naturally offset this via photosynthesis and crazy predictions have not come true, not only failed but by more than 3 sigma! This means that the theory is unproven because the predictions failed. The amount of co2 is 0.04 percent, human cause if it was for the total would only be 3 percent of this max entire countries like AUS are only 1.5 percent of the 3 percent. This is so miniscule that it is reckless to ask the population to go back to the stone age to have a below negligible reduction. The other problems we have are all the other crazy thinking that all these inputs and outputs are constants. We float on an ocean of magma, surface is in constant movement, huge volcanic activity abounds, ice ages are the norm. Extra greening eliminates ghg changes co2 to o2. Too many other variables at play, none of which are constant, many of which could completley change or negate each other.
Finally, we have been lied to for so long about so many things, science included, with the latest cerveza sickness crazies, there is zero trust with any govt paid agencies or politicians. We are not going to listen any more as we consider anything as being used as a lie to take or exercise more power over the people. So anything govt backed is completely refused by anyone with a clear head. Stick that into your calculations, corruption means anything used to control us equals a total lie!
You can post this nonsense til you turn blue, it is still nonsense (or worse, – dishonest!)
Real science: Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget
I.e. if there’s no “greenhouse effect” there’s probably no “greenhouse gases” either, unless there’s some new gases recently discovered that do prevent convection.
The temperature potential in the atmosphere is dictated by pressure, mass and gravity, misleading “green” magic is 100% unnecessary!
Bob, re doublings.
There are about 10^40 molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.
If we start with 1 molecule, then double it to get 2 molecules, we have done 1 doubling. If we double that again, 2 doublings give 4 molecules …..
133 doublings give 1.09*10^40 molecules, mathematically. This is simply 2^N, where N is number of doublings.
Physically, if all molecules are available for doubling at a given time in history, then to double the atmospheric concentration the number of doublings has to go from approximately 133 to 134, adding another 1.09*10^40 molecules to that number already there. (As in 280 ppm CO2 to 560 ppm CO2).
It is intuitively apparent that 1, 2, 4, 8 … molecules in the air will not be capable of much heat production in the total atmosphere. There are simply too few molecules, about half of which will be in Earth’s shadow at any given time.
Nobody has given an answer to this simple question. How many doublings do there have to be before there are enough CO2 molecules to give a dttectable temperature change via the IR-absorption-without-loss mechanism? What is the lowest CO2 concentration in the air before we can hope to measure a temperature change by doubling?
How much energy is carried by a CO2 molecule under typical atmospheric conditions? How much extra energy per molecule has to be added to raise its temperature by a nominated amount like 0.1 degrees C?
According to the Global Energy Budget, some 341 W/m2 of radiation is received from the Sun of which 102 W/m2 is reflected by the atmosphere and the surface. A further 40 W/m2 is radiated direct to space via the atmospheric window.
This means the maximum energy that can be absorbed by the atmosphere is 199 W/m2 (341, minus 102, minus 40). Yet, around 333 W/m2 is radiated from the atmosphere to the surface, ie some 134 W/m2 more than is available from the Sun. Apparently, this additional energy is a result of the “greenhouse effect”. (In fact, some educational bodies state the greenhouse effect returns more energy to the surface than we receive from the Sun).
What is not explained, is how gases, which comprise on average no more than 1% of the atmosphere, can create this additional energy by merely absorbing outward longwave radiation and radiating it back to the surface.
That is what is experimentally measured to be true.
When you have tens of kilometers of gas, effects can add up.
It’s not actually energy creation. Energy is strictly conserved. It’s a sort of concentration of energy that happens in every type of resonant cavity. I discuss some aspects of it in this essay: Atmospheric Energy Recycling
Bob,
You wrote –
“That is what is experimentally measured to be true.”
Balderdash. There is no instrument, or combination of instruments, which can measure the totality of energy of reaching the Earth, or leaving the Earth.
You are just creating “facts” to support your silliness.
The reality is that all radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface flees to space. All. That is why the surface cools at night, for example.
A slower rate of cooling is not an increase in temperature. This is just wishful thinking.
I’m not “creating facts”. I’m just reporting what data others have reported.
I’m not trying to “support my silliness.” I don’t have any position on whether or not Earth is warming.
My only position is one of advocating for correct understandings of physics, as best I can.
Bob,
You wrote –
I’m not “creating facts”. I’m just reporting what data others have reported.
I don’t have any position on whether or not Earth is warming.
My only position is one of advocating for correct understandings of physics, as best I can.”
Your “best” is pretty hopeless, as I have pointed out. You don’t even seem to have the fortitude to take a position on whether the Earth has cooled since its creation.
Your “just reporting” of data which you should (or do) know is nonsensical, does you no credit at all.
You also wrote –
“I’ve shown that a single principle of physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) sets a limit on how high the average surface temperature can be, . . .”
Complete nonsense, unless that “single principle of physics” allows for reality – that the average temperature of the surface intially exceeded 1000 K. Even today, magma ejected from the interior via volcanoes routinely exceeds 1000 K, and promptly cools, emitting radiation to space as it does. The Earth has cooled a little bit – demonstrably.
As it must, with an interior hot enough to be molten. Basic physics, of which you seem to be ignorant, or intentionally ignore.
I have acknowledged that. (Guess you’re not caught up.)
All true. All 100% compatible with my assertions.
Bob,
You acknowledge that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much higher one. Thanks.
End of story. Your calculations showing that the surface can only have a maximum temperature of less than 1000 K, are wrong, then.
No GHE. The Earth has simply cooled to its present temperature, whatever that is. Care to disagree? No?
I thought so.
You write “ This law has been a key part of the foundations of physics for 137 years, and has been verified countless times, in countless ways.”
Really? I have spent many years trying to find verifications.
The experimental data available to Boltzmann was rather low quality.
Otto Lummer did the experiments (year 1901) verifying Planck´s radiation law.
All theories and experiments relates to a hollow box (except for the famous “Stefan Boltzmann lamp with a tungsten filament – used at universities to lear students).
Boltzmann´s derivation is for a hollow cylinder.
Plancks derivation is for a hollow box.
Lummer experiment is for a hollow box.
Where is the theory for an electromagnetic field in real matter.It does not exist!
It is the lattice vibrations in matter that generate the thermal radiation. There is no theory that links lattice vibrations to the thermal radiation.
Yes – SB law is very well proven for hollow boxes. It is not proven for thermal radiation from real matter.
The so called “emissivity” is simply an arbitrary correction factor.
I suggest you watch this video and all the others by Robtialle because there is a huge hole in Physics and Astronomy.
This analysis fails because water forms an insulating surface. The minimum water temperature is 271K. The water becomes insulated after that.
None of that invalidates the analysis.
Your linear analysis fails. Water behaves non-linearly in the EMR regime. You have only done a linear analysis. The emissivity of water beneath ice drops dramatically as the ice thickens.
Your linear analysis fails to take account of the phase changes of water. It is WRONG.
Water has two tipping point. One at 271K on the surface and the other at 273K in the atmosphere. EMR properties change dramatically at those temperature. Your simple linear analysis does not allow for these changes.
You’re simply assuming that my analysis can’t address phase changes. That’s a faulty assumption.
If there is a region on Earth where you could have either water or ice, choose the lower of the two emissivities, then the inequalities will be valid.
Handled.
Bob wrote:
You are still thinking linearly. The phase change is a function of temperature. Linear equations cannot handle that situation.
The fact that you want me to specify a location demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your thinking. The location is responsive to the specific insolation in that location. Emissivity and albedo are not fixed in time and location as your linear thinking confines you to.
It is not handled because the “GHE” is not real – it a myth as a result of linear thinking.
I refute your supposed “mathematical” paper because the Stephan-Boltzman law is A: false, and B; does not apply because the atmosphere / Earth system is NOT at thermal equilibrium, which is a requirement for your mathematics. The whole point of the “Greenhouse effect” is that the conditions are not at thermal equilibrium, all heat transfer questions are therefore not responses to simple equations as you have presented. Few physicists seem to know of thermodynamics, and just restate theories that do not stand up to Experiment. I suggest you watch this video and all the others by Robtialle because there is a huge hole in Physics and Astronomy.
What a waste of time. More like .001 + .001= .002 WOW, big effect compared to the kilowatt of power coming into the system and the huge amount affected by water. In the end the EFFECTIVE contribution of the greenhouse effect will be zero. 20 years of huge CO2 emissions and we’re back down to the baseline, chillier than it was 1998. CO2 must have a negative greenhouse effect!
“As a physicist, I’m as certain of the reality of the Greenhouse Effect as I am that 1 + 1 = 2.”
This mathematics is not suited to deal with a real earth. The problem is that although this is true in a ideal world the earth is a complex body in the real world. You can’t just assume it is correct to average temperature or energy transfer from a body with equal stable temperature by taking average radiation and average area. It is necessary to integrate over the earth both area and time to get an estimate of total radiation over a time period.
One example:
Assumption: Represent the earth with one sphere perfectly smooth/even (no mountains or oceans)
take average earth temperature as 300K and compare it to the same sphere divided in two half where temperature is 290K resp. 310K. The average earth temperature is still 300K but in the second case the heat transfer would be 0.7 % greater. Remember that the T^4 is highly non linear and must be used to correct the average calculations.
So 1+1 Not EQ 2 in this physical application. Q.E.D
/Oscar
Bob does not understand non-linearities. Water is non-linear. So a linear analysis fails. Water on the surface and in the atmosphere changes phase and its EMR properties change dramatically. It acts as a diode to keep heat in when ice forms on the surface and reverse in the atmosphere to keep EMR out when is is above freezing level.
As a mainstream climate sceptic, I have no problem with the basic physics that lead to warming caused by gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour. I’m also confident that the 20th century warming that we have enjoyed was primarily natural (a completely natural and hugely beneficial recovery from the Little Ice Age) and that CO2 was a very minor player in the modern warming.
However, I’m also confident that, with respect to climate change, there is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
That’s because greenhouses work by trapping warm air and *not* by trapping radiation.
It does seem very appropriate that they couldn’t even get the name right: the term “AGW” is simply wrong.
Chris
Are we dealing here with physics or the psychology of mediation? There is big money in mediation, anyone in industry must come across it sooner or later.
Yet an attempt to ¨mediate¨ the climate controversy using maths is daft. Maths is incomplete, undecidable, all well proven by Einstein’s friend Goedel in the 1930’s .
