Surface Radiation: Absorption And Emission

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In my recent post “Putting It Into Reverse” I discussed the relationship between temperature and total surface radiation absorbed. By “total surface radiation absorbed”, I mean the total of the downwelling longwave radiation from the clouds and the atmosphere, plus downwelling sunlight at the surface, minus the upwelling reflected sunlight.

Here’s a graphic from that post. If you haven’t read it yet, you might do so as an intro to this post. Not necessary, however, as this one stands on its own.

Original Caption: Figure 1: Gridcell by gridcell correlation of surface absorbed radiation (shortwave + longwave) and surface temperature. Gridcells are 1° latitude by 1° longitude.

I focus in this post on the radiation balance at the surface—how much radiation is absorbed versus how much is emitted. I’ve done this because it is a very simple and transparent part of the whole. There are no intermediate steps—the surface absorbs radiation, it warms, and it emits radiation.

According to the CERES satellite data, as a 24/7 global average, upwelling (headed to space) thermal radiation from the surface is just under 400 watts per square meter (W/m2). Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2. And net solar (surface downwelling less surface reflected) energy absorbed by the surface is just under 165 W/m2.

This gives a global 24/7 average of just over 500 W/m2, about half a kilowatt/m2, of radiation absorbed by the surface.

But only about 400 W/m2 are radiated away. What about the other 100 W/m2 of absorbed energy?

Well, first, something on the order of three-quarters of that energy is used to evaporate water from the surface. It’s called “latent heat”. This, of course, leaves the surface cooler than it would otherwise be if there were no latent heat loss.

The other quarter is lost via conduction to the atmosphere and subsequent convection away from the surface. It’s called “sensible heat”. This also leaves the surface cooler than it would be without sensible heat loss.

Here is a scatterplot showing the relationship and the trend of upwelling emitted surface radiation with respect to absorbed downwelling radiation.

Figure 2. Scatterplot, where each dot is a month. For each month, the bottom “X” scale shows radiation absorbed that month, and the vertical “Y” scale shows the radiation emitted in that same month. The seasonal swings have been removed from the data in all graphics.

Figure 2 shows that for each watt per square meter absorbed, only three-quarters of a watt per square meter is emitted as upwelling radiation from the surface. The rest goes to sensible and latent heat loss. (Yes, there is a tiny residual term, less than 1/2%, of energy from/to storage, mainly in the ocean. However, because it is so small, it is typically ignored in this type of first-order analysis.)

So … why is any of this of interest?

Well, back around 1880 a couple of very smart guys named Joseph Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann figured out that there is a mathematical relationship between the temperature of an object and its thermal radiation. The relationship is given by the “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”. Using that law, if you know the radiation, you can calculate the temperature and vice versa. Figure 3 shows the same data as in Figure 2, but this time I’ve used the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to convert the upwelling surface radiation shown in Figure 2 to temperature. So in Figure 3, the vertical “Y” axis is in degrees Celsius.

Figure 3. Scatterplot, where each dot is a month. For each month, the bottom “X” scale shows radiation absorbed that month, and the vertical “Y” scale shows the temperature of that same month.

What this says is that because only part of the absorbed radiation turns into upwelling surface longwave emission (AKA temperature), it takes almost 7 watts per square meter of extra energy to raise the earth’s surface temperature by 1°C.

And that’s a lot. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is said to increase downwelling radiation by 3.7 W/m2. So if that extra energy to raise temperatures by 1°C comes solely from increased CO2, it would be almost two doublings from our present level of 410 ppmv of CO2. The CO2 level would have to be ~ 1,500 ppmv to get a 1°C rise from the present temperature.

Here’s a graph showing how the surface temperature and the absorbed radiation at the surface are closely related.

Figure 4. Absorbed total radiation at the surface (blue, right scale) versus temperature (red, left scale). Total radiation is the sum of the downwelling longwave (thermal) radiation from the atmosphere, plus the shortwave (solar) radiation. Also shown are the theoretical forcing increase due to CO2 over the period (yellow/black line), and the trend of total radiation absorbed (dashed cyan/black line). Dashed black line is horizontal, showing what would happen with no increase in surface absorbed radiation.

Clearly, much more than CO2 is at play … I’ll leave this all here for further contemplation and discussion.


Evening now, dinner is over here on the hillside. Three generations live here in a rambling house I built with my own hands. We eat together every night. My gorgeous ex-fiancee and I make our dinner. Our daughter makes dinner for her husband and two kids, a 3-year-old girl and a 10-month-old boy. Works perfectly, we all get to eat together and I’d starve on what they eat …

Here’s my ex-fiancee at this very moment as seen from my window, tending her beloved garden …

With the hope that your lives contain joy, laughter, family, friends, and true sweethearts, I remain,

Yr. Obt. Svt.,

w.

Math Note 01: As is common in the field, I’ve used an emissivity of 1.0 to convert radiation to temperature. I could refine that, but a) Earth’s emissivity is quite high, on the order of 0.95 or greater, and b) changing the emissivity changes the absolute values, but it makes very, very little difference to the trends of interest.

Math Note 02: Because there is uncertainty in the “X” axis values (total radiation absorbed) in Figures 2 and 3, I’ve used Deming Regression to determine the correct trend, rather than Ordinary Least Squares Regression which underestimates the trend when there is uncertainty. And if you don’t know what Deming Regression is, don’t worry—most folks don’t know either, including most climate scientists.

My Note: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are responding to. This avoids many misunderstandings. It is also the only way to refute someone’s idea.

5 21 votes
Article Rating
341 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
atticman
August 30, 2022 2:10 pm

Willis – beautifully expressed – as always – though the maths of it are a little beyond someone who studied the arts,

leitmotif
Reply to  atticman
August 30, 2022 3:46 pm

Thank you atticman. Your uncle, Willis, will be proud of you.

Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 5:14 pm

I guess you are not yet a member of the Willie E. fan club?

meiggs
Reply to  atticman
September 2, 2022 8:07 am

The difference is likely green, as in plant life capturing the energy and greening the planet…future coal in the making…

Devils Tower
August 30, 2022 2:20 pm

One, I do not accept a 4 watt per square meter increase in down welling IR from doubling CO2.

1. 90% of down welling IR comes from the lowest 100 meters.

2. I want to see a real calculation of emmisivity for a N2 gas with 400 ppm CO2. It needs to cover 1 atm to .01 atm to show real picture.

3. The calculation needs to account for the mixed gas in thermodynamic equilibrium and show the CO2 self emission time constants. It’s like a second maybe from laser design parameters.

Do not quote the mantra that emissivity equals absorbtivity.

If you do not have quantum electro dynamic time constants and the inter gas collision time constants, you have nothing.

Any idea what modtran uses for emisivity numbers?

Sorry, this subject irratates

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Devils Tower
August 30, 2022 3:19 pm

DT, your comment irritates me. Had you bothered to look with respect to MODTRAN, you would have found lots and lots of on line documentation. I just looked. MODTRAN allows you to set emissivity depending on your calculation interests—ocean, jungle, desert, Arctic ice— and defaults to higher than 0.95 globally since Earth general emissivity is mostly governed by ocean water, ice, and 65% white topped cloud. (for WUWTers, emissivity is a dimensionless number between 0 and 1. 1 means the radiation emitted is exactly equal to the theoretical Stefan/Boltzmann black body radiation result. Anything less than 1 is a ‘grey body’.)

Since you didn’t bother to look that simple MODTRAN thing up, I tend to pay no attention to the rest of your plaint.

angech
Reply to  Devils Tower
August 30, 2022 6:02 pm

1. 90% of down welling IR comes from the lowest 100 meters.?

My impression , 10-30 meters maybe a lot shorter of atmosphere at the surface fully absorbs all absorbable IR hence most downwelling should occur only from that level, whatever it is, not the 100 metres quoted

Lit
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 1:09 am

DLR is measured by pyrgeometers. Which uses a thermopiles as sensors. Thermopiles can´t measure incoming radiation when directed towards lower temperature than itself. In the case of being directed towards a lower temperature than the instrument has, it only measures the rate of heat transfer FROM the instrument. Then it calculates the emissive power of the atmosphere from ΔT, and infers this as the amount of DLR. Which of course is incorrect.

A pyrgeometer only have a range of 25m into the atmosphere.

This is how they rape the SB-equation:

T1=surface
T2=atmosphere

DLR=σ(T2^4-T1^4)+T1^4

This is not how the SB-equation should be used. And it´s clear that the only heat transfer in there is from surface to atmosphere.

Here, look for yourself. Under downloads, instruction sheet.

CGR 3 Pyrgeometer – Kipp & Zonen (kippzonen.com)

Why do you not know how the instruments work when you refer to the data that they produce?

BTW, your graph shows absorption. Not DLR and they´re not equivalent. A bucket of ice will absorb lots of heat from you if you stick your hand in it, but it doesn´t emit the same amount. You can´t infer emission from absorption. They´re only related through the internal state of the emitter. The emission from a body is determined by the internal state only, this is Prevost´s conclusion that Planck agrees with in his book “the Theory of heat radiation”.

Absorption and emission are not cause and effect, they are only related to each other via the internal state of the emitter. The temperature of the emitter determines the rate of absorption and the rate of emission. Absorption doesn´t determine temperature and emission.

Last edited 30 days ago by lifeisthermal
Trick
Reply to  Lit
August 31, 2022 11:33 am

Contrary to what Lit writes, thermopiles can measure incoming radiation accurately when viewing lower temperatures than itself since my room temperature ~$30 IR thermometer measures a lab glass of ice water reliably at 32F & boiling water in tea kettle nearby reliably at 212F.

Also contrary to what Lit writes, a bucket of ice absorbs, reflects and transmits EMR not heat. EMR is not heat. 

Last edited 29 days ago by Trick
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Trick
August 31, 2022 12:16 pm

Correct—he is lying about the pyrgeometer equation.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 31, 2022 1:50 pm

He’s not lying.  How do you think the pyrgeometer folks show hundreds of W/m2 of nonexistent DWLWIR?  They make it up… by “raping” the S-B equation, as Lit said.  They convert ambient temperature to W/m2, which is invalid.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 31, 2022 2:37 pm

I posted the equation below—the dome and body temperatures are only used for corrections. A thermopile is not a thermometer.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 31, 2022 3:29 pm

And the temperatures are converted to irradiance with the instrument calibration constants. I fail to see how this is invalid.

leitmotif
Reply to  Trick
August 31, 2022 12:17 pm

Is the room you refer to less than 25 metres long?

Also contrary to what Lit writes, a bucket of ice absorbs, reflects and transmits EMR not heat. EMR is not heat. 

You knew what he meant. Heat is the transfer of internal energy from a warmer object to a cooler object. Absorbs heat is just a short way of saying it.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trick
August 31, 2022 1:57 pm

Trick, your counterexample does not contradict anything Lit wrote.  Your thermopile can measure *outgoing* radiation (energy flow, i.e. heat) when the target is colder than the thermopile.  Nothing in the laws of physics prevents that.

Trick
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 31, 2022 2:25 pm

Steve, what I wrote does directly contradict what Lit wrote viz.: “Thermopiles can´t measure incoming radiation when directed towards lower temperature than itself.”

