Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases
W. A. van Wijngaarden¹ and W. Happer ²
¹Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada
²Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
June 18, 2019
A shortened version of this important paper has been published on the arXiv preprint server hosted by Cornell University. The full version is provided here for the first time.
Download the full paper here: Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases 2019 Revised 3 7 2022
Abstract
We review how the atmospheric temperatures and the concentrations of Earth’s five most important, naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, H₂O, CO₂, O₃, N₂O and CH₄ control the cloud-free, thermal radiative fluxes from the Earth to outer space. Computations based on the line intensities HITRAN data base alone, with no absorption continuums, are used to evaluate fluxes and intensities for greenhouse-gas concentrations similar to those of the year 2019. Calculated top-of-the atmosphere spectral intensities are in excellent quantitative agreement with satellite measurements at various latitudes. Also calculated are per-molecule forcings in a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others. Then the per-molecule forcings are of order 10−²² W for H₂O, CO₂, O₃, N₂O and CH₄. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H₂O and CO₂ are suppressed by four orders of magnitude from optically-thin values because of saturation of the strong absorption bands and interference from other greenhouse gases. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O₃, N₂O and CH₄, are also suppressed, but much less so. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater for O₃, N₂O and CH₄, than those of H₂O or CO₂. Doubling the current concentrations of CO₂, N₂O or CH₄ only increases the forcings by a few per cent.
Introduction
Greenhouse warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere is driven by radiative forcing, F , the difference between the flux of thermal radiant energy from a black surface through a hypothetical, transparent atmosphere, and the flux through an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, particulates and clouds, but with the same surface temperature[1]. Radiative forcing is often specified in units of watts per square meter (W m−²). Forcing depends on the altitude, z, and on how the temperature and greenhouse-gas concentrations vary with altitude. The radiative heating rate, R, of the atmosphere is equal to the rate of change of the forcing with altitude, R = dF/dz, and can be specified in units of W m−² km−¹. Over most of the atmosphere, R < 0, so thermal infrared radiation is a cooling mechanism that transfers absorbed solar energy back to space.
This paper has been written for readers with a strong background in quantitative sciences, who know little about radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere. So we include material that is common knowledge to a small number of experts, but little known to the larger scientific community.
Figure 1: The continuous blue curve is the yearly average of incoming short-wave solar flux (net visible, near infrared and ultraviolet) absorbed by the Earth. The dashed red curve is the yearly average of the outgoing thermal flux (net longwave infrared) radiated to space by the Earth. Excess solar energy absorbed in the tropics is transported to the poles by mass flow in the atmosphere and oceans. The data is from satellite observations[2]. Adapted from PhysicalGeography.net [3].Thermal radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere has many similarities to that in stars, where methods for modeling radiation transfer were first developed [4]. But there are major differences. Because of the line structure of greenhouse gases, the opacity of Earth’s atmosphere has a much more complicated dependence on frequency than that of stars. Over most of the volume of stars, radiative transfer is dominated by scattering in nearly fully-ionized plasmas, with little absorption. In Earth’s atmosphere, thermal radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, but scattering is negligible. Greenhouse molecules emit radiation at a temperature-dependent rate, whether they are absorbing radiation or not. Unlike the nearly isotropic heat flow from thermonuclear sources in the cores of stars, solar heating of the Earth is substantially stronger in the tropics than near the poles, as shown in Fig. 1. Meridional heat transport by the atmosphere and oceans, lets the poles emit more thermal energy to space than the solar energy they absorb. Tropical regions emit less than they absorb. Integrated over the surface of the Earth, the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun is approximately equal to the outgoing longwave thermal radiation. But the surface-integrated fluxes of Fig. 1 are seldom exactly balanced. Changes of the average temperatures of the atmosphere and oceans, due to transient radiation imbalances, are small because of the huge thermal capacity of the oceans.
This paper is focused on the dashed red curve of Fig. 1, the emission of thermal radiation to space. This is the aspect of radiation balance that is most directly affected by changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. We discuss model atmospheres with average properties similar to that of Earth in the year 2019. We mainly consider “instantaneous” forcing changes that result when the concentration of one or more of the greenhouse gases changes, but all other atmospheric conditions remain fixed. Except for a brief discussion of temperature adjustments of the atmosphere to restore hypothetical radiation equilibrium[5], we do not discuss the many other feedbacks that contribute to the change of atmospheric properties. Important examples are changes in cloud cover and changes in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and oceans. Discussions of these important topics can be found in papers by Schwartz[6, 7], Etminan et al.[8], Trenberth and Fasulo[9], Lindzen et al.[10], Myhre al.,[11, 12], Collins et al.[13], and Harde[14].