And the attempt to base maths on logic (where Bertrand Russell takes 30 pages to prove 1+1=2) was utterly deep-sixed by the very same Goedel.
So before instead insisting 5 is a prime number ( 1 – isqrt2 ) * ( 1 + isqrt2 ) )
….
ANVC (Almost Nonviolent Communication) Cartoons (svenhartenstein.de)
( 1 – isqrt2 ) * ( 1 + isqrt2 ) )=3
Correct! Just 2 instead of sqrt2 goes for 5.
Somehow HTML symbols just do not work here… Too much time lost fiddling….
To all of those here who are denying the validity of the Stephan-Boltzman law, please stop. Denial of this basic law makes all of us skeptics look like tinfoil hatters.
It shouldn’t have been called the greenhouse effect because greenhouses work completely differently, that’s a valid complaint.
A hearty Thanx! to Bob Wentworth for carefully separating the greenhouse effect from AGW. There
I am not at all denying Stefan Boltzmann law. I think it is a great achievement in physics.
What I do question is the way people use it. They apply it as if it was a universal law for thermal radiation.
Boltzmann never said that.
Planck never said that.
They clearly stated that it is valid for an electromagnetic field in thermal equilibrium in a cavity. There is no interaction with atoms.
Thermal radiation is created by the displacements of atoms in a crystal lattice. Electromagnetic waves are generated by accelerating/retarding charges (not temperature).
There is no theory today that derive thermal radiation based on the atomic movements in a material.
Still people say that it is proven for thermal radiation from solid, liquid and gaseous material ?
No theory. No experimental verifivation. But it is proven ???
Whilst you keep saying “Law” it is disproved by the video of a real experiment. It also has a great many other things like thermal equilibrium which must also be present to use it. Black bodies are not connected to the emissivity (again experiment) so what is the Earth surface “average” again meaningless. I really don’t care what we look like, we offer the proof, which then has to be shown to not be correct somehow. This is the problem, various people for years have been showing problems with the “Greenhouse effect” or whatever, and they are ignored and told it is there. No one has proved that it is in any satisfactory way, and there is a wealth of evidence that it is tiny (or even not real, but I will ignore that).
the Stephan-Boltzman law
============
The interesting thing about scientific laws is that they taken to be true, without proof or explanation.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Bob-Wentworth
Do read his 2.nd post.
Oddgeir
Interesting – it sure looks like mediation trumps science. Result is flying photons of fantasy.
Still, as psychologists say, radiative play is a good strategy for web hits.
Bob Wentworth
Reply to Ferdberple
June 5, 2021 1:25 am
…
All the averages in my analysis derive from those equations that do conserve energy, so the averages are valid expressions of that energy conservation.
=============
Bob, thank you for your reply.
You use ⟨T⟩ to represent average temperature but I cannot find anywhere that you provided a formula to derive ⟨T⟩. For example:
⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨Mₜ⟩/𝜀𝜎
It seems wrong to me to try and average an intensive value, because you don’t get more temperature with more samples, so how can you divide the sum of temperature by the number of samples? It has no physical meaning. As such, you would expect a simple average will not conserve energy.
Misunderstanding of intensive and extensive properties is the most common error in thermodynamics. They may not be used together in equations, which then do not balance! Simple enough mathematics! Get real.
Let’s see, the IUPAP statement of the first law is usually:
For a reversible process of a simple compressible substance we get:
where U, the internal energy, is an extensive property; T, the temperature, is an intensive property, S, the entropy, is an extensive property; P, the pressure, is an intensive property; and V, the volume, is an extensive property. This equation appears in every thermodynamics text I’ve seen. There are lots of conjugate variables in thermodynamics–one is usually an extensive property and the other is usually an intensive property. Using them together never seems to cause problems.
However, I agree that you can’t average intensive properties–like temperature.
Bob Wentworth
Reply to
Ferdberple
June 5, 2021 1:25 am
It’s true that you can’t bring to different materials together, average their temperatures, and expect that together they will equilibrate to the average temperature. But, that’s not what I’m doing with the averages.
===============
Again, Bob thanks for the reply.
The earth is constantly bringing together air, water, earth and ice, trying to equilibrate temperatures. If these will not equilibrate to the average temperature, then it is the average temperature that is wrong.
Perhaps I missed something. It looked to me like you were assuming that there is such a thing as average temperature, and from this showing where the average temperature must lie. And then repeating the exercise for a less transparent atmosphere. You then used the difference of the averages to conclude there is a GHG effect. And mathematically I saw no problem, given that there is such a thing as “average temperature”
What I’m saying is that “average temperature” is an imaginary construct without physical meaning. It is Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, a Yeti. So when we calculate the distance between one Bigfoot report and another, this doesn’t make the result any more real. In effect it is a trick of the mind.
That doesn’t mean the average temperature is wrong. It just means you’re believing it should mean something that it doesn’t.
There are many meanings that it doesn’t have. That doesn’t mean it has no meaning.
You can look at the average height of people in some population. That doesn’t mean you ought to be able to smash them together and have their heights equilibrate to the average of their heights.
It’s simply a statistical measure. But, it’s useful for some purposes.
Thanks Bob
Again, what formula did you use to derive average temperature?
You use average temperature pretty much everywhere but unless I missed something you have not defined it.
No mathematical proof can be considered complete under such conditions.
As far as average height goes it most certainly has meaning because you can stack people end to end to increase height. One person standing on anothers shoulders is able to reach higher than when standing on the ground.
However adding two temperature samples, one of 20C and the other of 30C does not give you a temperature of 50C. Which violates a fundamental property of addition.
And the average of 20C and 30C being 25C does not generally conserve energy when one sample is water and the other is air. And if energy is not conserved how can we possibly calculate an effect that is fundamentally about energy in and energy out.
My point is simply that your proof is incomplete until you have shown energy to be conserved in your derivation of average temperature.
Otherwise, if energy is not conserved we have a situation where 1=2 and as Bertrand Russell demonstrated, when you accept that as true, then you can prove anything mathematically.
Well, I said “average… over the surface of the planet (or object) and over some defined period of time.” By “average over the surface” I meant average with respect to area.
That means that ⟨T⟩ = (1/S)(1/D) ∫∫ T dS dt where S is the total surface area, D is the total time duration being averaged over, dt is the differential increment of time, and dS is the differential increment of surface area.
On a globe, this can be expressed more specifically as ⟨T⟩ = (1/4𝜋)(1/D) ∫∫ T(𝜽,𝜑,t) sin(𝜽) d𝜑 d𝜽 dt, where 𝜽 is latitude and 𝜑 is longitude (expressed in radians).
* * *
The problem with your line of argument is that you are applying rules that relate to certain calculations as if those rules were relevant to all calculations, which they are not.
If you average the temperatures of two objects and then assert that the average would tell you above the temperature that the two objects would reach after coming into equilibrium, that would be a false conclusion, one which does not properly account for the way that temperature and internal energy are related to one another.
In that context, averaging temperatures is being applied in a way that does not properly account for energy conservation.
However, the problem is not the act of calculating an average temperature, but the act of inferring and claiming that “the average temperature should be the final equilibrium temperature.”
It’s a mathematically valid operation to compute an average temperature. At the level of physics, there are invalid conclusions one could infer and assert, based on such an average, and there are also valid conclusions one could infer and assert.
The mere existence of an average of temperatures does not determine whether the conclusion is valid or invalid.
There is no reason to believe that the particular way I have worked with average temperature is in any way invalid. To the contrary, it is clearly correct at a level of both mathematics and physics (provided one accepts the Stephan-Boltzmann Law).
The question of whether energy is conserved or not in the “derivation of average temperature” is an incoherent, meaningless question.
Energy is neither conserved nor not conserved when calculating an average.
The only question is whether you apply that average value to make inferences in a way that properly reflects conservation of energy.
I am not making any inferences about the implications of the temperature having a particular average value. Therefore, there is no way that I could be making inferences that fail to properly account for conservation of energy.
For an average temperature to mean anything you must be dealing with similar substances that have similar masses, similar specific heats, and similar energies impinging upon them.
If the surface of the earth is basically the soil and CO2 is a gas, the masses and specific heats are vastly different. You can’t even use SB to estimate the equilibrium radiative temperature unless you are dealing with similar substances because a given amount of energy absorbed by a volume of soil will have a quite different ΔT than a gas of a similar volume absorbing the same amount of energy.
No, that’s NOT what is required for temperature to mean anything. That is what is required for average temperature to be relevant to calculating temperature changes for a given heat input.
That’s a specific possible use of temperature.
It’s not a use of temperature that has anything to do with my assertions.
You are looking at one context in which average temperature is not a useful concept, and inappropriately inferring that the concept is inherently meaningless in all contexts.
You are making an assumption with no proof. These items are certainly important as to what the temperature of a mass physically is when receiving energy. You can’t just wave your hands and say it has nothing to do with your assertions.
You must show how each mass (earth’s surface and each green house gas) accepts energy and what the resulting temperatures are. All of your math basically assumes a constant value of mass and specific heats for all components in order to have any meaning. This is not physical reality and is only playing with math symbols.
I am not calculating “what the temperature of a mass physically is when receiving energy.”
I am saying, “given that the surface has some temperature, what can we deduce about the statistics of that temperature?”
This is an entirely different sort of calculation.
And, you can’t just wave your hands and say it is important to my assertions.
Please find a step in my analysis where I say something which would be altered if I took variations in heat capacity into account.
There is no such step.
No, my math does not assume that.
Again, please identify any step where materials having different specific heats would change anything that I’ve said.
Maybe the point being made was that different things have different specific heat coefficients, and so the final temp will not necessarily be the mathematical average of the initial temp of each one.
The one with higher specific heat will have a larger influence on the final equilibrium temp than the one with lower specific heat, assuming two objects of equal mass.
Yes, that is the point. The mathematical average of temperature does not conserve energy.
As such you need a different formula for average temperature that does conserve energy before a calculation of earths energy budget and GHG effect can be considered a mathematical proof.
The problem with this is that we have global average temperature and temperature homogenization being calculated by averaging techniques that do not conserve energy. Then we use the result to calculate global energy balances to conclude that warming is due to GHG.
As explained above, it is false, incoherent reasoning to assert that “The mathematical average of temperature does not conserve energy.”