Lit should have actually done the experiment I conducted to learn from it.

And my statement EMR is not heat contradicts what Steve wrote: “*outgoing* radiation (“energy flow, i.e. heat)”. Steve is also contradicted writing “nonexistent DWLWIR” because all matter radiates, at all real temperatures, at all freq.s & our atm. is made up of matter. The SURFRAD instruments really are calibrated with LWIR from a known BB radiation source.
 
Leitmotif 12:17 pm is contradicted by what Clausius writes on the defn. of heat.

You 3 all demonstrate some much needed catching up on basic atm. radiation principles. 

Last edited 29 days ago by Trick
leitmotif
Reply to  Trick
September 1, 2022 3:58 pm

Leitmotif 12:17 pm is contradicted by what Clausius writes on the defn. of heat.

No I didn’t, numpty..

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trick
September 9, 2022 11:32 am

Trick, your IR thermometer does not measure incoming radiation from a colder object. It measures outgoing radiation.

You are right that I should have been more careful in my phrasing “outgoing radiation (energy flow, i.e. heat)”. Your thermometer is in this case measuring all those three things, and they happen to line up in the same direction, but they are not necessarily the same, and my phrasing probably didn’t make that very clear. EMR is indeed not heat. But I wrote it in parentheses not intending to make it sound like the same concept, but to emphasize that it was only measurable because there was energy flow involved, and not just radiation.

I also should be more careful with my phrase “nonexistent DWLWIR” because you are right, it is not nonexistent, but it has no power in it. So I should probably replace this phrase with “equilibrium photon gas”, to make it clear that there is radiation but no Watts.

AndyHce
Reply to  angech
August 30, 2022 9:57 pm

according to this interaction with William Happer

http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

“after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule”

which means no downwelling radiation from that CO2 or H2O molecule. It has heated the atmosphere; it does not radiate back to the surface.

Just what that means in terms of how much actual downwhelling radiation there may be from the remaining 0.00000001% that does re-radiate, I do not know.

Lit
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 1:26 am

This is probably the reason why the OLR-spectrum looks the way it does. With a large “bite” at co2 wavelengths. The intensity of radiation is below the curve, and co2 clearly reduces that massively. So, co2 absorbs a lot of heat but dumps it to nearby cold molecules which leads to a massive net cooling effect.

Dnalor50
Reply to  Devils Tower
August 30, 2022 10:02 pm

Willis stated that 3.7 watts per square metre is “said” to come from downwelling radiation from a doubling of CO2. He may be hedging his bets or he may like William Happer believe that radiation absorbed by CO2 is not re-emitted but converted to increased kinetic energy shared amongst surrounding molecules.

Devils Tower
Reply to  Dnalor50
August 30, 2022 10:30 pm

Yes, the absorbed IR is thermalized. To understand how much is radiated in a N2/CO2 mixture you need to understand and know the CO2 self emmision time constants along with the thermal collision time constants. Calling(equating) a sparse gas mixture like this to a black body is realy a stretch.

The 3.7 watts has been around a long time with no good justification.

Then the resulting IR path length is a another story.

Lit
Reply to  Devils Tower
August 31, 2022 12:56 am

You shouldn´t accept any downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. DLR is measured by a pyrgeometer. Pyrgeometers use a thermopile as sensor. Thermopiles can´t measure any radiation coming from lower temperature than the ambient it sits in. It only measures the rate of heat transfer FROM the device when directed towards lower temperature. The atmosphere is always lower temperature than the surface.

Heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high to low temperature, which means no heat can be transferred from low to high T. The first law (ΔU=Q-W) says that internal energy only can increase from heat or work. The GHE isn´t heat and it doesn´t claim to warm by work. The GHE breaks the first law.

Trick
Reply to  Lit
August 31, 2022 11:43 am

Lit, in 1LOT: Q is a rate of heating like W is a rate of working both of which contribute to the delta U per unit time. The GHE thus does not break the first law as you claim. 

leitmotif
Reply to  Lit
August 31, 2022 12:21 pm

The GHE isn´t heat and it doesn´t claim to warm by work. The GHE breaks the first law.

Exactly.

Izaak Walton
August 30, 2022 2:27 pm

Willis appears to be making an error of confusing energy flux and energy. The sentence:

What this says is that because only part of the absorbed radiation turns into upwelling surface longwave emission (AKA temperature), it takes almost 7 watts per square meter of extra energy to raise the earth’s surface temperature by 1°C.”

is one example. W/m^2 is the measure of energy flux not energy. While in fact any increase in energy flux will raise the surface temperature by 1 degree if you wait long enough.

What the CERES data that Willis is presenting appears to say is that if you sum the energy flux over a month then for every extra 7 W a square metre of land receives it will be on average 1 degree warmer.

Now globally the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is much less than 7 Watts so you would expect by this argument that the temperature rise would be a lot slower which in fact it is. But you can’t use it to estimate the temperature change caused by an increase in CO2.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 1:33 pm

Willis,
You wrote, “It takes an ongoing increase in surface absorption of ~ 7 W/m2 to raise surface temperature by 1°C.”
The Planck feedback calculated from the S-B equation is actually about 3.76 W/m^2/K.

PCman999
Reply to  Scott J Simmons
September 4, 2022 1:20 am

Read his article again – he shows you why on Planet Earth takes 7 W to get that degree…. look at the slope of the graph.

Reply to  PCman999
September 4, 2022 5:41 am

He did not show that. He claimed that, but his graph is off by about a factor of 2. If you use the earth’s effective radiating temperature, you get 3.76 W/m^2. If you use current emissivity for the atmosphere and current temperature, you get about 3.3 W/m^2. I’m using the 3.76 figure since it’s based on differentiating the S-B equation, and that’s what he used to generate his graph. It’s called the Planck feedback, and my numbers are correct.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 30, 2022 2:48 pm

Not to mention that the real absorbing and emitting surface of the planet is orders of magnitude higher than the factoid area of 510 million smoooth sq km. The area for SW absorption is lower than the surface for LW absorption/emission as well. Ergo, the entire back radiation hypothesis (+33) is built on a foundation of nonsense. 

Last edited 30 days ago by Robert W Turner
Robert W Turner
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:10 pm

I went back reread the paragraph under figure 3 and you’re right sorry.

Willem post
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 5:34 pm

I think all our efforts should be to DIRECTLY discredit the “science” used by IPCC folks to arrive at their temperatures 
Each IPCC item should be dismantled to prove the Emperor has no arguments, and then ridicule their results.
Why are balloon and satellite measurements so much less than computerized hokus-pokus?

Last edited 30 days ago by Willem post
Reply to  Willem post
August 30, 2022 7:48 pm

“ Each IPCC item should be dismantled to prove the Emperor has no arguments” and were that done, it would make no difference. The “settled science” of climatastrophy is already little more than a failed hypothesis. But until legacy media and big tech focus on science instead of science propagandists, “the world will end in x years” narrative will win out.

leitmotif
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 30, 2022 3:09 pm

Ergo, the entire back radiation hypothesis (+33) is built on a foundation of nonsense. 

Not in Willis World. Barbecues in Antarctica. Skiing holidays at the North Pole. Beachfront properties in Greenland.

You heard it here first. Book now to avoid disappointment.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:49 pm

Oh a repeat post WIllis?

(Snipped the personal attack)

(Stop being a troll!) SUNMOD!

Last edited 30 days ago by Sunsettommy
Scissor
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 6:06 pm

Beastiality on your mind much?

leitmotif
Reply to  Scissor
August 31, 2022 2:19 am

Let’s compare notes.

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 2:18 am

Willis is snipping.

I win!!!!!

(Stop trolling the thread, and I am the one who deleted your personal attack on Willis you were a LOSER for doing it!) SUNMOD

Last edited 29 days ago by Sunsettommy
leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 12:25 pm

You’ve snipped me before. Now you just get someone else to do it. Cancel culture is alive and kicking.

Get them to put it back if you are not guilty.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 4:30 pm

You are mistaking your self-importance for importance to me.

Says the guy who preaches sophistry on WUWT and god knows where else.

You have a sphere at -20C. You surround it by a shell and its temperature rises to 29C.

Can you not see how stupid that is?

You are worse than Al Gore.

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 3:55 pm

Just a question for lukewarmists on WUWT as I experience huge downvotes.

Are you interested in evidence or are you interested in consensus of opinion on WUWT? I think most of you depend on anthropogenic warming to be part of your annual salary.

I only ask because I thought this was a sceptic website.

My downvotes equal griff’s who is a warmist.

eyesonu
Reply to  leitmotif
September 2, 2022 5:36 am

Maybe you should drop the ad hominem content and stick with the discussion

AndyHce
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 30, 2022 10:01 pm

The area for SW absorption is lower than the surface for LW absorption/emission as well.

Dose that intend to say that the altitude is lower of that the area is smaller?

Robert W Turner
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 4:16 pm

No, I’m saying the real surface of the planet consists of plants, mountains, cliffs, waves, etc. That means the true radiative surface of the planet is far more than idealizing Earth as a perfectly smooth ball.
When using the S-B Law, you use surface area, and many climate scientists start their entire hypothesis with the idea that the atmosphere warms the surface, with IR light alone, by 33 C – estimated using the S-B equation and the idea that Earth is smooth.

Lit
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 31, 2022 1:30 am

Energy is defined as a quantity that can do work or transfer heat. Heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high T to low T. The atmosphere is colder than the surface, hence, it cannot transfer any energy to the surface.

“If two bodies at different temperatures are brought together, energy is transferred—i.e., heat flows—from the hotter body to the colder.”
heat | Definition & Facts | Britannica

energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potentialkineticthermal, electrical, chemicalnuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. “

energy | Definition, Types, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Lit
August 31, 2022 6:12 am

I and many others have been trying to point this out to Willis for years, to no avail.  Indeed, in his previous posting on this topic, he went so far as to say (paraphrased) “When I refer to DWLWIR, of course I mean the solar-originating radiation.  Everyone knows that’s what  I meant.” Yet in every other posting on the topic, he talks about DWLWIR originating in the atmosphere, as he does here.  “Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2”
When you point this out to him, he points to the SURFRAD graphs and says “See!” Those, of course, are “adjusted”, like everything else in climate science, to make a (fake) point. But Willis’ grasp of physics is nowhere near adequate to spot the fake adjustment. What the SURFRAD stations do is to start by measuring the actual energy transfer (always a negative number at night, when using a “downwelling” frame of reference, so in other words the actual energy transfer is upward, from hot to cold, as expected), and then they add several hundred (!) W/m2 derived from converting the ambient temperature to a blackbody radiation quantity, under the assumption that the ambient air is transferring energy to a receiving surface at absolute zero. It isn’t, so of course you can’t do that, but that doesn’t stop them, and undereducated folks like Willis can’t spot the deception.

Trick
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 31, 2022 11:51 am

Steve, there is no such assumption that the ambient air is transferring energy to a receiving surface at absolute zero. The SURFRAD instruments are routinely calibrated to black body radiation emitted at known thermometer temperatures. 

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trick
August 31, 2022 1:52 pm

They are indeed calibrated, and can accurately measure the energy transferred in or out.  But that’s not what they show in their SURFRAD graphs.  They add the ambient temperature (in W/m2!) first, which is an invalid operation.