The concentrations of the major greenhouse gases are so large in the year 2019, that each gas interferes with its own radiative transfer and that of other greenhouse gases. The relative potencies of greenhouse gases are most clearly defined for a hypothetical, optically-thin limit, discussed in the final sections of this paper, when the radiative forcing of each greenhouse gas is proportional to its column density.
Download the full paper here: Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases 2019 Revised 3 7 2022
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[[This paper has been written for readers with a strong background in quantitative sciences, who know little about radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere. So we include material that is common knowledge to a small number of experts, but little known to the larger scientific community.]]
Whew! Get me some 2x strength Febreze spray!
The lie that never dies rears its ugly head again, this time spread by professional physicists who should have known better and led the fight against it for years.
CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” aren’t real. They’re a fake physics hoax pushed by the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC as part of their long war to destroy capitalism and economic growth and burn down the West so they can build their Marxist utopia on its ashes. It was never about science, but about hijacking science for political gain. Less than a week ago WUWT republished a great article by Lord Monckton exposing the global Communist conspiracy to spread it. Did anybody read it?
It’s sick that so many physicists are so weak at the basics of thermal physics that they had a cakewalk with the older ones who could have stopped them like these two, and after taking over academia, no problem miseducating youngsters who have to learn their catechism to advance academically, like an established Church propagating the geocentric theory from generation to generation.
What a bait and switch that the authors fell for. It’s not about “radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere”, it’s about Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics AKA Entropy, which makes it impossible for any gas in Earth’s atmosphere to reheat Earth’s surface with its own heat, which came only from solar radiation.
To say that atmospheric CO2, H2O, or CH4 cause global surface temperatures to rise even one iota is like saying that some woman is a little pregnant. Nature is being mocked by Marxists using science as a mask, and the rest is moose hockey.
I’ve spent years broadcasting from my miserable soapbox on the Web how easy it is to disprove the IPCC’s greenhouse gas warming hoax, but since I spent most of my life studying thermal physics I can’t be sure what’s obvious to others and what isn’t. I already listed the url with my killer bullet disproof here on WUWT in the comments section and got little response. It’s sad that WUWT doesn’t wake up and recognize my article and make it a feature article with a prominent link to it on every page permanently, and help me find a billionaire who can make a copy available to every person in the fossil fuel-using West to stop all the IPCC’s insidious plans to ruin our future before they do real damage.
Since WUWT readers know more thermal physics than most, here’s my most simple concentrated disproof of “greenhouse gas warming”:
We’re all adults here, so why keep this killer knowledge as an in-joke? We need to find a deep pockets billionaire who will peel off a billion or two to educate the masses regardless of all efforts of the U.N.-Big Teach, er, Big Tech cabal to prevent it. Then hopefully the masses will throw off their yokes and laugh at the emperor’s new clothes and force them to disband and give the money back. Too bad that billionaire Bill Gates dropped out of college before he could even get to senior level courses on physics or else he could have done all this work for me and I could have used the time to solve other big world class problems.
ACTION NEEDED!
Here’s my free Web article explaining my killer disproof of the IPCC global warming hoax. Permission is hereby granted for republication as long as it’s kept whole and intact including my copyright notice. I’m an amateur by choice, not supported by Big Oil, but I can’t be bought and am only worried about my reputation and would welcome a free will donation of a few million with no strings attached so that I can move permanently to Hawaii in my old age. Sorry, less than that would be a nuisance, so don’t try chipping me dimes.
Why Are Greenhouse Gas Theories Dead Wrong?, by T.L. Winslow (TLW), “The Historyscoper”™
I notice that WUWT doesn’t even list my cool blog linking to all the articles on climate pro and con that I read every day, including here, yes, including mine. Subscribe to the free daily email.
The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog
You wrote this:
No colder body can rise to the temperature of a hotter body? Really?