Averaging neither conserves nor fails to conserve energy.
It’s not about the act of averaging. It’s about what you do with the average.
It’s possible to make a false inference which would fail to reflect conservation of energy, based on an average temperature. But, the problem would be with the inference, not the average.
There is no problem inherent in calculating an average temperature.
If I apply 100 joules to a volume of water or soil and the same 100 joules to a similar volume of gaseous CO2 will the ΔT of each volume be the same? If not, averaging will not mean anything.
Yep, averaging isn’t appropriate for calculating ΔT in that sort of situation.
So, don’t do it. I didn’t.
The fact that averages can be used in inappropriate ways does not mean that all uses of averages are inappropriate.
That’s erroneous logic.
That’s completely true, and means that the average temperature of an inhomogeneous object should not be used to try to infer a final equilibrium temperature.
That’s fine, since I’m not trying to infer a final equilibrium temperature, nor am I suggesting that anyone else do that.
The fact that an average temperature could be misapplied in this way does not invalidate the mere calculation of an average temperature.
It invalidate it because you can then not infer radiative temperatures to use for an SB calculation. You’ll have no idea if the calculation means anything or not.
You have reached the point where your math must have some resemblance to the real physical world and how it works. Otherwise, your derivation is simply unphysical.
No. The use in an S-B calculation is specifically a place where such averaging, in the way that I’ve done it, is relevant and correct.
Point to a single place in my essay where I’ve done something that is not mathematically correct, or which assumes incorrect physics.
* * *
This discussion is illustrating how purely verbal, philosophical arguments, of the sort that you and some others have made, often yields nonsense.
Bob Wentworth ==> No serious author or reader here is really “… certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real.”
To assume so is to buy into the wild wild world of attack rhetoric, erecting a Statue of Liberty-sized strawman, brought into being over the years for the exact purpose of distracting the general public from the real issues involved in the climate controversy.
Of course, “Flat Earthers” are the exact same type of strawman — created for the purpose of vilifying anyone who disagrees with “our Science”, by almost all science fields too afraid to face close inspection and replication efforts. I have serious doubts that, outside of hospitals for the mental ill, that any actual flat-earthers exist at all. (There are spoof efforts out there on the internet — they are not intended to be taken literally or seriously.)
Similarly, only a few ignorant adolescent commenters here espouse “No GHE!” — and they only do it as some weird sort of Identity Flag waving. Bumper-sticker intellects. (And of course, The Trolls, who do it in their attempts to denigrate this site.)
Thanks for all your well-intended effort — I know how much work goes into preparing such a careful presentation.
I’m sorry too, that your efforts may have been partially wasted, as there is no one reading here who needs to have their minds changed on the issue.
The “No GHE!” strawman has no more mind than the do the few silly teenagers that comment on his behalf.
Bob presents a linear analysis. That fails because it does not allow for the phase changes of water. The emissivity of water is not constant. A water surface beneath ice has rapidly reducing heat loss as the ice thickens. The effective emissivity is highly non-linear.
Same in the atmosphere. 10mm of water below freezing level absorbs LW and transmit SW. The same 10mm above freezing forms highly reflective cloud that still absorbs LW but reflects most of the SW.
Water on the surface and in the atmosphere acts as a valve. On the surface to retain heat. In the atmosphere reject EMR that would manifest as heat if it got to the surface.
Bob is wrong. There is no “Greenhouse Effect. Easy to prove once you understand non-linearities.
One could account for changes in emissivity due to phase changes, and still derive a bound on the maximum average temperature that could be achieved without LW-absorbing/scattering materials in the atmosphere.
Thanks for providing evidence that I’m not imagining people making this claim.
Bob claimed:
This is where you have it wrong. What is the emissivity of the water surface below 1m of ice.
Your simple linear equations cannot deal with non-linearitues. Both emissivity and albedo are complex function of the actual temperature. Your equations omit that reality – they are wrong.
Once you get the non-liniearities properly accounted for it is quite evident that there is no “GHE”. It is rubish science like your rubbish maths.
Bob,
You wrote –
“This is where you have it wrong. What is the emissivity of the water surface below 1m of ice.”
Do you really not know, or are you just being silly?
Maybe you could just state what the emissivity of the water surface is, yourself?
Are you just asking trick questions trying to make someone look stupid?
Flat Earth “Science” — Wrong, but not Stupid – YouTube
Here is a good discussion on flat-earthers. Dr. Hossenfelder pins it down to radical empiricism, Zeteticism.
bonbon ==> see my https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/03/flat-earthers-rejoice/
A classic pure red herring. Allowing the author to post isolated calculations to prove something virtually everyone already accepts.
Notice the author does not post a survey or poll where commenters insist that there is zero atmospheric greenhouse effect!
There have been commenters here that insist CO₂ has virtually zero GHE effect. But that is a recognition of;
A) CO₂’s LW interaction over a miniscule portion of the entire radiation spectrum.
B) CO₂’s absurdly low atmospheric concentration levels; 0.04%.
1) Prove that a large number of people disbelieve there is a greenhouse effect!
Until this article ,I have never seen a reference to the green house effect let alone heard anyone dispute that having an atmosphere effects temperature .The debate is about wether CO2 in the atmosphere is effective as a green house gas ,and a controller of climate .
???
That is puzzling. Articles regarding Greenhouse gases and the Greenhouse effects and temperature increases are posted regularly.
A quick search on WUWT for GHE brings up many many results. A small sampling.
I can only conclude that you:
a) Don’t read many articles on WUWT or
b) You are not paying attention as you read.
Many (like myself) accept that CO2 and ALL GHG have more than a “virtually zero effect” but don’t think they are a main “controlling knob” for the Earth’s tremperature.
It’s known as being a lukewarmist.
I am also a lukewarmist as I believe CO₂ a trace gas at 0.04% atmospheric content does absorb/emit energy from a a few tiny bands of LW radiation where H₂O interactively swamps both the LW bandwidth with a massively higher atmospheric content.
So a “lukewarmist” is someone whom accepts even the slightest bit of science. In that case the true anti CAGW people are only those who ARE science deniers!
How is it possible that we still do not understand the greenhouse effect? We have had contributor after contributor convinced we do not understand it and must be taught it somehow. Are we really that stupid? It is time to stop this obsession with the greenhouse theory and SW and LW radiation. There is nothing new here nothing that we have not gone over before .
I found Bob’s presentation interesting and feel he is a sound player in the game of “climate science”.
I am guessing most people accept an atmosphere around a body in space will have an impact on the surface temperature of that body in space. Whether you call it the GHE or just the blanket effect of the atmosphere seems unimportant, unless the concept of GHE implies some feedback mechanism that uniquely distorts or changes the laws of physics.
This guy from the early part of the last century had something to say about CO2. He and his view might be worth considering. He had a reputation well earned for being a radical thinker who was right.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/
I agree that a term like “Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement” might be more useful. (It’s one of the few virtues I find in N&Z’s work, which I find seriously flawed.)
You do get that Einstein said nothing whatsoever that contradicted the mainstream narrative about CO₂?
I’m getting frustrated with people quoting Einstein as if it makes some point about CO₂ and the GHE, when it doesn’t.
Bob,
You wrote –
“I agree that a term like “Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement” might be more useful.”
Ah, so being unable to define the “Greenhouse Effect” in any way that makes sense, you are going to use yet another stupid and witless term.
Have you ever considered that thermometers do not respond to CO2 concentration in the air surrounding them?
You do realise that removing the CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” from a sample of air makes precisely no difference to the temperature of the air, don’t you?
Maybe you could read the meticulously documented experiments of Prof John Tyndall, but I suspect you won’t. No support for your delusional GHE support there. He demonstrated that the more CO2 you introduced between a heat source and a thermometer, the less radiation reached the thermometer, and the temperature fell as a result.
And much more to boot. If you want to argue about Tyndall, please provide the edition and title. People who should know better, often demonstrate their inability to understand what Tyndall wrote.
“If you want to argue about Tyndall, please provide the edition and title.”
Like you did, huh?
Been a while since we had a genuine practitioner of the Gish Gallop on hand.
The technique remains as tiresome as ever.
The term greenhouse effect, GHE, is owned by warmists, who use it interchangeably with greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. Nikolov and Zeller have the right idea, invent a new term, like atmospheric thermal enhancement, ATE. Otherwise the discussion is too confusing. It doesn’t make sense to even try to model it with simple models. Earth is approximately a sphere, 71% covered by water, with a titled spin, often covered by clouds. Surface heat capacity varies with surface composition: water, ice/snow, vegetation, desert, … Warming and cooling at any one place/time vary vastly and cannot be simulated with the simple models normally used to derive CO2 climate sensitivity. Because the rate of cooling depends so much on the temperature at the surface, and whether it’s land or water.
The earth receives solar radiation at the surface, but reradiates it to space from a high altitude. This is because while the atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation it is opaque to infrared radiation near the surface, mainly because of water vapor (greenhouse effect). So, to radiate energy to space the heat must be transported to an altitude where the overlying atmosphere cannot completely block outgoing radiation. This is called the equivalent emissions height. Convection accomplishes this. The expansion as the air rises and the compression as it returns to the surface accounts for the ~30 deg C temperature difference at the surface above the blackbody temperature at the emissions height.
I see someone below does not like my posts, although I provide evidence. All of the argument is from people who do not provide evidence, including the paper above. Perhaps the paper should explain why intrinsic and extrensic properties may not be mixed up in the fashion suggested, and therefore why the Stephan-Boltzman equation is wrong, or right. You will see in the video I cited that the emissivity of virtually closed cavities varies considerably and therefore black body radiation is not indeperndant of the material, or even possible. It is a theoretical construct which is proven to be false. Therefore you cannot derive a figure for the Earth surface (which is extremly variable) and shove it into some equation. A black body must be an ideal material which does not exist.
So I guess you also don’t believe in Kirchoff’s radiation law, which states that all bodies in thermal equilibrium come to the same temperature regardless of emissivity. Evidence: Find something in your living that is not at room temperature.
It took me all day to check, but I did indeed find that almost everything was at the same temp as the air in the room.
The exceptions are the grill of the central air conditioning duct, the TV, the motor of the ceiling fan…and the cat.
Nicholas,
And yourself, of course. And any thermometer that happened to be in the room. Reality confuses GHE worshippers.