Trick
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
August 31, 2022 2:41 pm

Steve, SURFRAD does not incorrectly add the ambient temperature (in W/m2!) first or downwelling solar would not show 0 W/m^2 at night after twilight ends.

You may be confused in that instead of two opposing thermopiles, to save cost & get same results, the instruments in the field use a thermometer and known case emissivity just like when they are calibrated to a BB radiation known source.   

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trick
September 1, 2022 5:29 am

They are not adding anything to their short-wave measurements, as far as I can tell, so that plot shows 0 at night. But the long-wave measurements are not 0 at night, they are upwards of 300 W/m2, even though the thermopile records a negative number. The difference is derived from the case temperature thermometer and the known case emissivity, via the S-B equation, incorrectly, because you cannot use S-B to convert ambient temperature to W/m2.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:22 am

More nonsense.

Trick
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 3:45 pm

The LW at night incident on surface is not zero Steve, as the atm. still radiates at night. The instruments measure correctly because they are calibrated to known LW BB radiation source. My IR thermometer correctly measures 32F for ice water in my room temperature kitchen as it is similarly calibrated.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trick
September 8, 2022 12:38 pm

You seem to be confused (as are Monte and Willis) about the difference between temperature, energy, radiation, heat, and power. These are not all the same. The SURFRAD pyrgeometers are not IR thermometers, although they operate on a similar principle. But one reports power and the other reports temperature, so you can’t directly compare them. But of course you knew that.

The SURFRAD pyrgeometers measure actual power transfer first, correctly, which at night gives you a negative measurement (since they are facing upwards towards a colder sky). Try it yourself if you don’t believe me. But, and here is the “Trick”, Trick, they then add another number to this measurement. How do they get this other number? They plug the ambient temperature into the S-B equation, with the reference temperature set to absolute 0. The equation is sigma * T^4. Why do they do this? Well, who knows? They certainly don’t, and neither do any of you three. It is, of course, totally illegal to convert ambient temperature to power. Any first-year physics student can tell you that, after they stop laughing of course. Well, except Willis, I guess first year physics was a long time ago for him and he’s probably forgotten.

Here is an analogy to try to help you understand what’s gone wrong: confusing ambient temperature with power is exactly the same error as confusing the amount of water in your bucket with the rate at which it is flowing out of the hole in the bottom. Except, there isn’t even a hole in the bottom in this case. They’ve made an imaginary hole and are pretending that the water is flowing out at an enormous rate. It isn’t.

Monte keeps trying to argue that they aren’t in fact converting ambient temperature to power, but he’s got no clue why he says that, because he’s just making it up. The conversion is right there in the equation that he posted, as I repeated above.

Yes, the atmosphere radiates at night… but there is no power in it… remember not to confuse these two terms!

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  Lit
August 31, 2022 11:41 am

Lit : “……. If two bodies at different temperatures are brought together, energy is transferred—i.e., heat flows—from the hotter body to the colder….”

Yes, as in thermal conduction, or convection, heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference. Less heat will be transferred if Th is decreased or Tc is increased :
Heat transfer = k*(Th – Tc) [W/m^2]

Or if we have to maintain the heat transfer when the Tc is increased, then the Th has to be increased.

Also for thermal radiation there will be less heat transfered if Tc is increased :
Heat transfer = sigma*(Th^4 – Tc^4) [W/m^2]
sigma = 5,67*10^-8 [W/m^2/K^0,25]

Or as per Willis’ example,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/surface-radiation-absorption-and-emission/#comment-3589982

the 235 W/m^2 nuclear power has to be transfered from

a) the “naked” planet, at close to -20 °C, to the space

or

b) the shielded planet, at close to +29 °C, to the shield. The shield is, at close to -20 °C, transferring 235 W/m^2 to the space and to the planet. 470 W/m^2 in all as achieved from the planet.

Inserting another shield will further increase the planet temperature. The outermost shield will, though, be at close to -20 °C.

Like “back radiation” we can in principle say “back conduction” and “back convection”.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  Anders Rasmusson
September 1, 2022 1:19 am

First

” …./K^0,25]…”
to be replaced by
” …./K^4]…”

Second

With two shields surrounding the planet it still has to transfer net 235 W/m^2, now to the inner shield at +29 °C. The temperature of the planet :

Th = (235/(5,67*10^-8) + (273+29)^4)^0,25 = 334 K or 61 °C

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Last edited 29 days ago by Anders Rasmusson
Robert W Turner
August 30, 2022 2:34 pm

How is downwelling LW determined?

leitmotif
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 30, 2022 2:54 pm

By Willis.

RickWill
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 4:04 pm

In Climate phiisics the atmosphere is an enormous power creator from nothing. It averages 160W/m^2 or roughly 80E15W in total.

To put that enoprmpous power generator into perspective, it is 40 times all human energy consumption.

Last edited 30 days ago by RickWill
angech
Reply to  RickWill
August 30, 2022 6:11 pm

“In Climate physics the atmosphere is an enormous power creator from nothing. It averages 160W/m^2 or roughly 80E15W in total.”

Sorry Rick but there is no “power from nothing” component there.
Thermodynamics deals with energy and matter that already exists [cannot be created or destroyed].
When you introduce free energy or power generation you are misapplying physics.
Energy generation de novo does occur from nuclear power sources, the sun, earth core etc but do not apply to the concept of physics being discussed.

Think of it as the atmosphere has 160W/m^2 going through it and ask yourself why and from where.
Not oh good we have a battery storing energy for as long as we like and releasing it whenever we need an answer.

lee
Reply to  angech
August 30, 2022 8:34 pm

You missed the spelling. “phiisics’

RickWill
Reply to  angech
August 30, 2022 8:36 pm

When you introduce free energy or power generation you are misapplying physics.

You are not making the distinction between observed physics and climate phiisics. As Willis clearly shows, the atmosphere is amplifying 340W/m^2 EMR potential power flux from the sun to 500W/m^2 at the surface. This is climate phiisics.  They have their own “laws”. That is how they arrive at the outlandinsh proposition that a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere can alter the surface temperature.

RickWill
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 1:16 am

If the core is at 29C and there is no matter to absorb energy then the steel shell will reach 29C and radiate at 470W/m^2. That is how it will be. There is no matter to prevent thermal equilibrium.

Placing any matter between the reactor and the shell will inevitably result in a temperature difference between the reactor and shell. So an insulator with thermal resistance of 235W/29K will result in the system equilibrating with reactor at 29C and the surface at -20C. No back radiation involved just insulating will or whatever you like..

The insulation could be transparent and you could place one of the back radiation calibrated temperature probes at the shell and it would indicate 235W/m^2 but that is nonsense because the energy is only going one way.

As soon as you introduce matter, you can throw away any simple radiation equation. The simple S-B relationship only apply where all other forms of heat transfer are negligible. That only occurs at the top of the atmosphere. (Unless you are using climate phiisics)

The attached shows the numbers that I determined for a moored buoy over a 17 day period when it was in a warm pool. The only place where S-B is applicable is at the top of the column. All the heat transport away from the surface was via evaporation. (I know that because all OLR from warm pools contributes to precipitation so is released well up in the column) There was also some cooling from rainfall as part of the surface flux.

Replacing all that is going on in the atmospheric column with some fudge called back-radiation is just nonsense. It is the reason climate phiisics is so screwed.

I have referred you to a lecture given by Michael Mishchenko before he passed away down the thread.

Screen Shot 2022-08-31 at 6.02.21 pm.png
leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 2:29 am

The sphere receives 235 W/m2 from the interior and 235 W/m2 longwave radiation from the sphere. In turn it radiates the total of that, 470 W/m2. Energy balanced.

Utter rubbish. Hang your head in shame.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 12:53 pm

GIGO Willis. It speaks for itself.

You have a sphere at about -20C. You put a shell around it and its temperature goes up to about 29C.

Can’t you see how ridiculous that sounds?

There is no logic to it, no observations were performed, no facts were produced and surprise, surprise no conclusions were reached.

I was going to ask if you are stupid but I don’t think I need to. 🙁

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 8:08 am

“””The sphere receives 235 W/m2 from the interior and 235 W/m2 longwave radiation from the sphere. In turn it radiates the total of that, 470 W/m2. Energy balanced.”””

This is the statement I disagree with. The fluxes do not add. This would be a perpetual heat energy creating machine. Ask yourself why 470 isn’t absorbed by the sphere and sent back so you now have 705 and on and on. Planck refers to the process as “compensation” where absorbed radiation by a hot body is immediately emitted as part of its own radiation thereby slowing cooling. It is what allows thermodynamic equilibrium to exist. That is what you should have here.

You need to read Planck’s “Theory of Heat Radiation”. The sections on entropy are enlightening. Here are some references.

“”93 …Any change in the energy distribution consists of a passage of energy from one monochromatic radiation into another, and, if the temperature of the first radiation is higher, the energy transformation causes an increase of the total entropy and is hence possible in nature without compensation; on the other hand, if the temperature of the second radiation is higher, the total entropy decreases and therefore the change is impossible in nature, unless compensation occurs simultaneously, just as is the case with the transfer of heat between two bodies of different temperatures.””

“”102 …On the other hand for T i = 0, the increase in entropy is only equal to “(ac/12)T^3″ , i.e., the emission of a black body of temperature T without simultaneous absorption of heat radiation is irreversible without compensation, but can be reversed by a compensation of at least the stated finite amount. For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle. Generally we may say: Emission without simultaneous absorption is irreversible, while the opposite process, absorption without emission, is impossible in nature.””

“”185 …According to (141) and Sec. 182 this pencil conveys the entropy (345) to the system of oscillators in the time dt, where the function L(K) is given by (278). Hence this amount of entropy is taken from the field of radiation on the side of the rays arriving within dΩ. In compensation a pencil starts from the system on the other side in the same direction (θ, φ) within dΩ having the components Kii and Kiii with the azimuth of vibration and 0 respectively, …””

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 10:55 am

You didn’t read what I wrote and gave you references to. Bodies radiate in all directions at once. Your source emits at 235 W/m^2 in all directions. Every point on your shell is receiving that energy. Likewise, the shell radiates in all directions and the source receives that energy too.

Meanwhile, your calculation of 2 times the original radiance doesn’t work that way. This radiation calculation is done using steradians. Think of a cone and how it grows as you make it longer and longer. The sphere, since it is larger, still only receives what was radiated because you don’t “create” more steradians.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/steradian.html

You didn’t explain where the 470 that hits the shell goes. If fluxes add at the source, then they add here too. This is why Planck describes the issue of compensation.

You said, “As to why it doesn’t continue to warm, if the shell’s radiation exceeds 235 W/m2, the whole system is then losing more energy than it is receiving from the nuclear core. As a result, perforce it must cool rather than warm.”

I’m sorry but this doesn’t compute. The source is constant, that is, constantly emitting 235. The extra 235 you say occurs doesn’t just disappear when it hits the shell. The source doesn’t cool if the shell radiates more than 235. In fact it would warm. The only way for the shell to cool is to radiate more, i.e., shed the additional 235, for a total of 470. But that means if you add it to the source, it now radiates 940.

I think you need to reconsider how equilibrium occurs.