Tom.1,
Per your quote of TL Winslow, he wrote, “no colder body… can RAISE the temperature of a hotter body”. That is very different than what you thought he wrote: “no colder body can RISE TO the temperature of a hotter body”.
Quite right. Apologies to Mr. Winslow.
Net flow *has* to be from hotter to colder. Therefore no colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter one. The hotter body will always give up energy to the colder one and therefore cool.
What???! You mean Maxwells Demon isn’t real. Just can’t trust anyone these days.
(/sarc)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not about “entropy dispersion”.
this seems to imply low ECS, as did the recent CERES interpretation that found shortwave budget changes due to cloud cover dominated temperature trends since 2000
between CERES and UAH the satellites are slowly grinding away at the consensus
My immediate thoughts on this:
WOW 😮 HARD TO UNDERSTAND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE 🧪
I found this profound article today. I got time to keep an eye 👁 on the climate change issue, I’m on the side of scientists begging for a double check of the fundaments of the issue, the foundation which they are standing on to feel free to make all of their doomsday predictions, and deadlines of actions and onset of permanent destruction. We want them to re-study the case of CO2 from the physics/chemistry scientific point of view of data, formulations and calculations to prove that it is true that CO2 can cause what they say it causes. Me as a chemist, don’t see it.
If I had a chance to teach a class on environmental chemistry at university, I would be covering issues of climate change and the issues of physics and chemistry. Because the science of gases is based on quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. At the level of university, where professors, doctors in sciences, are doing research, they take students to run different projects and do the job. This is how you get a master’s and a PhD degree, by running research, beside taking more classes deeper in sciences. Then you have to publish the info, and later get graduated. You have to work like no less than 5 years of research in a lab as a student to get 1 or 2 things that can help you to graduate. It’s not easy, it’s very demanding, and at points it can be depressing too. The level of discussions of science at the universities is way higher than what people are doing for the climate change .
I need to say how complex is this, so that you can have an idea of how complicated Is this climate change thing. You won’t find this organized like this easy out there; this are just thoughts that come to my mind, spur of the moment, I’m not pre-organizing this, it is spontaneous:
¥ The atmosphere is a fluid of mixed gases and the foundations of gases interactions are atomic theory and thermodynamics: structure and heat transference.
¥ There’s a very freaking complicated side of thermodynamics applied to chemistry; it is based on statistics. In simple words, molecules have different levels of absorbing heat, like level 1,2,3,… Each level has its own amount of heat that the molecule can retain. Whenever you refer to a volume of gas getting hot, you have to estimate how many molecules are occupying each of the different levels. The combo or sum of all must explain the total heat energy that a thermometer can read. This is how you theoretically predict a value. If you know for a gas like CO2 or N2, O2, CH4, H2O the levels of absorbing amounts of heat, and if you know how many molecules are on each, you can predict the overall temperature of that volume of gas. If the thermometer doesn’t match the predicted value, then something is wrong with your thermometer or with your formulas. This is how quantum science is used to sustain the first law of thermodynamics: energy conservation.
¥ I personally don’t know what’s the status of this knowledge for CO2, but I’m sure it’s there. When we students take classes on this, the laws are explained to us with small gases, like H2, the simplest of the gases in nature. Once you try bigger molecules like CO2, things get more complicated.
¥ Like what? Like molecular interactions. Whenever a new form of connections between molecules is present, this issues of heat absorption/exchange also change. Molecules can act like magnets and attract or repel each other and this dramatically changes the properties, like heat absorption/exchange. So that the heat absorption properties of the different gases of the atmosphere are different, and so CO2 absorbs/exchanges didferemt amounts than N2, O2, H20, CH4,… I have a reference that says that the heat absorption capability of CO2 in watts is a range of probabilities, not an exact definite value. And that with the low side the calculations fail to show global warming . They claim that the value in watts used to feed computer models is over estimated.
¥ Another complicated issue is molecular vibrations. CO2 is one molecule that likes infrared light. It is like a drug that gets it high, and when it’s high, it dances more, wiggles faster. Like the levels of heat, there are also levels of vibrations. This complex formulas have heat levels tied to vibrational levels, and the complex web of interchanges, all written in math formulas of calculus, ordered by statistical rules. It’s the Mother of All Chemistry. Only a few brave scientists dive that deep in knowledge.
