Guest post by Rud Istvan
A few days ago, I posted another Lindzen Bode ECS reconciliation. It should have been controversial, stimulating many comments because of the divergence to higher climate models and also to Monckton’s often here posted much lower estimates. It was only mildly so, most about my penetration f/(1-f) versus Bode 1/(1-f) one phrase in one sentence goof, which did not affect the post’s conclusions since it only used Lindzen’s correct curve posted here decade ago.
Recently, Dr. Wentworth posted a ‘mathematical proof ‘ that the GHE must exist, even though misnamed (because real greenhouses retard local convective cooling, while greenhouse gases retard radiative cooling to space). This misnomer is no different than the equivalent ocean acidification misnomer we are also forced to live with in popular discourse. Warmunists long ago picked their definitional terms of debate, and WUWT skeptics are mostly stuck with them. Definitional quibbling may satisfy some, but probably isn’t an effective tactic.
I was very surprised at the number of negative comments at WUWT (now well over 600) to this rigorous post with an obviously verifiable conclusion. They spanned the gamut from epistemological (really a proof, or something else?), to the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’, to the new ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does), to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down). I chose not to name names; this possible guest post is only a general rebuke.
The surprisingly controversial post’s conclusion is also easily personally verified by simple observation. Tyndall proved in 1859 that both CO2 and H2O were GHG, while N2 and O2 are not. So a personal experiment can be conduced in any desert (mine was a summer day in the Mohave outside Palm Springs during a boring conference). The dry desert heats up a lot from insolation during the day, and cools down a lot at night thanks to desert low specific humidity, so not much GHG except well-mixed CO2, and therefore not much GHE at night. Burrr!
There are only two even semi-rational (but still erroneous) arguments why the CO2 GHE might not exist despite Tyndall’s experimental GHG evidence.
- The CO2 window overlaps the H2O window. Note, this does not say the GHE does not exist; only that CO2 ‘cannot’ be a contributor so IPCC is wrong. This assertion is frequently found on the internet in graphical form, but erroneously portrayed for two reasons (both errors are present in negative WUWT comments). The usual stuff omits radiation intensity; and while some windows do overlap, others don’t. Fine IR scale matters. The actual overlaps/windows plus their radiative intensities were provided in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. The essay’s illustration is reproduced below. Forgive the unfortunate insolation extra zero K typo, which I just caught myself. Absorption is a metric of the degree of a gas GHE effect at some frequency (wavelength), from 0 (none) to 100% (full).
Reality has to do with radiation intensity and window ‘shoulders’.
- GHG are saturated, so can have not have any further effect. This misunderstands saturation, since it depends on the effective radiative level (ERL). As CO2 increases, the ERL rises unconstrained, since CO2 is unaffected by the lapse rate, while H2O is and so decreases. This also reduces their mid troposphere’s overlapping radiative windows. More CO2 raises the ERL. As Callendar’s 1938 curve reproduced below (from Climate Audit) first showed, the GHE never saturates.
Also note that over the region of Callendar’s curve of present interest, the curve is approximately linear, which is why in my comment to UAH’s most recent report, I did not bother to make the log correction correctly suggested in subsequent comments to my back of the envelope implied 1.7C ECS fraction that Roy’s new update nicely implicitly brackets. ‘Good enough for government work’.
To summarize without any math, the GHE exists. It experimentally must, and easily provably does. The GHE issues are how much when (ECS), not if. Any ‘skeptical’ arguments to the contrary are fairly easily rebutted, as done here.
Rud, here is something you might find interesting.
Using Bob Wentworth‘s formula for average temperature:
⟨T⟩ = (1/S)(1/D) ∫∫ T dS dt
With time = 1 second, and surface = 1/2 (earth divided into 2 regions, 1 hot and 1 cold) and using Bob.s number for SW and LW radiation, I asked how much the temperature could vary without any change in SW or LW radiation.
Due to the 4th power relationship, it appears that for an average 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
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
This is how the atmosphere is observed unlike a climate model based on sunlit flat earth.
162 w/m2 sw
339 w/m2 lw
==========
501 w/m2 total
earth max
cold = 278.4k
hot = 278.4k
avg = 278.4k = 5.4C
avg radiation = 339 w/m2
earth min
cold = 0k
hot = 380K
avg = 190k = -83C
avg radiation = 339 w/m2
earth’s average temperature can vary from 16C to -100C, depending upon the efficiency of heat transfer from hot to cold regions
===========
some further thoughts.