I also note as an afterthought, that energy and temperature are still being considered as the same. Why? Temperature is linked to the random movement of electrons, but the energy contained by non-random (absorption and radiation) is not, why are these two different processes being confounded?
Temperature is energy density and can be a measure of energy in a defined space. It only applies to heat (or molecular motion) energy and not to radiation because radiation cannot really be kept in a box. “Absorption” is a process of converting radiation to molecular motion and is neither energy nor temperature.
You likely know all that but I emphasize it as a way to help understand why people sometimes lazily use the terms “energy” and “temperature” interchangeably in some circumstances but not others. I have no doubt I may sometimes be guilty of doing so.
An average of energy conserves energy. An average of temperature does not.
For most people this distinction is not important. However when calculating energy balances based on average temperature it can lead to unsupported conclusions.
We should not be using average temperature as a metric for the GHG effect unless and until we have a method to compute average temperature that conserves energy.
Bob,
for what is worth,
let me say and put it forward as a clear personal standing and a personal position of me;
“Regardless of else there,
you still own the right to do what you doing.”
And even when you and me not in the same page,
I must say and acknowledge that you fully earn the right to do what you doing.
It is an indisputable outcome.
Let me thank you, in consideration of your effort.
cheers
Thanks.
I will read carefully the entire article, but I have an immediate comment on certifying that 1+1=2 and it’s use to ascertain other issues. From the book of infinity & the mind of Dr. Rucker, one take away is to be careful with absolute conclusions. From the book: “ the Zeno’s series 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8, … We feel that as we take into account more and more terms of the Zeno series we are getting closer and closer to a definite limiting value: 2. 1+1=2 is only an approximation to an infinite math series.
As a PhD in environmental science & Master in chemistry I assure that the geeen house effect is a temporary effect that eventually leads to cooling from the warming up evaporating water from natural bodies such as rivers, lakes, oceans; CO2 is a dynamic molecule with cycles of returning to other molecular structures and escaping to the open space. See the book here:
http://www.rudyrucker.com/infinityandthemind/
Thanks. Dr. Vigo
I rarely hear that atmospheric CO2 does not warm the Earth. That at least to me is not in question. Its the simple “proofs” that ignore so much of the climate system that drive me nuts.
We do not know nor can we determine with certainty just how much CO2 is warming the Earth. A computer model is not a proof, its not even a source of data. It consumes data and spits out whatever we programmed it to do. If our understanding is wrong, then the model spits out garbage. It has been obvious for many years that most of our climate models spit out garbage.
The question is not if CO2 warms the Earth, but by how much. Not in a simplified system that ignores convection, lateral heat transport, and competition for the same wavelengths of light, but in the real system. We can’t answer this question because the data is so poor. It is polluted with non-relevant heat sources (heat island effect), mauled by data keepers who have obvious bias, and then fed into…40+ models and averaged? Surely you know enough to understand this is not science.
The world was warming before man released CO2 could have had any effect. There is no reason for this warming to have stopped. We measure temperatures throughout the U.S. and find that much more warming occurs in populated areas then non-populated areas – do you not find that strange? Daytime warming has hardly changed – but CO2 is working just as hard in the daytime as nighttime…harder actually. The case for CO2 to produce all of the predicted warming is just fantasy. It isn’t that CO2 does not warm the planet, its that it plays a far more minor role then climate agitators will accept.
You cannot predict the role of CO2 unless you understand how the entire system works. Sure more infrared light is reflected downwards, but if this increases active heat transport through convection, evaporation, etc. then we will not see the expected gains in near ground atmospheric temperature. Stop treating this system like a simple homework problem and actually THINK about how it must work.
Are you all done, can I have my turn now.
All claims that back radiation from colder air is warming the warmer surface are purely mathematical concoctions on pieces of paper, no real world observations and experiments are presented to demonstrate it.
When a real experiment is performed, like this one, no warming from back radiation is observed.
https://theblackdragonsite.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen/
Another simple way to debunk the warmer object absorbing the radiation from a colder one is that if it did , you could easily warm up a warmer but very small object by placing it next to a very large but colder object, like placing a little warmer ball inside a very large colder hollow sphere , the small ball would be forced to absorb many more times the radiation in terms of watts from the large emitting area surrounding it simply because of the big area difference, and that is obviously not happening.
I ran the theoretical numbers for the experimental setup.
The prediction of the theory being “debunked” is that the experimenter should have seen almost nothing (an effect of about no more than a degree) for the first 10 minutes, but a large effect would be expected if the experiment was run for an hour.
The experimenter only ran the experiment for 10 minutes, saw nothing, and declared the theory debunked.
I hate experiments that claim to “debunk” a theory but don’t bother to check to see what that theory actually predicts before declaring they’ve debunked it.
It’s disingenuous, bad science.
You are making a false assumption about what the theory you are testing would predict. No theory of radiative heat transfer predicts what you’re claiming it would predict. Your example tests a “straw man” theory, not any theory that anyone is asserting.
Bob,
Don’t be silly. Use any amount of ice you like, radiating at 300 W/m2, and try and try to raise the temperature of some liquid water. Concentrate the radiation (yes, infrared radiation is light, and obeys the laws of optics), using any combination of lenses, mirrors, reflectors, or any type of concentrator you like.
Your insistence on discarding reality and substituting your fantasy is just pseudoscience.
If the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, your calculations are pointless, giving the same answer whether the surface is 1000 K, 500 K, 300 K, or 288 K.
I predict that you cannot use the radiation from a colder object to raise the temperature of a warmer object.
If this were not so, the colder object would have to lose energy, becoming even colder. Gee! Perpetual motion, if followed to the extreme. A ship could go along, letting the colder water heat its boilers, and leaving a trail of ice blocks in its wake, having removed the heat from the seawater. Complete nonsense. No GHE. You can’t even say where this mythical effect may be observed and measured, apart from your imagination.
As to you writing to Even –
“Your example tests a “straw man” theory, not any theory that anyone is asserting.”, you are not asserting any theory at all. Not even a testable hypothesis, because you can’t even define this mythical “GHE”.
You have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
You are mischaracterizing what I’m saying, then asking that I demonstrate the truth of your mischaracterization. No thanks.
The rules of optics include the conservation of Etendue, which forbids the sort of concentration you’re suggesting.
These are situations where details matter. You insist on changing all the details that matter, and then insisting that I’m asserting something about a situation that is very different than what I’m asserting. Again, no thanks.
Bob,
You did write “Given that Earth’s atmosphere does include LW-absorbing and LW-scattering materials which allow there to be more LW radiation emitted by the surface than what reaches space, the average surface of the Earth can be no higher than 294 K (21℃).”, didn’t you?
Do you deny that before the first liquid water appeared on the Earth, all the H2O was in the atmosphere, and the average temperature exceeded 373 K by definition?
Your calculations don’t seem to accord with reality. Want to revise them?
You wrote –
“The rules of optics include the conservation of Etendue, which forbids the sort of concentration you’re suggesting.”
Learn some physics. The centre radiation frequency of ice at 270 K is around 16 THz. I assure you that wavelengths generated at this frequency can indeed be concentrated, refracted, reflected, as can all wavelengths of light. You will notice your Wikipedia article does not mention specific wavelengths for this very reason. You just don’t comprehend what you read, if you are obtaining your information from Wikipedia.
When I pointed out that you cannot use the radiation from a colder body to increase the temperature of a warmer body, you responded – “These are situations where details matter.” Rubbish. Just making stupid assertions hoping that nobody will challenge you is a characteristic of the GHE true believer. What are these “situations” and “details” enable the radiation from a colder body to raise the temperature of a colder body? Can’t say?
You just keep dodging and weaving, spouting more irrelevant and diversionary nonsense, trying to avoid admitting that your calculations are pointless nonsense.
Mathematical proof of the Greenhouse Effect? You can’t even define the Greenhouse Effect, let alone prove it exists.
Got any more fairy tales up your sleeve?
That statement was not meant to be taken as an unconditional assertion. That was in the context of a particular measured value for the TOA radiant exitance from Earth being ⟨Mₜ⟩ = 239.9 W/m².
Given that ⟨Mₜ⟩ = 239.9 W/m², that assertion is valid.
If you change that boundary condition, then the assertion is no longer relevant. And, ⟨Mₜ⟩ would certainly be different in the scenarios you are talking about.
The assertion is completely irrelevant to the situations you are talking about.
I didn’t mean that the radiation couldn’t be concentrated at all (of course it can). I meant that it can’t be concentrated in a way that would lead to something colder raising the temperature of something warmer. That’s what conservation of Etendue implies.
* * *
It does not appear to be possible to have a conversation with you in which you will respond to what I’m saying without distorting it.
Bob,
You wrote –
“That was in the context of a particular measured value for the TOA radiant exitance from Earth being ⟨Mₜ⟩ = 239.9 W/m².
Given that ⟨Mₜ⟩ = 239.9 W/m², that assertion is valid.”
What has unmeasurable “TOA radiant exitance” to do with anything? You say you are naive enough to believe “data” which is impossible to measure must be true, because someone claimed it to be so!
In any case, all you are saying is that you believe radiation from the surface which obviously has to pass through the atmosphere to reach space – duh! – is related to surface temperature! For a value of 239.9 W/m2 you assert this is 294 K.
And when the surface was over 1000 K, it would be more? Of course it would. No GHE involved. Once again, you mention “scenarios” and “situations” without actually quoting my words, because you would just look silly.
I pointed out that you can not use the radiation from any amount of ice to raise the temperature of the minutest amount of something warmer – liquid water in this case. I have had others imagine that “concentrating” light brings about a magical increase in its ability to induce heat. Unfortunately, they forget that concentrating light from the Sun at 5800 K or so, is qualitatively different from the radiation from ice – below 273 K or so.
And so it is with the nutters who avow some magical GHE can somehow cause the radiation from a colder atmosphere to increase the temperature of a warmer surface.
You finish by saying by writing –
“It does not appear to be possible to have a conversation with you in which you will respond to what I’m saying without distorting it.”
I responded to what you wrote. I quoted your exact words. If you meant something else, you could have said so. If you cannot express your thoughts clearly, you are out of your depth here.
No need for a GHE, and you have “proved” nothing. You agree that the Earth was created with much hotter surface. It has demonstrably cooled to its present temperature. Bad luck for your silly attempt to “prove” that which you can’t even describe – the GHE.