Read what Rick is saying too.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 5:44 pm

“I thought I was clear, but clearly not. At steady-state, the shell absorbs 470 w/m2. It radiates the same, half inwards and half outwards.”
That isn’t how it works. Rabbit’s green/blue plate explanation had the same flaw. 
Radiation is not divided by the number of surfaces. It is generated internally and is radiated in all directions equally.  
Here is some info from Planck.

“Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through.”

“Nevertheless, we shall as a rule be able to treat the phenomenon of emission as if all points of the volume-element dτ took part in the emission in a uniform manner, thereby greatly simplifying our calculation. Every point of dτ will then be the vertex of a pencil of rays diverging in all directions.”

“We shall next assume our substance to be isotropic. Hence the radiation of the volume-element dτ is emitted uniformly in all directions of space. Draw a cone in an arbitrary direction, having any point of the radiating element as vertex, and describe around the vertex as center a sphere of unit radius.”

“A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body Bi at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by Bi is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, Bi a stronger emitter than A.”

Max Planck. The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck (p. 9). Prabhat Prakashan. Kindle Edition. “

If you need more from Planck let me know.

Last edited 29 days ago by Jim Gorman
leitmotif
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2022 12:57 pm

This would be a perpetual heat energy creating machine. Ask yourself why 470 isn’t absorbed by the sphere and sent back so you now have 705 and on and on. 

This was pointed out by astrophysicist, Joseph Postma in 2013. Seems like Willis has not taken the criticism on board.

mkelly
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2022 1:42 pm

Jim, in the “Steel Greenhouse” article Willis says that the shell is several thousand meters away from the sphere. This automatically causes A1F1 to not equal A2 F2. The shell area is 2x + x^2 more square meters. So the temperature must be lower. No heat will go from the shell to the sphere. No balance.

leitmotif
Reply to  mkelly
August 31, 2022 4:34 pm

It’s a thought experiment with no thought and no experiment.

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 4:20 pm

Every time I am downvoted by Willis groupies it reinforces my determination.

Truth will out.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  mkelly
August 31, 2022 6:00 pm

You need to bone up on steradians.  Concentric shells will intercept all the energy from the preceding one.  Think of a cone intercepting several shells.  If the cone begins at the inside, as you move outward each shell will have a larger and larger area intercepted by the cone.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2022 12:19 am

Wait a minute: how do we suddenly get 470 W/m2 when the energy source was only 235 W/m2? Creating energy out of nothing? There’s an extra 235 W/m2 in there that came from nowhere.

Nelson
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2022 4:16 am

Willis I am a bit confused. For the core and shell to both radiate at 235 w/m2, they must have the same temperature. Once the shell and the core reach the same temperature, doesn’t the energy flux go to zero? In your diagram, the equilibrium is with the core much hotter than the shell, which is why you show it radiating at 470. This doesn’t seem like an equilibrium to me.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  RickWill
August 31, 2022 3:43 pm

The atmosphere is a thermal capacitor. 

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:24 pm

Thanks.
“The downward longwave irradiance emitted by the atmosphere is primarily sensitive to near-surface temperature and the amount of water vapor as well as cloud fraction and base height in the atmosphere.”
Interesting, nothing about CO2.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 30, 2022 3:34 pm

It’s also interesting to note that the error on down LW is +/- 6 W/m2 – which you just showed almost comes to a whole degree. The cloud research funding must have gone to green energy scams instead.

Nelson
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:43 pm

Hmmm..  according to the paper the error rate in the calculations of the combined SW+ LW is 8 w/m2. If Co2 is doubled, could we even detect the signal in the measures we use? 

Rob_Dawg
August 30, 2022 2:44 pm

How did you adjust for your 1 degree grid overweighting by area at the poles?

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:08 pm

Thank you. It wasn’t clear from these series of posts. I am always inclined to accept your data based on the long history of your excellent use of the scientific method.

Only tangentially related but I put out that we souldn’t care about anything within 15 degrees from either pole for the purposes of most global climate discussions. IMHO those regions are every bit as much boundary constraints as the never to be settled boundary of atmosphere.

Kindest regards and sincere respects.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:17 pm

You can’t average temperature, it is an intensive property of materials or systems.

Wrong again Willis. Sigh.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 3:48 pm

> You can’t average temperature, it is an intensive property of materials or systems.

EVERY nice place to live on the planet boasts about their average temperature. Every.single.one.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
August 30, 2022 4:12 pm

So?

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 6:49 pm

Three things.

One, you are factually wrong. You can indeed average tempertures.

Two, average temperatures provide useful information.

Three, you are more concerned with derailing civil discourse than advancing it.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
August 31, 2022 2:22 am

You cannot average an intensive property. Go do your homework.

mkelly
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
August 31, 2022 8:47 am

Density is an intensive property. Can I add densities? NO!

The adjunct of that is you can’t add W/m2 if you change temperature to power.

If a cube of steel is uniformly heated to a temperature that causes it to emit 600 W/m2 can I add all 6 sides together and claim it is emitting 3600 W/m2?

Trick
Reply to  mkelly
August 31, 2022 7:57 pm

mkelly, the other sides are not 0 m^2. Your steel cube is emitting 3600/6m^2. 

AndyHce
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
August 30, 2022 10:20 pm

When I was preparing for a recent move, I look up the climate at my destination. There were all sorts of data in terms of averages. None of it is actually the lest bit useful for understanding anything about the experience of being here.

All of which is irrelevant to the difference between intensive and extensive properties. It is just that meaningless calculations based on intensive properties are so much easier to present. Few people would understand the real properties.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 4:23 pm

Pressure is an intensive property also. If you want to know the average pressure of soft drink bottles, compared to truck tires, obviously you can average them and learn information that might be valuable to you. And the average weekly nightime temperature is important to a market gardener. So saying you can’t average temperatures is splitting hairs over small fractions of a degree, while the whole degrees are valuable parameters…..

leitmotif
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 30, 2022 4:30 pm

So?

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 6:51 pm

So several people have proven you incorrect. This is the point where civil people apologize and back off. Based on your average replies I am not expecting either. On average that is.

AndyHce
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
August 30, 2022 10:49 pm

Calculations based on intensive properties are not measures of anything real, they are ideas that can not be experienced in an way. They might sometimes have a use but I’m not experiencing it.

In the four months I’ve been here, the first two months had daily variations of around 20̊F between day and night. The published averages gave me no clues that the daytime highs were often around 110̊F. The next two months have been 20̊F difference between night and day around 60% of the time, and 30̊F difference the rest of the time, except for the one time it was almost 40̊F down from the high. Daytime highs were almost all below 100̊F and the highest high I saw was was 101̊F.

The listed monthly rainfall averages were all much smaller than 1 inch. During this last month, which was nothing unusual according to local folks, during several storms water was sheeting off the shed roof, which has no gutter, for an extended time, and water ran like a fire hose from the house gutter drain pipes. Puddles formed everywhere. By and by a goodly stream, eight to ten feet wide and maybe six inches deep, was flowing into the intersection down a grade that is essentially invisible to the naked eye. What practical use are the average rainfall models?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 31, 2022 8:13 am

Yet the whole CAGW alarm is over small fractions of a degree.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 5:16 pm

That was proven true by Kip Hansen here recently. But not relevant, since WE very clearly averaged radiation. You assumed equivalent for temp. Ignorant NOT. Ever hear about humidity?

leitmotif
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 31, 2022 2:26 am

You cannot average radiation, either. It’s meaningless.

It’s a bit like saying,”This man cannot have drowned in this river because its annual average depth is only 6 inches!”

Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 9:30 am

Of course one can average temperature, apparently you have misremembered something your high school teacher once told you.

AndyHce
Reply to  Phil.
August 31, 2022 3:13 pm

You can do calculations on it but the results are not about anything that exists in reality. They are only a conception.

Richard M
August 30, 2022 2:45 pm

There are no intermediate steps—the surface absorbs radiation, it warms, and it emits radiation.

Are you sure? Depends on the time scale. For a few nano-seconds the surface may be warmed before an atmospheric molecule makes contact. A warmed surface skin will often give up that energy via conduction. Consider also, 100% of atmospheric molecule types will be active.

If the energy came from the boundary layer, it could be returned to the boundary layer before any radiation event occurred. No warming would be detectable and no radiation emitted.

Much of the 3.7 W/m2 of IR from doubling CO2 could simply disappear in the cloud of energy continually exchanged between the boundary layer and the surface. More of it could be enhancing evaporation. What’s left may be trivial.

Last edited 30 days ago by Richard M
leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 4:24 pm

But with the ocean or the earth, the absorbed radiant energy is turned into heat as soon as the radiation is absorbed. As you point out, some of this heat is lost as latent heat and some is lost as sensible heat. And some is lost as radiation.

You are a total idi0t, Willis.

Only sunlight is absorbed by the oceans. DLR or back radiation is not absorbed by the oceans except for the first few microns of the ocean skin.

Stop telling lies.

Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 9:04 am

You are the idiot here, DLR or back radiation is absorbed so efficiently that it can not penetrate far into the ocean. Here’s the absorption spectrum of liquid water, notice that IR at 15 microns is absorbed about a million times more efficiently than visible light.

comment image

leitmotif
Reply to  Phil.
August 31, 2022 1:07 pm

DLR or back radiation is not absorbed by the oceans except for the first few microns of the ocean skin.

That’s a fact.

leitmotif
August 30, 2022 2:53 pm

Oh, Willis, you are back from the beating I gave you on your last post.

I took no pleasure. I hope you are well.

Just to reiterate, I offered you a challenge. A challenge that you have yet to accept but you still have time.

Either provide some evidence that back radiation (DLR) is a real forcing that increases the surface temperature or shut up for good. I am sick of you bringing out these ridiculous posts every few months which amount to no more than sophistry.

I CHALLENGE YOU!

I expect to see a post from you with that evidence in September or I will just assume you cannot produce it.

I am sure lots of people on this blog would be interested in seeing you drilling me into the ground. What a victory that would be for you, Willis.

Are you up for that challenge, Willis, or will you just fall back on your “He’s too rude to argue with. He’s hurt my feelings. Woe is me.”?

Somehow I think you will do what you always do, Willis, duck out.

And don’t do what you did last time and say:

As to providing evidence that back radiation increases the surface temperature, I doubt that you’d consider anything I provided as evidence.

And so you didn’t provide it, did you, Willis? Because you don’t have any evidence, do you?.

Did you not think that other readers might want to see that evidence? You must have total confidence in your acolytes if that’s what you think.

And as Joseph Postma, astrophysicist, said to you all those years ago

However, your claims aren’t true, and a very likely reason is that you have no scientific training. You lack of qualification isn’t an ad-hominem in the reality that you factually lack scientific training and your claims are erroneous. “

Good luck, Willis. I await your statement like I await Joe Biden’s statement on where he was last night.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:37 pm

I accept your defeat, Willis

I knew you weren’t up for it.

Evidence trumps hypothesis and magic forcings.

Btw, you would have been up against an English thoroughbred not a pig. You would have been covered in sh1t, which you are probably used to given your reputation, whereas I would have been unscathed and sparking clean.

I cannot believe you used the blanket argument in that discourse. Always the last resort of a warmist scoundrel.