What the numbers above show is that a great deal of earth’s average surface temperature is due to heat flows and have nothing to do with GHG.
Wrong.
The opening unproven premise for the “Mathematical Proof of the Greenhouse Effect”, in spite of your bias is:
An open and shut red herring. Throw out an opinion, pretend it is fact and then write based on the opinion.
Where LW radiation is allegedly proven to originate from certain atmospheric molecules.
Except, there is no way to determine the source!
Whether the radiating source is a surface molecule, CO₂, H₂O, CH₄, CO, dust, soot, SO₂ or whatever. There are a multitude of sources for LW radiation.
Outgoing radiation is impossible to identify the source solely based upon the frequency.
Instead that graph presumes to assign LW radiation ‘intensity’ based on a hidden standard, especially since none of the imaged sources are surface molecules, land or water or airborne particles.
Including the assumption that ‘intensity’ equitably divides all of the outgoing LW radiation between only two molecules.
Nor does that graphic take into consideration that CO₂ is a heavy atmospheric molecule and less abundant higher in the atmosphere.
Making any satellite radiation assignments to individual atmospheric molecules impossible.
Satellites measure outgoing radiation well above the atmosphere, far above where CO₂ occurs in any concentration.
Again, First prove that there are many “climate change skeptics who are certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real”!!
Until then, the whole exercise is found many places across the internet, all with the same assumptions and bias.
I find that response puzzling.
I didn’t claim that all or most climate change skeptics are certain that the GHE isn’t real. So, why should I prove that there are many “climate change skeptics who are certain that the “Greenhouse Effect” (GHE) isn’t real”? That isn’t a claim that I made.
I only claimed that some have that position. And some do. People who post on this site who I have interacted with in the last few weeks have explicitly told me that “the GHE isn’t real.” I’ve heard such claims from many more skeptics on other websites. And, I felt shocked by it.
I wanted to address the issue of the folks who have that position.
What in the world is wrong with addressing the position of some folks who might well be a small minority???
Why would it be incumbent on me to determine the size of that group?
Frequently, there are posts that address a particular theory, often a theory that is believed only by a minority.
Why was there a different standard for this particular post?
You have learned things backwards. Atmosphere (33°C) heats cold earth (-18°C) not cold atmosphere -75°C cools sun 90°C (15°C). This why your confused.
The false assumption is just because certain gases are radiative active doesn’t mean they are the only source of LW. Visible light is lower than 4µm (441w/1kw) Utra violet light is 32 at 10µm. Solar infrared is above 4µm. GHE is the assumption that radiative gases slow cooling when actually they increase cooling so earth isn’t 120°C (temperature of the sun on earth). They are cold gases that solar radiation interacts with on entry cooling by time it reaches earth. Convection slows or speeds heating further due to cold and warm transported air masses.
Convection, coupled with the rotation and tilt of the earth’s axis transfers energy from the hot side of the earth to the cold side. This reduces the temperature differential between the hot and cold side of the earth.
Under completely standard GHG theory, due to the 4th power S-B Law, this decreases average outgoing radiation and will force the earth to warm, increasing the average temperature. Thus, the argument that convection cannot change average temperatures is in error.
As shown in my previous post, heat transfer at the extreme can change the earth’s temperature by more than 100C without any change in GHG (assume emissivity 1). Reference:
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator – Free online Calculator (byjus.com)
You have horizontal cooling with had-mid- polar cells and you have vertical cooling. Sun 120°C hitting TOA (-80°C) 70% of 40°C = 28°C(had). 90°C hitting TOA (-65°C) 70% of 25°C(mid) 17.5°C. (polar cell ) 17.5°C hitting -50°C -32.5°C (winter) or 51°C hitting -50°C = 1°C (summer). Cooling happens faster above clouds despite long sunlight hrs. Radiative transfer doesn’t effect temperature above surface or clouds. Air conducts heat from objects heated by radiative transfer. Vertical cooling is (reduced pressure and expansion of air). -6.5*11=-71°C below 6.5°C stopping at -64.5°C.
1 + 2 (mod 1) = 1.
Failed again.
Cheers.