You are not having a “conversation”. You are trying to wriggle out of what you say, and blaming me for taking you at your written word. I wouldn’t blame you for giving up, and looking even more stupid than you appear already.
I wrote for an audience that would follow the argument, and build up a context for understanding my words. I imagine that some readers, at least, could follow my argument.
I’m sorry if that style wasn’t a match for you.
You’re venturing wildly outside the context of anything that I talked about or said in my essay.
You seem to believe “If he believes in the GHE, he must believe XYZ.” Did I say anything about radiation from ice, or something cold raising the temperature of something warmer? I did not.
I’m not interested in defending things that you’re simply assuming that I believe.
I notice that when you tell me what I’m saying, you demonstrate that “message sent” was not “message received.”
That doesn’t advance the conversation. It just indicates that communication has broken down.
Given that, I don’t think the conversation can be productive unless there is willingness to slow down and actually find out what is meant, before racing to a response.
My preference would be to asked what I’m saying, not be told. I would be willing to do the same.
I interpret your comments towards me as drenched in hostility. I don’t see much value in interacting on that basis. I prefer respectful conversations in which people are trying to make sense out of each others’ thoughts.
If checking for understanding and relating in a respectful, curious way are not going to happen, then I think I will need to bow out of this conversation, with regret.
Bob,
You wrote –
“Given that, I don’t think the conversation can be productive unless there is willingness to slow down and actually find out what is meant, before racing to a response.”
If you could bring yourself to say what you mean, then it might be easier for your audience to understand what you mean, rather than you continuously intimating that your quoted words don’t mean what they say!
You also wrote –
“My preference would be to asked what I’m saying, not be told. I would be willing to do the same.”
I don’t care what you prefer. I quoted your previous words before, to back my inference about ” . . . all you are saying . . . .”, and of course you don’t dispute my inference, you just avoid addressing the facts. If you choose not to explain what you “really mean”, that is your affair. Others can make up their own minds about your motives.
You may interpret my comments as you wish. As I said before, your preferences are not my concern. If you want to write nonsensical things like “Mathematical Proof of the Greenhouse Effect”, and then complain about not being properly understood or respected, you are going to attract criticism. If you keep trying to avoid supporting your nonsense, you might well attract derision as well.
Feel free to run away. Or hang about, and explain to any lurkers why the surface cooling from over 1000 K to its present temperature involves the presence of a mythical “Greenhouse Effect”, and how you prove mathematically that cooling cannot occur without it!
Oh, I see, you didn’t say that, eh? You can’t actually state whatever it is that you do mean, can you? Try thinking, before you assume “I imagine that some readers, at least, could follow my argument.” Why should anybody care about the contents of your imagination? Stick to facts. Easier to defend.
Bob:
I feel I must make you aware that “Swenson” is the most active and belligerent Troll in the Climate “debate”.
Real name is Mike Flynn … usually confines himself to Roy’ Spencer’s site these days where similar odd-balls reside and threads such as this go into many thousands of posts of bizarre ping ponging.
In short it’s a case here of “never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Yeah, I’m getting that. Thanks.
Thank you, PassingBy.
Swenson is without a doubt an incorrigible troll.
I personally doubt it is even possible for a human being to be as obtuse and demented as he pretends to be.
One thing is for sure…he is at least 100% ignorant of what physics actually says about the issues he rants on and on about.
Possibly more than 100% ignorant, as it seems he is fully imbued with negative knowledge.
Dr Wentworth,
Thank you for an interesting and for many, a controversial post.
Of what you claim, it does seem to be straightforward. It is not unexpected that what you did not claim is argued against the most!
I wonder if I can make a suggestion?
Could you apply your mathematical abilities to develop a proof(s) for the relative amounts of warming effect contributed by the main radiative gases in the atmosphere.
This could lead to a discussion of many different aspects of the wider situation.
Thanks.
Indeed.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’m not immediately feeling called to trying to take that on, but I’ll keep the request in mind.
I’ll risk offering my own perspective on this thread. The thread is probably dying out anyway so perhaps it’s fairly safe to do so!
I’ll repeat that on paper the stated assumptions in Wentworth’s article likely do guarantee a certain conclusion. I am not here to dispute any of that. From a purely radiative perspective nobody here will outsmart Wentworth. The key is that Mr. Wentworth proposes his proof in the context of the radiative components of surface skin temperature.
I see in the comments various ideas about the mechanisms which might transport heat to and from the surface skin to the actual atmosphere. From a climatology and modelling perspective this is not trivial. The various ideas represent efforts to take Wentworth’s concept a step further by proposing how the surface interacts with the atmosphere.
The surface energy balance is the key component of any model aiming to simulate dynamic and thermodynamic patterns above the surface i.e. the atmosphere. Based on my training, which included guest lectures from Oke who wrote the book on boundary layer climates, the boundary layer concept of surface energy balance is well described. Surface energy balance is commonly taught in the context of micro-climates and meteorology, but in my view these processes must not be ignored when considering a more synoptic perspective.
MUST READ
The Surface Energy Balance
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/teaching/MT23E/mt23e_notes.pdf
Each of these processes can be associated with an energy flux density W m−2
Item 3 is often referred to as a sensible heat flux, and item 4 is usually described as latent heat. Taken together, in its simplest form equation is as follows:
Q = H + LE + G
Where
Q is Net all-wave radiation
H is sensible heat flux
LE is latent heat flux
G is the ground storage heat flux (not measured but determined as a residual)
The H and LE are often combined as a total turbulent heat flux term. This term is described in the above linked article as The Turbulent Heat Flux and Eddy Covariance
Because of its capability to mix air with different properties efficiently, the representation of turbulence is directly relevant for atmospheric and environmental modeling. For instance, turbulence directly impacts on the transfer of momentum, sensible heat, water vapor, among many other quantities, between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Turbulence also defines the mixing of properties inside the atmospheric boundary layer and the transfer of quantities between the boundary layer and the atmosphere aloft.
The correct formulation of the overall effects by turbulence, either inside or outside the atmospheric boundary layer, is an essential part of atmospheric models dealing with the prediction and study of climate. Due to the relatively small scale of individual turbulent eddies this is necessarily parameterized in global climate models, either directly or indirectly. This issue of parameterization is similar to that of cloud.
Taken in isolation, turbulent blobs are a critical component of heat flux at the surface. Turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer is the three-dimensional, chaotic flow of air with timescales typically between a second and an hour. The corresponding length scales are from a millimeter up to the depth of the boundary layer.
However, I assert that the nature of turbulent eddies is not disconnected from broader processes usually thought of as convection up to various scales including most broadly the Hadley Cells. Furthermore, turbulence cannot be disconnected from the tropospheric vortices formed in pressure dynamics – these often immensely powerful vortices are usually described as relative high and low pressure pressure systems and funnel enormous amounts of mass up or down (and sideways). All of this is important when thinking in terms of Wentworth’s energy recycling ideas.
The current limitation of the boundary layer surface energy balance is that it is usually only calculated in modelling local weather or micro climates. For instance, THIS STUDY looked at the relative importance of radiative vs turbulent energy flux on near surface atmospheric temperature in an urban environment. It is found that the relative contribution in any location can vary from mostly radiative to mostly turbulent flux. The authors conclude this is mostly to do with water vapour availability, with a moist atmosphere leaning more on the turbulent flux compared to radiant flux, and the reverse for dry conditions. None of this is factored into GCM derived climate descriptors.
My view is that these concepts exemplify emergent and adaptive methods of energy flux near the surface that are rarely considered. These are governed by various atmospheric properties not limited to density, but in large part relate to density. If you disagree read the MUST READ. These near surface processes are critical to describing other processes aloft.
Often different lines of reasoning can be complementary and it is my hope that the radiative physicists are able to concede that there is room for collaboration.
PS – i should highlight in the context of this overall posting that these processes most certainly do rely on the existence of LW interacting gases both directly and indirectly.
So far, the word “surface” has been used 708 times here, yet I still do not know what is meant. Various bloggers also seem to have different impressions of “surface” To me, it is an infinitissimal thin layer between water and air, or between sold matter and air. For it to be a useful concept, it has to be stated (for oceans) if it is taken to be the water part or the air part. Part of the confusion arised from common use of “surface temperature” which fails to define in this way and another confusion arises from use of weather observations amde in screens 1-2 metres above the surface, or even more as in lower troposphere MSU calculations.
So, how do we define “surface” for this assay? Geoff S
I’ve used “surface” to mean the surface of the condensed matter (solid or liquid) that is capable of emitting thermal radiation upward. This is a specific, well-defined meaning of the term, and is what is required for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to be applicable.
Bob,
If ever I read a WUWT article that cried out sfor a post-comment summary by the author, this is it.
Do you have the strength to make a summary that rejects comments irrelevant to your thesis, then in a nutshell describes the most valuable comments that do relate?
I must confess to a deal of confusion from the way you wrote. What did you set out to do? What was the hardest part to compose? What was novel about your approach? Does it have strengths and weaknesses? If so, what are they?
Geoff S
Dr. Wentworth’s article is death by a thousand mistakes/omissions.
Where does one begin?
In this response, I will use the abbreviations: “GHG” = greenhouse gas;
“GHE” = greenhouse effect; “EMR” = electromagnetic radiation.
Due to the lack of any clear scientific definition of the GHE, or a
GHG, I will assume one is referring, by these terms, to something like the
differential frequency absorption of EMR by various components of the
atmosphere of the Earth. I feel this is sort of like ironically referring
to a god-awfully ignorant and stupid person as “Sherlock”, twisting the
truth to humor him. But so be it.
EMR from the Sun is the main warmer of the planet Earth’s surface and
lower atmosphere. It travels 92 million miles from the Sun without a
hitch. Minor components of this EMR are then absorbed at heights above
60,000 feet altitude. The EMR left has 12 miles or so to travel to the
dense, non-gaseous surface (meaning land or water) of the Earth. It goes
through air containing “lots” of CO2 and H2O (GHGs), both of which absorb
oodles of EMR at certain frequencies. Nevertheless, it heats any flat
land surface, like the concrete of a sidewalk, in summertime, high noon,
clear sky, 40º latitude, to about 150º F (this is not the air
temperature). The Moon’s surface under similar circumstances (but no
atmosphere) gets heated to about 240º F. Why, given the GHE, didn’t the
intervening atmosphere of GHGs completely stop such heat getting through
to the Earth’s surface? Because some of that EMR made its way all the way
through nevertheless. That’s because there are plenty of frequencies the
GHGs don’t absorb. The GHE is zero for one. This, and only this, the
Sherlocks of Climate Warming are willing to admit.