ATheoK
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 5:34 pm

A puerile adolescent response.

So, inspiring…🤣😂
Pure grade school intellect ad hominems proves the pig enjoys wallowing in muck.

leitmotif
Reply to  ATheoK
September 1, 2022 4:29 pm

Ohhh! Willis wrestles with pigs. I don’t know any pigs to wrestle with. Only squirrels and rabbits where I live.

Not the same is it?

Editor
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 6:45 pm

You haven’t made a single cogent counterpoint to his article which is why many here are considering you a vulgar pest.

Your trolling has caught my attention which is why I now post POLICY reminders:

Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted,….



leitmotif
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 31, 2022 2:37 am

I have challenged Willis to provide evidence that the DLR or back radiation is a real forcing and can increase the surface temperature several times. I am doing that now but all he does is dodge the challenge. If that makes me a troll then so be it.

In fact most of the likewarmists on WUWT are doing the same thing including you, Sunsettommy.

What? You are not interested in evidence?

It’s different when CAWGers are spouting their lies, isn’t it?

Do what you like with your POLICY reminders. It will just prove my point that WUWT is an apologist for warmists.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 8:18 am

You might try posting references describing what you know. That is a meaningful way to argue a point.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:42 pm

So August 30 and no evidence yet from Willis about:

Either provide some evidence that back radiation (DLR) is a real forcing that increases the surface temperature or shut up for good. I am sick of you bringing out these ridiculous posts every few months which amount to no more than sophistry.

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 3:57 am

***I*** am sick of …

… and I look forward to posts headed “Author : Willis Eschenbach”.

Popular phrases about this phenomenon include “Horses for courses” and “To each his (/ their) own”.

Who appointed “leitmotif” as ultimate arbiter of what can … and, more importantly, cannot … be posted on the Internet when I wasn’t looking ?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 1, 2022 6:23 am

This leit-person has a very large hat size.

leitmotif
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 1, 2022 4:44 pm

The Carlo person has a very large toilet size. BS needs it.

leitmotif
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 1, 2022 4:42 pm

Mark BLR, WTF are you talking about.

I have followed your eloquent and erudite posts on the Guardian for many years but I could never determine whether you were a lukewarmist, a sceptic or even a full blown warmist.

I wonder why you have never been banned as I have been banned from the Guardian 5 times.

I admit I have been outspoken on 2 or 3 of those identities but sometimes I have been banned just because I disagreed.

You must remember some of the really good sceptics who suddenly disappeared over the years from the Guardian because I do?

How can you still contribute to the Guardian knowing it is thoroughly corrupt?

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 2, 2022 3:16 am

Mark BLR, WTF are you talking about.

I am talking about the phenomenon that has variously been called :
1) Everyone is different, AKA “every individual is an individual”
2) People have the right to express their own opinions
3) Saying “I am sick of X” is an indirect call to censor X

If you still don’t “get it”, then nothing further I can type will suffice.

I have followed your eloquent and erudite posts on the Guardian for many years but I could never determine whether you were a lukewarmist, a sceptic or even a full blown warmist.

The closest to my “internal belief system” on the subject of “climate change / science” would probably be “lukewarmer”, i.e. there may be a “problem” but the media reporting is (very) overhyped.

I wonder why you have never been banned as I have been banned from the Guardian 5 times.

I sometimes wonder that myself, but it is possible that my level of “Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” is sufficiently low that they limit themselves to the “Removed by a moderator” level instead.

I admit I have been outspoken on 2 or 3 of those identities but sometimes I have been banned just because I disagreed.

Odd … as you noted that’s never happened to me, I’ve used the same “User ID” on CiF for well over a decade now … maybe we have different definitions of what it means to be “outspoken” (as opposed to “just rude”) ?

How can you still contribute to the Guardian knowing it is thoroughly corrupt?

1) My “contribution” remains pointing out when their journalists and editors exaggerate the “crisis / emergency” we are supposedly undergoing.
NB : My polite “disagreements” on topics other than “climate change” sometimes even attract (a few) up-votes !

2) I do not “know” any such thing. That is A COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION that you have introduced into this sub-thread.

– – – – –

On a completely unrelated topic …

Me : You, on the other hand, are strictly limited to the “Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” level of Paul Graham’s well known “Debate Pyramid”

.

Carlo, Monte : This leit-person has a very large hat size.

You : The Carlo person has a very large toilet size. BS needs it.

.

“Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” should be either called out or ignored, not responded to by ratcheting it up a notch.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 3:29 pm

Leitmotif, not WE but you continue to flog a dead horse. Back IR radiation heats NOTHING. But it is a very good indicator of what is actually going on with the GHE, a loss of IR cooling from purely solar SW heating. The IR back radiation just evidences the amount of IR that did not escape to space to cool.

In simpler terms, the GHE is not a heating at all. It is just an absence of compensatory cooling. Which when integrated over time, results in a warming until the resulting larger IR cooling balances the relatively steady solar warming.

Potentially you display a profound misunderstanding of the basics. WE never does.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 4:01 pm

Rud, you are just another lukewarmist bullsh1tter with no evidence.

In simpler terms, the GHE is not a heating at all. It is just an absence of compensatory cooling. Which when integrated over time, results in a warming until the resulting larger IR cooling balances the relatively steady solar warming.

And of course no evidence to back up the claim. What a surprise.

Potentially you display a profound misunderstanding of the basics. WE never does.

Says an idi0t about another idi0t, Wilis.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 5:22 pm

Bring it on. You should obey the first rule of holes:
When in one wanting out, first stop digging.
Your hole is in my comprehensive ebook from 2014 titled Blowing Smoke. More than one essay therein explains your confusion.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 31, 2022 2:39 am

And we all know which hole you are blowing the smoke from, Rud.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 6:49 pm

“The IR back radiation just evidences the amount of IR that did not escape to space to cool.”

I can’t figure out why this is so difficult for some people to understand.
It’s not that complicated.  It’s a mystery to me.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 30, 2022 11:03 pm

If it IS radiation. If it is not radiation, why call it “back radiation”?

Re: my post above about Happer’s statement that 99.9999999% of absorbed IR is converted to atmospheric heat in non-GH molecules before it can be emitted, thus it isn’t emitted. How much in energy units is the 0.00000001% that is emitted near the surface? Is it enough to matter? Is there reason to believe that William Happer doesn’t know what he is writing about?

Reply to  AndyHce
August 30, 2022 11:52 pm

If that’s what Happer really said, then he doesn’t know.

leitmotif
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 31, 2022 2:44 am

Aye, right. 🙂

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 31, 2022 2:28 pm

You could mean several things but aren’t saying what.
(1) Energy of IR absorbed by CO2, H2O, etc. is not transferred to other atmospheric molecules?
(2) IR is re-radiated by CO2, H2O, etc. in spite of being transferred to other atmospheric molecules?
(3) something else I haven’t guessed at?

I don’t know of any disagreement about the fact that energy of other molecules has to be transferred to GHG molecules at high altitude in order to be radiated away from Earth. This is about what happens near the surface, in much denser atmosphere.

according to this interaction with William Happer
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

Richard M
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 9:59 am

I think there’s a misunderstanding here. Just because a high percentage of absorbed IR is kinetically transferred to other molecules before reradiation doesn’t mean that similar kinetic energy transfers to CO2 molecules won’t result in emission.

The ability to absorb energy and radiate energy is equal according to Kirchhoff’s Law.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard M
August 31, 2022 2:42 pm

It isn’t about the ability to absorb and radiate, as I understand it. Because the kinetic interaction (conduction, no?) happens in a much shorter time interval than re-emission, there is no absorbed energy left to be emitted. These kinetic interactions surely tend to produce an equilibrium condition but also a convective updraft to carry away some of the energy.

If GHG and non-GHG molecules are in thermal equilibrium, how much energy can be transfer from non-GHG molecules to GHG molecules? If little, then what energy do the GHG molecules have to radiate?

Richard M
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 7:06 pm

My understanding is the kinetic interactions are happening continually. The radiation emissions events occur much less frequently but still occur on a regular (millisecond) basis. If the CO2 molecule is not in the right state it cannot absorb energy or emit energy. Since the molecules are known to absorb energy then they must also be able to emit energy.

There is no thermal equilibrium involved. Every time two molecules collide energy may be exchanged. It’s all random. GHG and non-GHG molecules both react based on their physical orientation and current internal state.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard M
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 31, 2022 8:31 am

You are mostly correct. However integrated over time, since the surface is the hot body and the atmosphere is the cold body, an equilibrium temperature would be reached. This temperature will be warmer than it would be without the insulating effects of CO2. However, that’s pretty minor when you consider that H2O in the atmosphere absorbs a goodly portion of the sun’s 50% of radiation that is called near IR. Some of the radiation from precipitation should be considered as part of the sun’s radiation and not back radiation.

Richard M
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 31, 2022 9:51 am

The IR back radiation just evidences the amount of IR that did not escape to space to cool.

I think a little thought experiment might shine some light here. Let’s install a perfect insulating and IR reflective shield above the boundary layer. Let’s also remove all the water and internal energy below the surface from this discussion for simplicity.

All the IR from the atmosphere (and surface) is now reflected back and no cooling occurs. No solar energy gets in so there’s no new energy arriving. The energy is truly trapped.

Next, let’s double the CO2 content. This should lead to an increase in the DWIR from the atmosphere to the surface of 3.7 w/m2. According to Willis,

the surface absorbs radiation, it warms, and it emits radiation.

So, let’s assume the surface warms and starts radiating more energy. That should warm the atmosphere and ……..

Hopefully, the problem is now obvious. We’ve created a loop between the surface and atmosphere that appears to be infinite with continued warming, yet, no energy has been added to this system. It is completely isolated from any energy source.

It seems to me there’s a problem with the assumption that DWIR must warm the surface. Will await explanations.

Trick
Reply to  Richard M
August 31, 2022 8:31 pm

“let’s double the CO2 content” and “no energy has been added to this system” are inconsistent Richard. Think that thru some more.

Also, your shield no longer emits radiation (emissivity zero) so none can be “trapped” by the atm. below. The enclosed atm. keeps on radiating as before at least initially.

The temperatures will change until thermodynamic internal equilibrium is again established at maximum entropy. There will be no “continued warming” after entropy production has ceased in your “perfect insulating” universe.  

Richard M
Reply to  Trick
September 1, 2022 7:35 am

I avoided going into long detailed description to keep it short. I suppose someone had to pick on my lack of details.

Assume whatever energy was added by doubling carbon was removed by lowering the amount of nitrogen by a trivial amount.

As I indicated the shield reflects all the upwelling IR. Hence, that IR could be absorbed by the atmosphere or would eventually be absorbed by the surface. The reason for the shield was to keep the energy content the same. It would block any added solar energy and remove any cooling. Remember, this is a thought experiment.

Since no energy is added or removed from this experimental environment, the temperature should remain constant. This would appear to falsify the claim that DWIR must warm the surface.

Trick
Reply to  Richard M
September 1, 2022 3:37 pm

That won’t falsify the claim you note. The total thermodynamic internal energy in your universe will remain the same but the increase in CO2 radiation over N2 radiation will change the local temperatures (local avg. energy) along the lapse rate with a higher T(0) and lower T(max. z) until your isolated universe system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium at max. entropy point.      