Ref. https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
“There are only two even semi-rational (but still erroneous) arguments why the CO2 GHE might not exist despite Tyndall’s experimental GHG evidence”
Tyndall showed evidence that GHGs absorb heat. What he didn´t show is that GHGs can warm anything. Nothing in his experiments is evidence that cold GHGs can warm a hot body.
GHE=The hypothesis that gases at -18C warms a hotter body to 14C. It has never been proven in any experiments.
Body isn’t 14°C unless flat. Radiative gases at -75°C receives 91°C of solar energy heating body to 14°C. Equator radiative gases -80°C receives 106°C solar energy heating surface 27°C. Mass air 5.5 x 10^21 grams at 0.287/g has 70°C per 10,780kg column air.
Global mean temperature in the months of April- May was 5-8.5°C (338-357 watts per meter square) 10.03-10.31µm. At the tropopause the global mean was -65°C (106 watts) 13.93µm the insulation is 70°C 235 watts. That insulation is air not trace gas water vapor and carbon dioxide. (0.3 J x 3.5kg=1.05) x 70. (60% of 120°C sun). Moist air is cooler than dry air. Air cools the sea when air is below 273 watts. Water cools by 20% and convection cools the earth by 50% of the total solar input 1kw sunlight(at zenith).CO2 absorbs in the 106 watts. 668*0.08w/cm-1 53w. So there is no greenhouse effect at all.
The back radiation greenhouse effect phantasm of colder air warming the warmer ground warming the ground by some 30 degrees has been mathematically concocted in order to justify the very high CO2 climate sensitivity in the climate models which in reality it doesn’t have. It is purely a product of imagination.
The back radiation is measure of insulative properties of the atmosphere [though it’s incorrect}. The ground on earth can heat to 80 C if convection heat loss is blocked.
A solar pond {can not be affected at all by back radiation} can get to temperature of 80 C
in the water in pond which has about 1/2 meter of cooler water above it {cooler water is salt gradient which blocks convection heat loss of the 80 C Water below it. So surface water could be around 30 C and 1/2 meter below is water which 80 C {which is heated by sunlight and will stay around 80 C even in night time].
Or just a insulated box with window on top that lets in sunlight but slows convection {though insulated box doesn’t does keep hot, like solar pond does}.
To be clear back radiation is long wave IR, and long wave IR radiation does not go thru any amount of water.
But if the earth stays warm at night, then next day it warm to higher temperature, as compared to if a surface start the day cold.
Or back radiation is a way to express equilibrium temperature.
Normally a ground if one has 1000 watts sunlight will heat to about 60 C, and not be able to get hotter because air not warm enough, loses more convectional heat due the larger the difference between heat ground and air above it.
Rud Istvan
Home2021June6A WUWT “Comment Rebuke”
ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS
A WUWT “Comment Rebuke”
2 days ago Guest Blogger 507 Comments
Guest post by Rud Istvan
A few days ago, I posted another Lindzen Bode ECS reconciliation. It should have been controversial, stimulating many comments because of the divergence to higher climate models and also to Monckton’s often here posted much lower estimates. It was only mildly so, most about my penetration f/(1-f) versus Bode 1/(1-f) one phrase in one sentence goof, which did not affect the post’s conclusions since it only used Lindzen’s correct curve posted here decade ago.
Recently, Dr. Wentworth posted a ‘mathematical proof ‘ that the GHE must exist, even though misnamed (because real greenhouses retard local convective cooling, while greenhouse gases retard radiative cooling to space). This misnomer is no different than the equivalent ocean acidification misnomer we are also forced to live with in popular discourse. Warmunists long ago picked their definitional terms of debate, and WUWT skeptics are mostly stuck with them. Definitional quibbling may satisfy some, but probably isn’t an effective tactic.
I was very surprised at the number of negative comments at WUWT (now well over 600) to this rigorous post with an obviously verifiable conclusion. They spanned the gamut from epistemological (really a proof, or something else?), to the old Venus/Mars ‘analogies’, to the new ignores convection (true, but convention only moves heat around in the atmosphere; it cannot not make it go away like radiation to space does), to even the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down). I chose not to name names; this possible guest post is only a general rebuke.
________________________
the very old gravitational density heating canard (ignoring that since Earths atmosphere got densified (aka ‘pumped up’) by gravitational consolidation about 4.5 billions years ago, unlike a newly pressurized bicycle tire it has had a LONG time to cool back down).
________________________
Rud Istvan – “Earth’s atmosphere” ain’t a “pressurized tire”.