Some of that surface heat conducts its heat back into the air above it.
The heated air rises and eventually radiates its heat readily into outer
space (thereby cooling the Earth), having nothing to do with the GHE.
Zero for two. And some of that heat gets reemitted as EMR. Does the
atmosphere that did not stop that EMR coming down now stop it going up,
caused, allegedly, by the GHE? The truth is that just like those GHGs
didn’t do a good job stopping the heat from getting down to the surface of
the Earth, they don’t do such a good job preventing it from going back up
and reaching outer space. Sorry, Dr. Wentworth, not really.
What actually happens is that even if some of that heat energy does
leave the Earth’s surface at a different EMR frequency than it came in,
and even if some (about the same proportion as that coming in) of that
energy does get absorbed by GHGs in a narrow range of frequencies on its
way up, that absorption results in: 1. heating up the surrounding air; 2.
the heated air then gradually reemitting that EMR energy it absorbed, but,
this time, at a greater range of frequencies, much less of which represent
the exact absorption frequencies of those GHGs; 3. a lot of that reemitted
EMR making it directly into outer space; or, 4. that heated air moving up
to higher altitudes where it, again, radiates its heat readily into outer
space. As far as the GHE is concerned, that’s zero for three and four.
The truth is, whether it’s high-frequency EMR or low-frequency EMR,
some proportion gets absorbed in the atmosphere, and some proportion goes
straight through. And the proportion that’s absorbed can still make it
all the way through by means of reemission or by mass transfer of its heat
through air movements (the latter hardly considered at all by the Climate
Change Sherlocks). And this is true whether that EMR is going down or
going up.
And what if that EMR from the Sun falls on the waters of the Earth,
especially at lower latitudes where the majority of that EMR falls and
where the majority of the areas it hits are, indeed, covered by water?
That’s probably over an 80% chance of the fate of all of the Sun’s EMR
reaching the Earth’s surface. Does that massive amount of incoming heat
cause the water to evaporate, sending its energy (in the form of the heat
of vaporization of water) up to high altitudes, where the water condenses
and releases its energy, again readily, into outer space? Sure enough,
but having nothing to do with the GHE. Zero for five. And does that heat
energy hitting the water sometimes get temporarily absorbed only to be
quickly remitted or conducted to the surrounding atmosphere? Sometimes.
And that’s really zero for six. And, finally, does that heat energy
hitting the water, indeed, get absorbed and then subducted down into the
ocean’s depths, thereby, most assuredly, warming the Earth, and for a long
time, though having absolutely nothing to do with the GHE? More than many
would believe. But it’s zero for seven as far as the GHE is concerned.
And the truth is also that none of the above even takes into account
any blocking of the Sun’s incoming energy above about 60,000 feet, where
an atmospheric haze can do yeoman work in cooling the Earth and has done
so many times in Earth’s recorded history (for instance, when a large
volcano went off). In those cases, where’s the GHE? Nowhere to be found.
Zero for eight.
And, also, none of the above takes into account a three-letter word for
water called “ice”. Before each of the last 100 or so ice ages in the
last 2.6 million years on Earth, when CO2 (a GHG) levels almost always
rose dramatically (which, according to the above-mentioned Sherlocks,
should have warmed the Earth but somehow magically resulted in it
freezing), ice formation (through snow precipitation) created a runaway
cooling effect. Why? Because a growing proportion of the solid surface
of the Earth (both on land and on ice floating in its oceans) hardly
absorbed the incoming EMR at all but rather reflected it back into outer
space. This cooling effect gave us still more snow which gave us still
more ice to reflect still more EMR back into outer space, and so on. And
through various mechanisms, the GHGs of the Earth proceeded to get lower
and lower during those ice ages, which those Sherlocks are claiming cooled
the Earth, somehow magically resulting in its ice melting and giving us
our warm interglacials. What? That’s zero for nine and ten.
It’s complicated. But one thing is simple. The GHE does not exist and
has nothing to do with anything. The science trumps the magic.
David Solan
No, that’s not a good definition of the GHE, though it can play a role.
As I’ve defined it, the GHE refers so the way that, all other things being equal, if some materials in the atmosphere absorb or scatter LW radiation, this will allow the surface to be warmer.
I’m afraid it’s you who is zero for one. The GHE doesn’t claim that GHG’s should “completely stop such heat getting through to the Earth’s surface”.
You can only falsify a theory by providing evidence that its claims are false.
To do that, you have to pay attention to what it actually claims. You are falsifying a claim that nobody made.
And…
Every other point you make in your comment is similar.
You keep making up things that you assume the GHE claims (but which it doesn’t claim), then arguing that those things aren’t true.
All you are doing is making up something untrue (and irrelevant) and then arguing that it is untrue.
That has nothing to do with anybody else’s use of the term “Greenhouse Effect.”
Bob Wentworth:
You have read my article. Can you refute it in any scientific way?.
David Solan:
Everything that you say is correct, but you omitted one major factor in the “12 mile passage” of the incoming EMR radiation to the surface of the Earth, and that is that it has to contend with varying amounts of reflective Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosols.in the atmosphere, of either volcanic or Industrial origin (2019 Industrial aerosol emissions totaled 72 Megatons, down from 136 Megatons in 1979)
Less SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere results in more surface warming. And vice versa.
Therefore, SO2 aerosols are the actual Control Knob of Earth’s temperatures, and as you have pointed out, the GHE does not exist..
I had posted a link, earlier, which you may have missed:
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
Thanks, Burl Henry, for your kind words. It’s nice to know, after all these years, that at least some of us old-timers who remember IBM in its “Think!” days are still on this side of sanity.
The high-altitude, hazy, reflective particle/aerosol cooling of the Earth WAS mentioned by me in my “Zero for eight” paragraph. Again, nothing to do with the GHE.
The GHE tries to tie the temperature of the Earth’s surface to special infrared-absorbing properties of certain gaseous components of the atmosphere. The points I mentioned cast doubt on it in ten ways, only the first of which are taken into consideration (a little) by its adherents.
Again, thanks for not being a “Sherlock”.
David Solan
David Solan:
Thank you for your reply! Are you also ex-IBM?
Anyway, you are correct, you did mention a blocking atmospheric haze at about 60,000 feet. My bad.
However, SO2 aerosols in the lower troposphere, from Industrial activity, have the same blocking effect as those in the stratosphere. Which is why temperatures began rising after global Clean Air efforts began removing them from.the atmosphere., .
(Most of our rising temperatures are just an unfortunate side effect of global Clean Air efforts)…
Am I right in thinking that all monatomic and diatomic gases are not greenhouse gases? That it is the vibration of the bonds in triatomic and higher molecules where the energy is absorbed/radiated?
That’s true for diatomic gases where both atoms are the same, but not when they are different. Nitrous oxide (NO) is a greenhouse gas, because the dissimilarity of the two ends of the molecule allows radiation to couple (I think?) to a rotational mode of the molecule.
The essential computation for equilibrium temperature for a body with uniform absorptivity=emissivity spectrum ( color ) and arbitrary source and sink power spectra is at http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html#EqTempEq in a modern Array Programming notation , K .
I have not yet had a motivation to translate it into current RPN 4th.CoSy . But it would be great to see someone translate it into a more mass-market language like Python .
It’s just the 4th root of the ratio of the dot products of the object’s spectrum with the source & sink power spectra .
But that gives the radiative equilibrium ( the endlessly parroted uselessly crude 255K meme ) .
The difference between that and the bottom of atmosphere temperature is due to the adiabatic tradeoff of gravitational ( potential ) and kinetic energy required by Newton’s universal ( applies to molecules as well as satellites ) Law of Gravity to maintain Conservation of total Energy .
It does seem all too coincidental that the lapse rate x effective radiation height = 33C, the same amount attributed to the GHG Effect (notice the name effect, not cause). And yet when we look at the equation for the lapse rate, it is determined by gravity, air and water. Nothing to do with CO2.
I can hear Nikolov and Zeller applauding your statement. However, the presence of CO2 may have an effect on the equivalent emissions height (see my comment above) which could have an effect on surface temperature. I honestly don’t know how much or which way.
Here is a school presentation that explains the radiative greenhouse effect reasonably well, leaving out the hysterics.
It shows why adding CO2 will cause warming by raising the effective radiation height. But is also points out that it might cause cooling by increasing low level clouds. And then it ends up implying that the jury is still out.
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld011.htm
It’s not a coincidence because the “effective radiation height” is defined in such a way as to make that result true.
It doesn’t mean anything important about the physics. It’s just an inevitable consequence of the way that the term is defined.
Is the GHG effect the cause or the effect of warming? Why is it called the “effect”. Shouldn’t it be called the GHG Cause, or the CO2 cause? We have all sorts of causes, like getting rid of pollution is a worthy cause. Or is getting rid of pollution the effect of too much pollution?
To answer this question here is some fun with math that I wrote in response to a Willis post some years ago: Unfortunately the formatting was lost via cut and paste. Maybe it is still preserved somewhere in the archives.
Formal proof that GHG cools the surface of planet earth
From Thermodynamics: Any 2 objects in thermal equilibrium, no matter how great the gross or component flow of thermal energy between the two objects, if the net flow between the objects is zero, then the observed flow is the result, not the cause of the temperature of the objects.
terminology:
==X==> denotes energy flow from left to right, with name X.
<==Y==> denotes two way energy flow between right and left, with name Y.
<==Z== denotes energy flow from right to left, with name Z.
In an atmosphere with GHG
space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
Total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
In an atmosphere without GHG (non radiating),
space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
Total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by surface
D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Assume that in (1) above the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and the net energy flow is positive from surface to GHG atmosphere, (1) can then be rewritten as:
space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the flow from the surface to ghg (flow H), plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as part of C. Thus:
H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as part of C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
H < C
From (2) we have:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
And from (5) we have
D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
A + C = D
And from (8) we have
H < C
Therefore
D = A + C > A + H
Therefore
D > A + H
Let
Temp(D) = surface temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere (from 5)
Temp(A+H) = surface temp with GHG atmosphere (from 6)
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp by S-B, from (11),(12), and (13) we have
Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere, as compared to a radiant (GHG) atmosphere.