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 1, 2022 12:35 am

leitmotif is engaging in nasty debate.

Nevertheless, when we cover ourselves with a blanket to keep warm, this prevents the loss of heat and helps keep us toasty on cold nights. But the blanket does not add heat to our body temperature and raise it above 98.7F, or whatever it might be.

Likewise, any ‘heat trapping’ by greenhouse gases can’t add more energy to the surface of the earth. Granted they can slow cooling; this does not mean increased heating, any more than a blanket over our bodies means increased heating of our bodies such that our temperature is raised to, say, 102F.

You can try this with a tea cosy, too. The blanketing of the teapot won’t raise the temperature of the tea, even if the tea kettle is left on the stove so that the heat of the tea is kept constant.

Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 3:54 pm

Back-radiation is a force. Just as a -20C atmospheric temperature level can warm the surface, so can my 30-degree heaters warm my 40-degree room up to a toasty 76 degrees, provided I place enough of them around. Ergo, back-radiation is real.

Although heat travels from warmer to cooler, back radiation actually does the opposite. I believe 97% of scientists say so.

leitmotif
Reply to  Don132
August 30, 2022 4:26 pm

Evidence please. That’s only if you come out of your coma. I wish you luck.

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 1:11 pm

Haha, just realised Don132 was joshing.

Was he? 🙂

Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 5:41 am

Yes,he was.

angech
Reply to  Don132
August 30, 2022 6:18 pm

Don132 Just as a -20C atmospheric temperature level can warm the surface, so can my 30-degree heaters warm my 40-degree room up to a toasty 76 degrees, provided I place enough of them around

Rud Istvan Back IR radiation heats NOTHING

Context, I guess.

AndyHce
Reply to  Don132
August 30, 2022 11:05 pm

A heater is not producing back radiation. It is, in a relative sense, a miniature sun.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 8:34 am

It is an energy source. The entropy it introduces into the system must be accounted for.

AndyHce
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2022 2:46 pm

So it is an energy source, as I stated. That energy heats the room. What has that to do with ” back IR radiation”?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 4:51 pm

You misunderstood my post.  I agree, it is an energy source, but “back radiation” can occur from the walls.  I don’t like the term “back radiation” anyway.  It is simply radiation from another substance and should be accounted for in the correct manner.  For the sun, solid/liquid, atmosphere system the radiation from each can be analyzed using Planck’s and Stephan-Boltzmann equations to get a good idea of what is occurring.  And, that is basically that the cooling gradient of the solid/liquid has been reduced.  That doesn’t raise maximum temperatures.

Reply to  AndyHce
September 1, 2022 6:09 am

The point isn’t the heater, the point is the blanket, which we’re told is analogous to what greenhouse gases are doing to the atmosphere: they’re slowing the rate of cooling, as Rud Istvan said above. But by so doing, they cannot be adding energy to the surface, just as the tea cosy can’t be adding energy to the tea.
If one places a lump of 50-degree granite in a 40-degree room, the walls of the 40-degree room will always radiate IR: we know that for certain. But those same walls will never raise the temperature of the granite through some bizarre mechanism that says that a cooler body can warm a warmer body.
So, apparently we accept the above paragraph (except Willis insists this can’t be true, and that we can magically double the 235 W/m2 from a nuclear source to get an extra 235 W/m2 out of nowhere) but now go with the fiction that something that slows cooling thereby adds energy to the body being cooled. What??
The steel greenhouse makes no sense. Just consider the shell and the source to be one unit (“In reality, it is close enough to the planet that the difference in the areas can be neglected in practice”) and that unit radiates 235W/m2. That’s all. Otherwise you’re creating energy out of thin air.
Please get a grip.

Reply to  Don132
September 1, 2022 7:21 am

Was referring to my post about the tea cosy, not so much to my sarcastic post about the 30-degree heaters warming a 40-degree room.
I probably should avoid sarcasm as some take it seriously even though it makes no sense. I’d think that ‘it makes no sense’ would be a strong clue, but then again a lot of things said here seriously make no sense.

Re:’a heater isn’t producing back-radiation.’ Back-radiation is simply radiation with a fancy name.

TallDave
Reply to  Don132
September 1, 2022 7:47 am

yes… that does seem like double counting

yes, the blanket (CO2) can warm you and itself, in a gradient where the bottom layer is warmest

yes, the blanket’s bottom layers (CO2) can therefore emit more IR at you (the surface) since they’re warmer

but no, the extra IR cannot increase the total flux at your body (the surface)

the flux stays the same because your body is also warmer and emitting more IR, so the body-blanket (CO2/surface) system is just operating at a new equilibrium temperature

Last edited 28 days ago by TallDave
Reply to  TallDave
September 1, 2022 7:57 am

So then if I put on a colder blanket, I can still keep warm? If my blanket is at -10C, then I can keep warm because it’ll be radiating at me?

This is good to know./sarc

Gets back to the issue of how a colder atmosphere can warm the near-surface atmosphere. The answer: it can’t. Even if we can measure the radiation from the colder atmosphere, it still can’t warm the warmer atmosphere.

TallDave
Reply to  TallDave
September 1, 2022 7:58 am

I suppose one can argue the system does experience changes in surface flux until thermal equilibrium is met, but I don’t think anyone is arguing Earth is out of thermal equilibrium, just that it’s warmer

for that matter I’ve never seen any physically sensible explanation for why GHG equilibrium shouldn’t be near-instantaneous (on the order of the gas molecule interaction/emission times), though that seems to be a common assumption in models

Last edited 28 days ago by TallDave
Jim Gorman
Reply to  TallDave
September 1, 2022 1:17 pm

It is so that averages (constant values) can be used. The earth rotates on its axis and around the sun. The sun varies a little. Nothing is ever in thermal equilibrium, EVER! The has a somewhat sin curve of warming and an exponential curve during cooling. Some one called it a thermal capacitor. Pretty close to that when discharging.

angech
Reply to  leitmotif
August 30, 2022 6:27 pm

leitmotif,
If insults are all you have to offer?
Why not state your evidence that DLR is not a forcing?
Then we can assess your evidence.

leitmotif
Reply to  angech
August 31, 2022 2:46 am

Why not state your evidence that DLR is not a forcing?

Maybe I could provide evidence that god does not exist while I am doing so? Eh?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 8:43 am

leitmotif –>. It is a forcing. The radiation from the hot source is reduced by the radiation from the cold source, thereby resulting in a lower net radiation value. The net radiation is what determines the cooling rate of the hot body (surface) AND the heating rate of the cold body (atmosphere).

Remember, the radiation values do have a time relation, i.e., Joules/second. From that you can derive the gradients involved for both materials.

leitmotif
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2022 1:16 pm

If it’s not external to the system it is not a forcing.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 4:42 pm

As long as you have two bodies whose only connection is via radiation, you have a system.  Three bodies are similar to the sun, earth’s surface, and earth’s atmosphere.  They are a system because they are connected via radiation.  

Now does conduction and resulting convection need to enter into the calculations of heat movement?  Of course.  But radiation can be accounted for with some simplifications to get an idea of what is occurring.  

AndyHce
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2022 3:27 pm

The radiation from the hot source is reduced by the radiation from the cold source

What does that mean, physically?
Radiation is energy. Where has the ‘reduced’ part of the energy gone?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 6:07 pm

It remains as heat in the hot body. As I have said, it reduces the gradient of cooling in the hot body. Think of it as what happens at thermodynamic equilibrium? Do the bodies quit radiating? No! The NET radiation is zero. That means each body is radiating the same amount toward the other and what is absorbed by each is immediately radiated away by each, therefore the temperature doesn’t rise. Planck calls this “compensation”.  
Think of what the S-B equation for two bodies tells you.  The cold body receives more radiation than it is emitting so it warms.  The hot body just keeps radiating at its temperature but part of that radiation is made up of the radiation from the cold body.  Thus the NET radiation is smaller and directed toward the cold body.  Now as equilibrium is approached what happens.  For example, lets say the hot body is at 200 and the cold body is at 199.  The next step is for the heat to reach 200 for both.  This isn’t exactly how it works but the math is pretty complicated to do properly.  but hopefully you can see what I mean.

Last edited 29 days ago by Jim Gorman
Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 4:30 am

Either provide some evidence that back radiation (DLR) is a real forcing that increases the surface temperature …

That is not, and has never been, an accurate summary of Willis’s “argument(s)”.

Willis actually directly addressed this specific point last year in his article “Surface Response to Increased Forcing“, and at least touched on it in several others.

Near the top is the following “warning” :

Please don’t bother me with claims that downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t exist. It has been measured, not estimated or modeled but measured, thousands of times by scientists all around the planet for over a century. If you don’t think it’s real, you need to do your homework …

NB : His “downwelling longwave radiation” = your “DLR”.

I expect to see a post from you with that evidence

At the end of that post Willis has shown that the BEST (surface temperature) and CERES (up and down radiation) datasets provide “evidence” for his conjecture that for large areas of the tropical oceans increasing DLR (/ total, LW + SW, “back radiation”) results in cooling of that particular subset of the Earth’s “surface”.

Now I personally cannot say for sure that Willis is (100%, down to the smallest of details) “correct” here, but he does at least present a reasonable “logical argument”, including references to the input data and a clear explanation of the methodology used … an approach you should at least consider emulating.

You, on the other hand, are strictly limited to the “Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” level of Paul Graham’s well known “Debate Pyramid” (copied below).

I (obviously) cannot speak on behalf of anyone else here on WUWT, but I tend to side (heavily) with Willis in those cases.

Paul-Graham_Debate-Pyramid.png
leitmotif
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 31, 2022 8:52 am

Near the top is the following “warning” :

Please don’t bother me with claims that downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t exist. It has been measured, not estimated or modeled but measured, thousands of times by scientists all around the planet for over a century. If you don’t think it’s real, you need to do your homework …

This is bunk. Pyrgeometers don’t measure downwelling Longwave Radiation they only derive the DLR by a output voltage that corresponds to a temperature gradient.

Surface Response to Increased Forcing

Willis has already decided this DLR is a real forcing in the title alone.

He then goes on to say: Note that this gives us 0.15°C per each additional 3.7 W/m2.

No evidence.

As for abuse if you go back to series of our exchanges you will see that Willis can dish out the abuse with ease. But maybe you won’t see that.

AndyHce
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 3:47 pm

“Pyrgeometers don’t measure downwelling Longwave Radiation they only derive the DLR by a output voltage that corresponds to a temperature gradient.”

Any and all measurements of temperature are indirect, a measure of some physical response to the energy of temperature. If you argument is that the voltage change isn’t a temperature measurement because it is a voltage measurement, you have nothing.

If you are claiming that the voltage change is caused by something other than DLW, that is an entirely different matter but you have provided no evidence to support that claim.

leitmotif
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2022 4:42 pm

I am arguing that the DLR is not a forcing just because you can point a pyrgeometer at the sky and get a reading.