Rud Istvan – “Earth’s atmosphere” is an ending open to the interstellar atmosphere / space
without pressuring tires to protect gases on top of the atmosphere from influences like meteorites, coronal sun ejections or simple
https://www.google.com/search?q=Brownian+motion&client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ALeKk02aheZO-3JrvuyIDTK71bfcoHupRA%3A1623190652700&ei=fOy_YMGFKsOvrgTk_a2IAQ&oq=Brownian+motion&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQgAEJECMgUIABDLATIFCAAQywEyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoHCCMQ6gIQJ1DgjwFY4I8BYP2ZAWgCcAF4AIABswGIAbMBkgEDMC4xmAEAoAEBsAEPyAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
at TOA
The Green House Effect is easily rebutted as to many of the comments. And there for doesn’t exist.
First Known Use of greenhouse effect1907, in the meaning defined above:
“: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet’s surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenhouse%20effect#h1
The rocky surface of Venus is not warmed by sunlight.
According to this definition the greenhouse effect does not cause the rocky surface of Venus to be hot.
If count the clouds as a surface, then you might have some chance of some kind of argument.
The above definition not does say how warming is from this greenhouse effect or long it takes. The definition seems to suggest that “reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases” seems to have a effect, it doesn’t.
The atmosphere {the mass of atmosphere] is why the rocky surface air of Venus is hot.
The atmosphere {the mass of atmosphere} is why Earth has high average temperature.
Earth’s high average is more then 20 C. Earth is in an Ice Age in which the average global surface temperature can be 20 C to 10 C, and is currently about 15 C. Past interglacial periods have been warmer than our interglacial period {Holocene} and warmer interglacial {when they are the warmest] have warmer ocean the our ocean. Our ocean current average temperature is about 3.5 C. If ocean were to warm to about 4 C, there would be about 12″ rise in sea level due to ocean thermal expansion. In last hundred years it’s estimated we had a 2″ rise of global sea level due to ocean thermal expansion. And total rise coean sea level as been about 7″ {there a number of factors which cause sea level to rise [or fall]}.
There a number of factors which cause the atmosphere to warm or cool. With Earth major factor responsible for global surface air temperature is the temperature of the ocean surface which has higher average temperature than all land surfaces. And due ocean surface covering 70% of Earth surface, the ocean surface temperature controls our global average surface temperature.
The average land surface air temperature is about 10 C, the average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C. Ocean surface warm land surfaces {without such warming of land temperatures, land surface air temperatures would be cooler than 10 C}. Ocean surface also “warms” global surface air temperature due simply due to it being warmer and increase what call global surface air temperature. Or humans live on land and say the average temperature of earth is about 15 C. but where live which is on land, which it only averages 10 C.
Or human are C student which can claim the class averages an A, because the class has bunch better students other than the humans. And the C student’s test results are as high as C, because the smarter students, help them
Meanwhile on planet Earth real warming continues to fall behind model expectations. I read something interesting today that could put the cat among the pidgeons. Rising CO2, we are admonished to believe, traps IR in the lower atmosphere causing warming. However there is a parallel effect of CO2 in enhancing – for obvious reasons of the photosynthesis reaction – plant 🌱 growth worldwide.
Thus global leaf area has recently increased – not decreased – by an amount in the tens of percent. Specifically because of CO2 enhancement of photosynthesis.
But that’s well known – the interesting thing I learned today is that recent infrared spectroscopy research has found that plants’ leaves are surprisingly good at backscattering and re-emitting incident near infrared light. Indeed – trees and plants look unexpectedly bright in IR camera images (see below).
This points to yet another feedback working against warming by CO2. The increased leaf area caused by CO2 rejects an increasing percentage of ground incident IR back upwards – effectively increasing near IR albedo.
Could this be one of the factors causing CO2 warming to have been less than expected? I always suspected and felt that the great efforts to conceal and down-play global CO2 greening are unhelpful to a full scientific understanding of the total effects of rising CO2.
Still gotta love the GHE proponents believing Earth is a thermodynamically closed system and will pull the most intense level of sophistry in denying they believe it.
Earth is’t closed. GHE peeps say they don’t believe it’s closed. Yet, here we are, forever and ever.
I doubt the fanboys have ever used an air compressor… that air comes out cold for a reason… even with a tank in the sun. HMMMMMMMMM….