QED
I wa2 able to find a copy from 2014 that still had the numbering:
Formal proof that GHG cools the surface of planet earth
From Thermodynamics: Any 2 objects in thermal equilibrium, no matter how great the gross or component flow of thermal energy between the two objects, if the net flow between the objects is zero, then the observed flow is the result, not the cause of the temperature of the objects.
terminology:
==X==> denotes energy flow from left to right, with name X.
<==Y==> denotes two way energy flow between right and left, with name Y.
<==Z== denotes energy flow from right to left, with name Z.
In an atmosphere with GHG
(1) space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
Total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface
(2) A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
In an atmosphere without GHG (non radiating),
(3) space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
Total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by surface
(4) D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
(5) D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Assume that in (1) above the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and the net energy flow is positive from surface to GHG atmosphere, (1) can then be rewritten as:
(6) space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the flow from the surface to ghg (flow H), plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as part of C. Thus:
(7) H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as part of C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
(8) H < C
From (2) we have:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
And from (5) we have
D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
(9) A + C = D
And from (8) we have
H < C
Therefore
(10) D = A + C > A + H
Therefore
(11) D > A + H
Let
(12) Temp(D) = surface temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere (from 5)
(13) Temp(A+H) = surface temp with GHG atmosphere (from 6)
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp by S-B, from (11),(12), and (13) we have
(14) Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere, as compared to a radiant (GHG) atmosphere.
QED
of note: All my proof above is done in terms of energy flows, without reference to average temperature. It is only in the last step where I make use of S-B to infer planetary temperature, thus avoiding the non conservation of energy problem I mentioned earlier.
Here are the notes I’ve added to my above proof:
Notes: many of the proofs surrounding the GHG Effect start with average temperatures and then work to radiation. The problem with this is that averaging temperature fails to conserve energy. You cannot add an object at 20C to a different object at 30C and arrive at 50C. Nor can you arrive at 25C if the objects have different mass or heat capacity, or if they undergo a phase change.
This proof takes the opposite approach. All the work is done in terms of energy flows and only at the end is S-B used to infer relative planetary temperatures. This avoids the non-conservation of energy errors that result from working with average temperatures.
What this proof recognizes is that the so called “back radiation” is matched by an equal amount of “forward radiation” from the surface. From thermodynamics these matching energy flows are not the cause of the temperature of the objects, they are the result of the temperature. By eliminating these equal but opposite energy flows (step 6), this proof reveals the net energy flow due to GHG cools the surface as compared to an atmosphere without GHG.
Many other proofs compare a GHG atmosphere to a planet without an atmosphere. This proof says nothing about the temperature of a planet without an atmosphere and any such discussion is outside the scope of this proof. What is being compared is the planetary temperature that results with or without GHG for a planet that has an atmosphere.
You said a mouthful with this comment. I have recently been investigating how the masses and specific heats of soil and CO2 add up. Someone needs to convince me in some other way than averages that radiation from CO2 has the ability to come close to heating up the surface of the earth. My preliminary calculations show you need a kilometer of a m^2 of air to get the same mass of CO2 as a cubic meter of soil. That doesn’t even address the different specific heats or conductivities.
And what about correcting for land altitude and the lapse rate when averaging two temperature samples?
What is well established science is that the radiative greenhouse effect is the result of the effective radiation height and the lapse rate. The effective radiation height is approx. 5km. The lapse rate is approx. 6.5C/km.
Multiply these together and you get a predicted GHG effect of 5km x 6.5C/km = 32.5C. Pretty damn close to the 33C we hear about.
The theoretical cause of global warming is thus an increase in the effective radiation height, resulting from increased GHG.
For example, if you add GHG to the atmosphere and increase the effective radiation height from 5 to 6km, then unless the lapse rate changes the new GHG effect would be 6km x 6.5C/km = 39C. An increase of 6.5C.
Under this scenario, increasing “back radiation” is not the cause of global warming. It is the effect. Which suggests why many intuitively have problems seeing it as the cause.
So, under this scenario, all that is needed for us to monitor the GHG effect is to monitor the effective radiation height and the lapse rate. If they are not changing there is nothing to worry about.
Anyone have any light to shine on this? Has the effective radiation height been increasing? Has the lapse rate been changing?
Climate science has gone off the rails with average temperature as a metric.
Doing that would create a risk of introducing some amount of error.
I will point out, however, that it is entirely valid to go the other direction (as I have done), starting with radiation, working to temperature, then averaging the result.
I appreciate you laying out a specific, detailed argument.
As I analyze the argument, most of the steps are correct. But, step (12) is a bit shaky and, unfortunately, step (13) is entirely wrong, and that invalidates the argument.
Step (12) is shaky in that the energy determines the temperature only if one knows the temperature distribution on the surface. What one can actually say is that ⟨T⟩⁴ ≤ ⟨T⁴⟩ = D/𝜀𝜎. So, we don’t exactly know the average temperature, ⟨T⟩. We only have an upper bound on it. If we make the (not entirely realistic) simplifying assumption that T is the same temperature Tx everywhere on the surface, then Tx⁴ = D/𝜀𝜎.
But what about step (13)? It’s shaky in a similar way. But, what if we assume a constant temperature, to see if the argument would work then?
Let’s assume the surface has temperature Ts and the atmosphere (another simplifying assumption) has a single temperature Ta.
What would be the heat transfer rate H from the surface to the atmosphere? If would be something like (approximately):
H = f𝜀σ⋅(Ts⁴ – Ta⁴) + h⋅(Ts – Ta)
where the first term represents radiative heat transfer and the second represents convective heat transfer.
Under the same assumptions, the term A for direct radiation from the surface to space would be about
A = (1-f)𝜀σ⋅Ts⁴
Consequently,
H+A = 𝜀σ⋅Ts⁴ – f𝜀σ⋅Ta⁴ + h⋅(Ts – Ta)
or
𝜀σ⋅Ts⁴ = H + A + f𝜀σ⋅Ta⁴ – h⋅(Ts – Ta)
So, H+A does NOT yield temperature in the same way that D yielded temperature in step (12).
Can we say even more? We can.
Suppose that the total insolation absorbed is S, and that S = G + Z where G is the amount absorbed at the surface, and Z is the amount absorbed in the atmosphere.
From this, we can conclude that D = S and H+A = G = S – Z.
Given all this, what can we say about the comparison of the greenhouse temperature Ts to the non-greenhouse temperature Tx? We can write
𝜀σ⋅(Ts⁴ – Tx⁴) = (H + A – D) + f𝜀σ⋅Ta⁴ – h⋅(Ts – Ta)
or
𝜀σ⋅(Ts⁴ – Tx⁴) = -Z + f𝜀σ⋅Ta⁴ – h⋅(Ts – Ta)
Your analysis basically included the -Z term, but left out the rest.
So, you erroneously concluded that the amount on the right must be negative, and that Ts < Tx.
However, if f𝜀σ⋅Ta⁴ > Z + h⋅(Ts – Ta), then it would be the case that Ts > Tx, i.e., the temperature would be warmer in the greenhouse gas scenario.
A more complete analysis would work out what Ta must be, as a function of Z and h. When I’ve done that sort of analysis in the past, it has always worked out to show that Ts > Tx.
So, your analysis contained a significant error, and reaches an incorrect conclusion.
I hope this has been helpful.
If we assume an average surface emissivity 𝜀 = 0.94, then equations 1 and 2 lead to:
Tₑ = 259 K (-14℃) ⟨T⟩ ≤ 294 K (21℃).
“The more quoted figure of 33℃ would result if one assumed an emissivity 𝜀 = 1.)
Given that the average surface temperature of the Earth is typically estimated to be about 288 K (15℃), this satisfies the constraint of being no higher than 294 K (21℃).
According to equation 1 and this particular data set, the surface of the Earth is 29℃ warmer than it could possibly be, given the same average LW TOA radiant exitance, if there were no LW-absorbing (or scattering) materials in the atmosphere.”
If the surface has warmed up to a hotter temperature to radiate its energy because of its lower emissivity. [Your words].
You cannot adjust the temperature to a lower level by specifying a now incorrect emissivity to the known radiation output.[input equals output].
Using Zoe Phin’s description of average surface emissivity which your link leads to?
“Zoe Phin November 5, 2019
Emissivity is an important factor in all calculations involving Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law:
q = εσT⁴ where q is the flux in W/m²
Most of the time in climate science the emissivity (ε) is presumed to be 1.”
Scientist Roy Spencer likes to use ε=0.98 (link):”
You will see that other scientisst do use the idea of a higher emissivity which gives the correct surface temp thus
“The more quoted figure of 33℃ would result if one assumed an emissivity 𝜀 = 1.)”
I do feel that there is an error in relating the known output to a reduced substance specific SE when you should be taking into account that the substance is at 100% effective emissivity.
Ta
I’m not following what you’re saying.
There is now “now incorrect” emissivity.
And there is nothing improper about adjusting the temperature calculation.
Yes, I see that they apparently do. I’m somewhat troubled by that, as it wouldn’t seem to reflect physical reality.
A particular emissivity gives rise to a particular surface temperature in the context of a particular calculation, with particular data.
If a calculation yield the “correct surface temp” using the wrong emissivity, that calls into question the accuracy of some of the data used.
But substances are NOT at 100% emissivity.
(The term “effective emissivity” is a term that I made up to address a particular way of averaging emissivities which is appropriate to the calculation I was doing. I suspect your comment may be happening at a level such that differentiating between “emissivity” and “effective emissivity” isn’t helpful.)
I wonder if you are somehow misunderstanding the meaning of the term emissivity, if you think that things “should” be at 100% emissivity.
Emissivity refers to how much thermal radiation a substance emits, relative to an “ideal black body” at the same temperature. There is no reason why any substance “should” have an emissivity of 100%.
Bob,
I can see your logic.
I can sort of see why I am having trouble getting my concept across but I do not know how to quite bridge the gap.
–
I guess what I am saying is that
Yes, I understand emissivity as per your definition.
“Emissivity refers to how much thermal radiation a substance emits, relative to an “ideal black body” at the same temperature. There is no reason why any substance “should” have an emissivity of 100%
–
So where does that leave the concept of Emissivity
”Emissivity refers to how much thermal radiation a substance emits”
–
Using the book definition means I am not allowed to say that substance X emits so much heat?