Now, this is not easy to find explained, but a process of dissipating heat through a medium is called convection. You may have a modern convection oven at home to cook, in which a current of air is heated by an electric devise. The initial light from the sun comes in the form of ultraviolet (UV), several levels too. When it strikes the surface of the earth, it changes to infrared (IR), also divided in levels. I’m not going over the details of how that happens, but I can refer you to videos of me teaching this in college under quantum science. CO2 likes to absorb/get high with some of the levels of IR light/energy to dance faster. And when it does, the kinetic energy increases, and so they bump/make more contact with neighbor molecules, transmitting kinetic energy. This contact/friction increases the temperature, like when you friction your hands to get warmed. This is the method of convection. This is supposed to be the kind of heat exchange that climate change pushers argue is the method CO2 is heating up the whole atmosphere to the impending doomsday. However convection is the most subtle form of heat exchange as compared to advection and irradiation. This is another weak point unclear by the climate change agenda.
Without a data assessment of what’s called Boltzmann Quantum Thermodynamics in your gases claims, your idea is just a hypothesis, unproven empirically, with actual numbers from real gas dynamics. This is where climate change is being challenged: at the root of the science that is supposed to corroborate it.
JBVigo, PhD
This shows a lack of understanding of the atmosphere composition. Solid ice dominates the energy balance on Earth.
The clouds formed from ice prevent some 30% of incoming solar radiation being thermalised.
Almost all of the long wave radiation leaving the atmosphere over tropical oceans warm pools is emitted from ice.
Solid ice in the atmosphere is the least understood element of Earth’s energy balance and is the most important.
Rick,
I absolutely agree. The key feature of solids of all types is that they support the propagation of shear waves, fluids and gases do not. It is shear wave flexure that links matter to radiation. The temperature of Earth’s tropopause is controlled by the freezing limit of super-cooled water.
I am very surprised to see that, per the above Abstract and Introduction of their recently revised 2019 paper, van Wijngaarden and Happer, have apparently glossed over what I considered to be one of the great strengths of their (previous?) explanation for radiation through Earth’s atmosphere, including energy exchange mechanisms.
That key feature, largely originating with Dr. Happer I believe, is the simple fact that at the average pressure and temperature of air within the first 5 km or so of the surface, the rate of molecular collisions among all gases is on the order of 10^6 to 10^9 times faster than the rate of “self relaxation” (i.e., re-emission of a photon of equal or lesser energy) for any GHG molecule that has absorbed the energy of a LWIR photon emitted from Earth’s surface.
This translates to the fact that GHG molecules that are in a relatively high energy state relative to nitrogen and oxygen (the two LWIR-transparent gases comprising 99.1% of Earth’s atmosphere) from having absorbed the energy of a LWIR photon emitted by Earth’s surface—and having stored that energy mostly in molecular vibrational modes and in translational kinetic energy—will overwhelmingly transfer that energy to either nitrogen or oxygen via collisions and NOT via re-radiation.
In turn, this “thermalization” process explains why, for example, the average temperature of CO2 in not appreciably different from that of nitrogen or oxygen at any given altitude over any given geographical location.
Of course, once the LWIR photon energy from Earth’s surface has been thermalized (shared) with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen, the entire ensemble then radiates as a mixed gas with associated spectral lines equivalent to the average temperature and composition of the ensemble. In reality, this is a continuous, on-going process; not a step function. And consider that most of that radiation (at “equilibrium” temperatures typically near the underlying surface temperature) will now be from the LWIR-transparent gases nitrogen and oxygen.
The issue of whether of not CO2, at its existing concentration within the atmosphere, can become “saturated” in its ability to absorb LWIR from Earth’s surface (and from low altitude nitrogen and oxygen and water vapor thermal radiation bands) is still valid . . . it is a function of the total e-folding path length required for photon absorption at a given absorption coefficient (the Beer-Lambert law): not enough CO2 along the total path length to TOA, then some of the surface-radiated LWIR energy in the absorption bands of CO2 will “leak” directly to space (excluding those bands overlapped by water vapor absorption). However, the Beer-Lambert law must adjusted for the fact that a CO2 molecule that thermalizes its absorbed LWIR photon energy immediately becomes available to absorbed yet another LWIR photon, and so on and so on.
This consideration makes it much more feasible to assert that atmospheric CO2 at its current concentration level has already reached its “saturation” level as a LWIR-absorbing greenhouse gas.