This seems wromg.
This is a fairly precise definition of what “emissivity” means.
This is a less precise statement that probably means to say what the previous statement said. This isn’t a definition, just a general statement about “emissivity.”
You can absolutely say that “substance X emits so much heat” (under some particular set of circumstances).
But, the word “emit” and “emissivity” are not interchangeable words. They mean different things.
The word “emit” relates to how much radiation comes out of the substance; the word “emissivity” relates to the ratio of the power emitted to the power that would be emitted by a black-body at the same temperature.
You might say “in steady-state, the power emitted by X is equal to (or matches 100% of) the power X absorbs from sunlight.”
That would be a valid thing to say. But, it’s totally different than saying that the “emissivity is 100%.” That means something entirely different.
It’s possible for the an object to emit 100% of the power that it absorbs, and to do so with an emissivity of 0.94 (94 percent).
Say something absorbs power P from absorbed sunlight, and emits 100% of the power it absorbs. So, the power emitted will also be P.
We know from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that P = 𝜀𝜎T⁴. So, we know T⁴ = P/𝜀𝜎.
From this, we can conclude that, for a given power P, a substance will have a higher temperature T if it has a lower emissivity 𝜀.
But, no matter what the emissivity value, the object will emit 100% as much power as it receives.
Does that make sense?
Bob Wentworth
Reply to
ferdberple
June 6, 2021 5:10 pm
I appreciate you laying out a specific, detailed argument.
As I analyze the argument, most of the steps are correct. But, step (12) is a bit shaky and, unfortunately, step (13) is entirely wrong, and that invalidates the argument.
=====================
Thanks Bob, I appreciate you taking the time to analyze my scribblings. It appears that I have only managed to prove that number 13 is indeed unlucky!
🙂
Bob Wentworth
Reply to
Ferdberple
June 6, 2021 1:42 pm
That means that ⟨T⟩ = (1/S)(1/D) ∫∫ T dS dt where S is the total surface area, D is the total time duration being averaged over, dt is the differential increment of time, and dS is the differential increment of surface area.
====================
Thanks Bob,
From the above, t looks me that for a given amount of radiation, you could have infinitely different average temperatures, depending upon the distribution of T.
If I am correct, then yes I agree with your math that all that can be calculated is a bound on average temperature as defined. For example, say that we were to divide the earth into cold and hot regions, with different T distributions:
earth 1
cold = 0C
hot = 30C
earth 2
cold = 10C
hot = 20C
These two earths have the same average temperature (15C) but Earth 1 is radiating more energy than earth 2. So earth 2 must increase its average temperature above earth 1 to bring the radiation back into balance. (and/or earth 1 must reduce its average temp.)
Thus from the viewpoint of global warming or climate change, an increase of decrease in average surface temperature may occur regardless of any change in GHG. All that is required is a change in the distribution of temperature.
Bob, you might find this interesting. Using your number for energy in, I divided the earth into 2 regions, hot and cold, to see how much average temperature can vary depending on distribution.
Due to the 4th power relationship, it appears that for an input power of 398.7 w/m2, the earth’s average temperature can vary from 16C to -100C, depending upon the efficiency of heat transfer from hot to cold regions.
This is clearly outside the minimum temperature you calculated for GHG effect,
240.4 w/m2 sw
158.3 w/m2 lw
==========
398.7 w/m2 total
earth max
cold = 289.578k
hot = 289.578k
avg = 289.578k = 16.428C
avg radiation = 398.7 w/m2
earth min
cold = 0k
hot = 344.368K
avg = 172.184k = -100.966C
avg radiation = 398.7 w/m2
OK.
The minimum temperature is unrealistic, because the temperature is never going to get lower than what would be supported by the insolation from the Sun, and no part of the Earth is in permanent darkness. Certainly not half of the planet. So, the minimum possible average temperature would really be higher than -101℃.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. There was no “minimum temperature” calculated.
I calculated two maximum temperatures:
What I was trying to point out is that there is such a range in temperatures possible depending on distribution, that we should not place our trust in the limits.
Maybe I missed something. My thinking is a follows: As I understand accepted GHG theory, the temperature enhancement is not the result of LW radiation.
Rather, it is the result of the effective radiation level and the lapse rate. The downwelling radiation then becomes a result not a cause of enhanced warming.
Proof of the result is not proof of the cause. Failure to find another cause is not proof that it doesn’t exist. For my part I suspect the interaction between the effective radiation level and lapse rate is much more complicated.
For example, it seems quite obvious that if the energy from the sun starts the atmosphere to circulate vertically, that the work being done will result in the air being hotter at the surface and cooler at altitude. With the addition of water this gives us the lapse rate.
While at the same time, for the same amount of solar energy, if the atmosphere did not circulate, the air would all be of the same temperature vertically. This temperature would approximate the average temperature of the circulating air with some potential complications. (enhanced radiative loss?)
And since the circulating air is hotter than the average at the surface, this explains and alternative cause of the observed warming. Under this model the center of mass of the rotation may well approximate the ERL, but don’t hold me to that.
Thus, there is another alternative to explain the result. Is it correct? Don’t know. But I do know that dismissive arguments that this is some sort of perpetual motion machine are wrong and the commenters have not understood the issue.
The circulating atmosphere takes energy from the sun to drive the machine, and it consumes this energy via work, to create a lapse rate. The circulating atmosphere effect has nothing to do with pressure enhancement. The lapse rate results in the surface being warmer that the average of temp of a non circulating column.
I don’t see why the existence of a large range should cast any doubt on the limits.
A theory is falsified if you find evidence that its predictions do not hold. In this case, the only prediction is that certain limits will not be exceeded. Any temperature variations that don’t exceed that limit are entirely consistent with the prediction.
I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of GHG theory. It really amounts to something like, “Given the laws of physics, when you add LW radiative absorption/re-emission properties to the atmosphere, it is observed to be an emergent property that the average surface temperature tends to increase.”
The GHE is an emergent effect.
After-the-fact, it can be “explained” in a variety of ways. Some of the more popular explanations include:
None of these is “GHE theory.” These are just simplified ways of helping people to make sense of the emergent effects of the underlying physics.
None of these explanations is the unique, correct explanation. They are just different ways of thinking about the same phenomenon.
Sometimes one explanation is more useful, and sometimes another explanation is more useful.
Sometimes jumping to a different explanation can allow us to be clearer about some aspect of the situation.
However, the existence of air circulation and the existence of GHGs inherently go together. Once you introduce GHGs you get cooling at altitude which forces circulation to happen.
So, I don’t trust that the “no circulation” example tells us much that is useful.
I don’t see any scenario in which the physics would allow the circulating air to be hotter than the average at the surface.
There is no reason to suspect that center of mass and ERL would match.
Rather, ERL might match the level at which the LW optical depth of the atmosphere, as viewed from space is roughly 1 (or some other target value).
That has nothing to do with center of mass.
I think it’s safe to say that it’s not correct. So, it’s not really “another alternative.”
I imagine it’s frustrating to have the sense that “there might be something significant there” and have it be dismissed.
At the same time, I do tend to think that, if one looks carefully at the situation, it can be shown that explanations that rely on convection heating the surface are effectively perpetual motion machines that fail to conserve energy.
One would need to go through a more detailed analysis to establish that. Though, to some degree, my “proof” might be an indication of that.
Yes, though I think that both upper and lower bounds can be calculated. (The lower bound could be calculated by assuming local radiation balance, without any lateral heat transfer, and by assuming a lower bound on heat storage capacity of the surface and using that to look at temperature variations over the day and night.)
So, there is a finite range of possible average temperatures, for a given level of absorbed insolation.
Yes.
Yes. Of course, there needs to be some physics reason for the distribution of temperature to change. But, it can and does happen, to some degree.
That’s one of the reasons that calculating “climate sensitivity” in response to changes in GHG concentrations is complicated.
Note that there is some follow-up discussion in this blog post: A WUWT “Comment Rebuke” by Rud Istvan.
Absorption and reflection should not be lumped together like this. Absorption is how you cool a heat source, it increases heat transfer. Reflection is a way to retain heat, it reduces heat transfer. Insulation can be reflective, insulation aims to reduce absorption because absorption is a cooling process of heat transfer.
Amazing how these very basic principles are so poorly understood.
They are lumped together in this mathematical derivation because that is precisely what is appropriate to do for purposes of this derivation.
The derivation rests on the question: Can anything alter the flow of LW radiation from the surface to space or not? That is all that the derivation needs to know, to reach its conclusions.
Absorption and reflection/scattering are the two processes that are capable of altering the amount of LW radiation that reaches space.
That’s all that matters for purposes of the derivation I presented.
It’s not the job of the math to conform to your preconceptions about how things function.
Why would you think that? Maybe there is some context in which that’s true, but that’s certainly not true in this context.
Do you have any math that supports this idea of yours? Or is this simply your intuition?
* * *
At a mathematical level, absorption functions very similarly to to reflection.
Suppose, for example, you know that 100 units of radiation go into a system, and 50 units of radiation come back at you and 50 units of radiation emerge from the other side of the system.
Do you think you can tell if this system is functioning via partial reflection or via absorption and re-emission?
You can’t. Both a system based on reflection and a system based on absorption and re-emission could have this same net effect.
And, if both processes can have the same net effect, it is not going to be the case that “reflection warms” while “absorption and re-emission cools.” That’s not mathematically possible.
You appear to be making an inappropriate comparison, comparing reflection to absorption, and concluding that having a reflective barrier makes for a more effective insulator. That’s true, adding a reflective layer increases the R-value of an insulator.
But, it doesn’t mean that “absorption is a cooling process of heat transfer.”
Try making a different comparison: which is more insulating, a layer that absorbs radiation plus a vapor barrier, or just a transparent vapor barrier?
Fiberglass batting, for example, absorbs thermal radiation. And, it has value as an insulator.
A layer that absorbs radiation increases the R-value of insulation.
* * *
However, whether or not we can agree on any of that doesn’t matter with respect to my essay.
The “proof” I offered makes no assumptions about the warming/cooling consequences of absorption or reflection. It only relies on knowing “Is this process capable of changing the amount of LW radiation that reaches space or not?”
That’s all that needs to be established for the proof to be rigorously valid.
From that perspective, it is not only appropriate, but essential, to lump together absorption and reflection/scattering.
Earth’s albedo is far lower than GHE proponents claims…