Notwithstanding all of my commentary above and in fairness to the authors, I do need to read the full paper referenced above to see if the above scientific logic was otherwise included, but just not emphasized, in the van Wijngaarden and Happer paper.
Bingo!!! – See this interesting ‘coversation’ – the basics af greenhouse gas function – it explains everything:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Nice, but irrelevant to what the IPCC say, calculate, …, babble on about. Until the IPCC say this, it don’t mean a thing. Happer’s first link, in his paper is to the IPCC AR5 WG1. IPCC do not calculate radiative forcing according to the schema you just described.
What the IPPC says is irrelevant to science . . . and I don’t give a squat as to what their defective models calculate.
This is a brilliant coherent and fluent post . Helps fill in the knowledge gaps in my laboured reasoning. I assume its all true
Thank you for this post. This is one of the rare times when someone mentions that N2/O2 end up radiating after receiving energy in a collision with a CO2 molecule. Most people see “transparent to the sun’s energy” and go on to assume they don’t emit at all. The assumption is that N2/O2 must transfer this energy back to a CO2 molecule before it can be radiated. The sad thing is that these same people will turn around and say “everything radiates” based on its temperature.
These people don’t recognize that you can’t have it both ways. I am sure someone will point out that N2/O2 can’t absorb all the energy from a collision, yet at the same time forget that N2/O2 far and away outnumber CO2 molecules.
See (30) on page 12 and discussion.
Post says:”Greenhouse molecules emit radiation at a temperature-dependent rate, whether they are absorbing radiation or not.”
I am still not buying this. If temperature dependent then we should be able to view them on infrared cameras.
The statement you quoted is indeed correct . . . it is the combined result of Wein’s law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation with consideration that, unlike solids, gases emit radiation in discrete spectral lines (albeit, there may be thousands of such lines in close proximity, frequency-wise, to each other).
All substances having a temperature above absolute zero emit radiation . . . a physical requirement with basis in quantum theory.
As for viewing thermal radiation from GHGs using an infrared camera, look up the information on commercial IR cameras (like those used for nighttime surveillance) and you’ll find out that they become very limited when there is significant water vapor in the air, such as fog, due to interference of heavy IR radiation emitted by this GHG at relatively low temperatures, in the range of, say, 33 to 50 deg-F. However, most often, the sensitivity of commercial IR cameras is set such that the relatively low radiation flux of GHGs in normal conditions does not interfere with their intended application.
On the other hand IR instruments (including FOV cameras) on scientific, orbiting satellites do indeed easily detect and image GHG emissions. Weather satellites use IR emissions from water vapor to track clouds and weather systems such as hurricanes day and night.
The currently orbiting OCO-2 spacecraft directly images CO2 from space (see https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ ).
The Carbon Mapper satellite, set for launch in 2023 is specifically designed to provide very high resolution optical imaging of both CO2 and methane.
Happer’s paper begins:
References
[1] Radiative Forcing, IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
Following up reference [1] leads to IPCC WG1 AR5 Chapter 8, which leads with:
The IPCC don’t even bother defining their greenhouse gas effect anymore.
Is this fallacy called: circular proof, mindless repetition, ignoring the counter argument, or just argument from authority!, Or all 4? How is it unequivocal? I don’t accept it, many other scientists do not accept it. I wrote my objections down here[2], and here[3]. Somehow, I’m expected to accept the IPCC model of the atmosphere as ‘settled science’ when they never say what that model is and I know it’s BS. The two links I posted lead to a collection of refutations of the greenhouse gas effect, which WUWT editors are, seemingly, genetically predisposed to ignore!!
Warmists have a bad model of the atmosphere which claims “it is unequivocally agreed”. They never discuss their model. They won’t even write their model or definitions down! Yet the model is easy to refute, and is obviously nonsense. What am I supposed to do? Do WUWT really want me to post the entirety of these articles below the line here? When will the editors at WUWT allow a proper, scientific, discussion on their precious greenhouse gas effect?
[2] https://greenfallacies.blogspot.com/2021/10/greenhouse-gas-effect-is-junk.html
[3] https://greenfallacies.blogspot.com/2020/10/destroying-greenhouse-gas-conjecture.html
Unequivocal definition, not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation
Excellent article ;similar to the article/paper by David Coe last week