Willis believes that that is proof enough.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  AndyHce
September 3, 2022 4:00 pm

The voltage reported by a pyrgeometer pointed upwards at night is negative.  Therefore the hypothetical DWLWIR is actually UWLWIR.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 4, 2022 5:07 am

What is your evidence for this claim?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 7, 2022 1:30 pm

Post me a graph of just the measurement part (U/S, or U/C depending on the terminology used) and then we’ll talk.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 9, 2022 11:52 am

If you’re not having any luck getting hold of those measurements, perhaps because you don’t have your own pyrgeometer, ask the SURFRAD scientists for their measurements (make sure to specify the raw ones, not the adjusted ones). I’m sure they’ll be happy to send them to you. I got my information from my knowledge of how thermopiles work, together with the pyrgeometer equation, plus a paper written by a pyrgeometer scientist, which confirms that these devices do in fact follow the known laws of thermodynamics, as I described. It would be disturbing if they didn’t.

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 3:17 am

Pyrgeometers don’t measure downwelling Longwave Radiation they only derive the DLR by a output voltage that corresponds to a temperature gradient.

Mercury (and alcohol) thermometers didn’t “measure” temperature, they only “derived” it from the thermal expansion of a liquid.

He then goes on to say: Note that this gives us 0.15°C per each additional 3.7 W/m2.

No evidence.

The quote in context :

Now, the most direct way to see how variations in total forcing affect the temperature is to use actual data. So on a gridcell-by-gridcell basis, I took a direct look at how the surface temperature is affected by the variations in forcing. For the surface temperature, I used the Berkeley Earth gridded temperature; and for the radiative forcing, I used the CERES data. I first removed the seasonal variations from both datasets, then used standard linear regression to calculate how much the temperature changed when the forcing changed by one watt per square metre (W/m2) in each gridcell. Then I multiplied that by 3.7, since in theory the forcing increases by 3.7 W/m2 when the level of atmospheric CO2 doubles.

Here’s the result of that analysis:

[ Figures showing variable temperature changes, with the caption :

“Change in Surface Temperature Per Additional 3.7 W/m² of Forcing, Mar 2000 – Feb 2020 only

Avg Globe 0.15 …” ]

Note that this gives us 0.15°C per each additional 3.7 W/m2.

NB : He compared changes in the total, measured, “surface forcing” (not limited to DLR !) and changes in temperature over a 20 year period.

The figures make it clear that this isn’t a uniform change of “0.15°C per each additional 3.7 W/m2”, it is the global average of a much more complicated phenomenon.

WHAT additional “evidence” do you need ???

– – – – –

Willis then goes on to write :

However, there’s a huge problem with this method—it doesn’t give the surface time to equilibrate and adjust to the changes in forcing, because the changes are occurring on a monthly basis. So this is just a short-term response to changing forcing. But what we want to know is, what is the long-term response to such a change?

In my last post, I pointed to a novel way to calculate this. …

Willis admited there were issues with the specific point you have latched onto … and then went on to provide an alternative “methodology” to overcome the issues he identified.

What methodology do YOU suggest that would overcome YOUR objections ?

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 3:25 am

As for abuse if you go back to series of our exchanges you will see that Willis can dish out the abuse with ease. But maybe you won’t see that.

Scrolling through this comments section I see Willis saying :
“Pass, leitmotif. At this point, the First Rule Of Pig Wrestling comes into play for me.”

You may categorise that as “dishing out abuse”, but I don’t.

It’s called “a realistic assessment of the situation”.

leitmotif
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 31, 2022 9:03 am

And Willis got plenty of criticism from posters on that article you refer to.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  leitmotif
August 31, 2022 12:28 pm

You got a bad case of fanboi, seek professional help immediately.

leitmotif
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 31, 2022 4:43 pm

Ok, Willis groupie. Will do.

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2022 3:41 am

And Willis got plenty of criticism from posters on that article you refer to.

Yes, and he also got a lot of compliments.

– – – – –

Checking the first example of “criticism” :

whiten

Do not mean to rock your boat Willis, but you seem to make the cardinal mistake of confusing the potential with forcing.

Later in that sub-thread :

Willis Eschenbach

I ask for an explanation, and you reply with an insult?

Pass.

w.

I see now where you got at least part of your “debating style” from.

– – – – –

A valid “criticism” from that comments section :

Nick Stokes

Willis,

“The slope of the LOWESS curve is the change in temperature resulting from a 1 W/m2 change in downwelling radiation.”

The curve actually shows the association between temperature and downwelling at a whole lot of different places (some hot, some cold) around the Earth. Correlation is not causation.

No “Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” in sight there, just a (polite) reminder of a “scientific axiom”.

leitmotif
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 1, 2022 4:56 pm

Mark, you are a clever guy but at some point you are going to have to get off the toilet or sh1t.

Does the sphere at at -20c become 29c when it is surrounded by a shell?

Your answer would describe who you really are.

Mark BLR
Reply to  leitmotif
September 2, 2022 3:28 am

Does the sphere at at -20c become 29c when it is surrounded by a shell?

What is the heat flux from the radioactive source in the middle of the (central) sphere ?

What is the “temperature” of the surrounding “empty” space ?

Your answer[s] would describe who you really are.

Maybe they should … but what if in the real world they don’t meet your (second-person singular) expectations ?

Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 3:00 pm

WE, congratulations. This is the most rigorous short time horizon ‘pure physics’ “proof” I have yet seen (in over a decade of looking) that ‘a lot more than CO2 is going on’. Kills completely the CO2 as climate control knob perspective of the AGW crowd. Nails the attribution problem dragged in by climate model unavoidable parameter tuning to best hindcast just 30 years, subject of several of my past guest posts here.

We can easily demonstrate natural variability on various long/slow time scales. Examples include MWP followed by LIA followed by present warming (in northern hemisphere at least), and the Arctic roughly 60-70 year cycle posited by Akasofu in his 2010 paper, then demonstrated statistically by Wyatt and Curry in their stadium wave paper, supported by whaling ship ice extent observations and DMI charts (examples in essay ‘Northwest Passage’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Warmunists always counter natural variation with two objections: ‘but AGW is happening much faster’ and ‘but no natural variation mechanism’.

The latter mechanism argument being the same demonstrably faulty reasoning geologists used to deny Wegener’s Continental Drift theory for 60 years despite his overwhelming physical evidence in four separate categories—until plate tectonics was proven by repeated basalt magnetic pole reversals along the mid Atlantic spreading ridge.

What you just showed is that natural variability MUST also exist on decadal time scales relevant to the anthropogenic global warming theory and model parameter tuning. Kills dead the AGW former ‘but AGW is happening faster’ argument. Leaves the AGW deniers of natural variation with NO arguments. (Not that they might try to invent a new one, like WE is not a university trained expert so ignore this post.)

Well done. My regards to you and your ex-fiancé.

Nelson
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 3:37 pm

I believe the comments on this post at NoTrick Zone will be of interest. 
New Studies Claim The More CO2 In The Venus Atmosphere The Colder It Gets (notrickszone.com)
Willis, the data you present seems to say that surface cooling is 80% radiative and 20% from convective?  This seems backward to me.  

 

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nelson
August 30, 2022 5:29 pm

Nelson, a pro tip. Lose the Venus analogy. Do you have any idea of how many ways it does not apply? You embarrass yourself.
OK, pro tips:

  1. Rotation
  2. Atmospheric density
  3. Atmospheric gas composition
  4. Relation to Sun orbit.
Nelson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 6:21 pm

Pro tip — I said read the comments. It’s not about Venus.

Reply to  Nelson
August 30, 2022 6:57 pm

Earth’s climate is too complicated.
What we really need are wild guesses about Venus, Mars and Uranus.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 6:10 pm

‘but no natural variation mechanism’ … demonstrably faulty reasoning

It’s positively anti-empirical, the scientific method in reverse.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 6:55 pm

“Kills completely the CO2 as climate control knob perspective of the AGW crowd”

Didn’t the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose, already kill the CO2 is the control knob theory?  It must have, because that global cooling, as reported in 1975, has almost completely disappeared from climate history. Inconvenient data disappears. 

Ben Vorlich
August 30, 2022 3:02 pm

This is probably a dumb question already dealt with.
Preamble: We know that summer in the Northern Hemisphere affects CO2 levels because it shows in the data. We also k ow that photosynthesis uses solar energy. Possibly so. E downwelling radiation of the right wavelength.

So overall photosynthetic efficiency is in the order of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation according to the Web This will cover a large part of the NH affects the atmosphere CO2 level, but does it show in the Radiative Balance?

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
August 30, 2022 3:45 pm

It would be a lot of work to estimate the enthalpy of formation for the deposited and preserved organic matter and marine shells just to find out it’s probably a tenth of a percent or less but it would be interesting to know.

Jim Hartley
August 30, 2022 3:05 pm

Doesn’t the ability of CO2 to retain heat go down as its concentration rises? If that is true, did you factor it into your double-doubling calculation?

Robert B
August 30, 2022 3:45 pm

Your temperature is 4√(mean T^4). It should be within the ball park of a mean of thermometer measurements on the ground, but not the same. It’s the only thing that can be modelled. Modelling energy absorbed, stored in water then conveyed to warm up surfaces at different starting temperatures, goes into creating phase changes rather than increasing temperature, and as mentioned recently, the same amount of energy that warms air to a degree warms water to about 3/10 000th of that, is not robust by a long shot. It just creates many opportunities to exaggerate a small effect.

RickWill
August 30, 2022 3:50 pm

This gives a global 24/7 average of just over 500 W/m2, about half a kilowatt/m2, of radiation absorbed by the surface.

It is fantastic how Earth’s atmosphere is able to generate just over 160W/m^2.

Solar EMR available at the top of the atmosphere averages 340W/m^2. Then the atmosphere does its work and amplifies that to 500W/m^2 by the time it arrives at the surface. That is an impressive reactor; 80E15W being produced by the atmosphere – INCREDIBLE.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
August 30, 2022 6:29 pm

The 500 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface is comprised of both LW and SW. See the approximate breakdown here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/25/a-balancing-act/#comment-3587058

RickWill
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 30, 2022 8:42 pm

But the atmosphere is still acting as a power amplifier – creating energy from nothing at an enormous rate. Does not matter what the frequency component is, power flux is joules/second/m^2 irrespective of the frequency.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  RickWill
September 1, 2022 6:26 am

The fake power amplification occurs when the S-B equation is used to convert ambient temperature to power (in W/m2). That is an invalid operation, of course.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:46 am

Wrong again, the pyrgeometer equation does NOT do this.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 3, 2022 4:18 pm

As you posted it, yes it does.  What do you think the Tb^3 and Tb^4 terms are doing in there?  Are they doing exactly what I said, which is converting ambient (base) temperature to power?  Yes, yes they are.  Otherwise, how do you think they would convert the measured reading of 0 to -100 W/m^2 to the published value of +350 W/m^2?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 4, 2022 5:20 am

Where did you get this bizarre notion about pyrgeometers?

Read it on the internet?

Do you have any real experience with pyrgeometers or radiometers at all?

I posted this graph previously (and one of the other pyrgeometer deniers gave me a downvote for my trouble), made by a competent lab. This is one clear day showing direct normal and diffuse horizontal solar irradiance (red, green) and the black curve is far-IR sky irradiance measured with a pyrgeometer.There is no offset at sunrise and the far-IR increases only about 10% during the course of the day, even though the air temperature changed from 12 – 33C.

Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the calibration constants?

Screen Shot 2022-08-30 at 5.16.54 PM.jpg
Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 5, 2022 7:05 pm

That’s a lovely chart.  But the “Incoming IR” is a calculated number, not a measured one.  Why don’t you post the raw (pre-adjustment) measurement?  At night it is 0 to -100 W/m^2, depending on humidity.  It has to be, because a thermopile pointed at a colder object records a negative voltage, hence negative power.  The calibration constant is approximately 1, so the magnitude of the calibration value is around 400 W/m^2 on a normal day.

(I am not too sure where you got your “pyrgeometer equation” from, but the ones I’ve seen do not have any multiplier in front of the sigma * T^4 term.  That is the term that is complete bollocks, and is described as “the irradiated heat by the sensor itself”, i.e. at ambient temperature.  What irradiated heat?)

Macha
August 30, 2022 4:03 pm

Always liked WE graphs.
I’ve read gases don’t emit Planck black body radiation. They only absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths, on a photon by photon basis, while a Planck black body absorbs and emits radiation at all wavelengths. Also Photons are light not heat.
No gas radiates a total power curve proportional to T^4. In the Earth-Sun climate system, only the Sun and Earth are black bodies – the atmosphere and empty space aren’t. 

Thus thermal physics makes atmospheric CO2 incapable of melting an ice cube, because its absorption/emission wavelength at only 15 microns corresponds to a Planck black body radiation temperature of -80C, about the same temperature as dry ice. That means that its thermal radiation won’t melt an ice cube.

The only thing that happens with an increased atmospheric CO2 is a reduction in extinction depth for the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. Given that the extinction depth is already ~10.4 m, that radiation which is already being thermalized at 420 ppm will be likewise thermalized at all higher atmospheric concentrations, just in a shorter distance. Thus, the atmosphere is opaque at 15µm so a higher concentration of CO2 can’t thermalize any more.

The Beer-Lambert Law says that over the extinction depth for 15µm of ~10.4m, ~50% extinction occurs within the first 1.04m, then 50% of extinction of the remainder occurs over the second 1.04 m, and so forth.

Earth at 288K and an emissivity of 0.936, the radiance from 15µm equates to 10.9W/m^2. This is the maximum that CO2 could absorb.
The Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.8% of CO2 will be excited in one of its vibrational quantum states, but the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~25% will be 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 the max to 8.17 W/m^2 able to be absorbed. That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic. Anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.6% of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb a maximum of ~0.3Wm^2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Macha
August 30, 2022 7:41 pm

Also Photons are light not heat.

Strictly speaking, “light” consists of EM radiation that can be sensibly perceived by humans. The S-B back radiation is of a wavelength that is commonly referred to as thermal IR EM radiation, not “light.”

Last edited 30 days ago by Clyde Spencer
AndyHce
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2022 11:25 pm

Depends on the temperature of the radiator.

Macha
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 31, 2022 5:05 am

Ok.Great. with that settled, glad the rest is fine. No warming ftom so-called CO2 back radiation at 15um. Its weak…much like moonshine.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Macha
August 31, 2022 8:12 pm

If the moonshine is weak, it will never sell.

Reply to  Macha
August 31, 2022 8:18 am

Thus thermal physics makes atmospheric CO2 incapable of melting an ice cube, because its absorption/emission wavelength at only 15 microns corresponds to a Planck black body radiation temperature of -80C, about the same temperature as dry ice. That means that its thermal radiation won’t melt an ice cube.”
Usual ‘-80ºC’ nonsense! The radiation absorbed/emitted by CO2 depends on the energy of its vibrational/rotational energy levels, nothing to do with the Planck black body radiation temperature.
The wavelength of radiation emitted from an excited molecule is not related to its temperature, the ‘ice cube’ doesn’t know whether the photon it is absorbing came from a source at -80ºC or 100ºC.
Also the Boltzmann distribution just tells you what the kinetic energy distribution of the molecules is, that’s not the same as the fraction in a certain excited vibrational state. The majority of the molecules in air are N2 and O2, in order to be able to collisionally excite a CO2 molecule’s bending mode the air molecule would have to have a kinetic energy in excess of 0.082eV (I assume that’s how you calculated your %ages). However the efficiency of such a collision will be very low, so your percentages will be too high.

TheFinalNail
August 30, 2022 4:08 pm

Clearly, much more than CO2 is at play …

That’s hardly a controversial point though, is it?

As I understand it, it’s the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and the feedbacks this causes with respect to increased water vapor, etc that is the main issue; not the direct radiative effect of CO2 itself.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 30, 2022 6:20 pm

with respect to increased water vapor, etc

It’s what is covered by ‘etc’, as Rud Istvan has pointed out above as far as is known CO2 and feedbacks cannot account for past climate fluctuations.

Loydo
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 30, 2022 8:52 pm

“as far as is known CO2 and feedbacks cannot account for all past fluctuations.”

But it can account for some; the PETM event is widely thought to be a result of rapid CO2 release, not as rapid as today, but geologically rapid. Quaternary glaciation patterns require more than just Milankovitch cycles to explain them.

Carlo, Monte
August 30, 2022 4:23 pm

Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2.

Willis, for your fanbois who whine about this subject, here is a plot from a site in CO that measures the far-IR irradiance continuously. This is today’s plot (with severe-clear weather), as you can see the number at 6000′ (1.8km) altitude is 355 W/m2. It varies only a few W/m2 year-round.

https://midcdmz.nrel.gov/apps/gdisplay.pl?BMS

Screen Shot 2022-08-30 at 5.16.54 PM.jpg
Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 30, 2022 7:46 pm

I’m having a problem with the IR graph line. I would expect a changing value with incoming solar IR from sunup to sunset and overnight.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 30, 2022 8:09 pm

It goes up slightly during the day, for this one from about 320 to 380.

RickWill
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 9:21 pm

measurements which are being made every day all over the world, are measuring something that isn’t there …

They are not measuring power flux. They are measuring temperature difference from their reference and inferring a reverse power from the difference.

S-B is an approximation of more complex field theory. Energy can only flow one way at any point in time and space. The notion of photons shooting every which way is an abomination of what it aims to describe.

If you really want to start to understand EMR transmission then look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjKJyn_uoIE&t=1213s
The 22 minute mark is where Mishchenko discusses how the concept of photon has been abused. I have attached the quote from Willis Lamb that Mishchenko refers to.

The atmosphere cannot and does not amplify power. Look at how Mishchenko cringes when he puts up the NASA diagram in power fluxes seen in the IPCC reports. He has papers that proves that diagram is nonsense.

Screen Shot 2022-08-31 at 2.12.21 pm.png
Nelson
Reply to  RickWill
August 31, 2022 4:05 am

Rick, thanks for the excellent video link.  

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  RickWill
August 31, 2022 6:45 am

They are not measuring power flux. They are measuring temperature difference from their reference and inferring a reverse power from the difference.

What is “their reference”?

Are you claiming that if you cover the dome of a pyrgeometer with a metallic dome to prevent any radiation from impinging on the thermopile, the output voltage and hence the measured irradiance will not change?

Here are the WMO/PMOD calibration procedures:

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7365

Note that the body and dome temperatures are used to make corrections to the radiometer output voltage:

E = U/C +
k1*U/C*sigma*Tb^3 +
k2*sigma*Tb^4 +
k3*sigma*(Td^4 – Tb^4)

(C is the sensitivity constant, k1,k2,k3 are calibration constants)

Also note the procedure compares with the IRIS radiometer that does not need dome temperature measurements.

RickWill
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 31, 2022 4:39 pm

The simple fact that they have all those calibration constants based on Temperature to the 4th power should give you a clue that they are basically measuring temperature and inferring an energy.

If it was real energy then you could simply use an insulated thermal mass and rate of temperature rise. But no energy can flow from low temperature to high temperature.

Once you have semi-transparent matter interfering with the transmission of EMR, S-B is no longer applicable.

The instruments are a fudge. It is climate phiisics. Something that cannot be observed. That so-called “back-radiation” is not capable of “warming” anything. The insulating property is reducing the rate of cooling as any insulator does.

If the atmosphere was replaced with an opaque blanket that had an inside temperature of 15C and an outside temperature of -20C would you consider that there was back-radiation keeping the inside warm. It is an unphysical concept.

The back-radiation idea provides some ability to take ground based measurements to infer what is happening at the top of the atmosphere. However we now live in the satellite era with the ability to actually measure EMR fluxes beyond the influence of Earth’s matter.

“Back-radiation” is not EMR is is a measure of the insulating property of the atmosphere. In true physical terms, it would be appropriate to call it atmospheric insulation factor.

Last edited 29 days ago by RickWill
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  RickWill
August 31, 2022 5:22 pm

The simple fact that they have all those calibration constants based on Temperature to the 4th power should give you a clue that they are basically measuring temperature and inferring an energy.

Wrong, did you even look at the equation?

What causes the U voltage?

I recommend reading the WMO/PMOD calibration document.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 1, 2022 6:35 am

Of course they make “corrections” to the measured voltage… otherwise they would have to report negative numbers at night, and we sure can’t have that, can we? It would make a joke of the whole greenhouse effect theory. Oh wait…

Does your BS meter trigger at all when the “corrections” change the measurement from a small negative number to a much larger positive number?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:48 am

Did you read the calibration procedure document?

Steve Richards
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 2, 2022 3:06 am

Carlo, have you read the document you rate so highly?

Figure 1, shows the 4 reference pyrgeometers with 4 different, visible, slopes. Green increasing, Purple decreasing, light blue roughly level and the yellow one falling then rising.

They average the results! A bit like model outputs.

Then the give away,

“Calibration of a test pyrgeometer (retrieval of the sensitivity C)
As mentioned previously, a test pyrgeometer is calibrated relative to the average of the WISG”

No absolute calibration to an international standard!

Last edited 28 days ago by Steve Richards
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Richards
September 2, 2022 5:47 am

No absolute calibration to an international standard!

Exactly similar to the standard group of pyrheliometers, called the World Radiometric Reference (WRR). Secondary pyrheliometers are calibrated against the primary group. This is standard calibration practice in metrology.

The WISG is the international standard.

As for averaging multiple calibration runs, this too is standard practice.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 6, 2022 12:20 pm

They are all calibrated to the same fake numbers 🙂

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 6, 2022 12:41 pm

I do notice that they did not show the typical values of k1, k2, and k3 that they determine during their “calibration” procedures.  What are those numbers, Monte Carlo?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 7:04 am

This story line is essentially stating that far-IR radiometry is nothing but a hoax or conspiracy, I don’t understand it at all. Why would Eppley and Kipp & Zonen manufacture products that don’t measure what they claim?

It makes no sense.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 31, 2022 4:47 pm

You adopted the same Dunning-Kruger stance against Joseph Postma et al and failed miserably.

What makes you think you will do any better this time?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2022 6:31 am

What I haven’t figured out is how Willis and his fan club can, on the one hand, accept that there is a giant conspiracy to fudge the surface temperature record, and on the other, completely fail to recognize the same conspiracy fudging the DWLWIR measurements, for the same reason.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:49 am

Are global pyranometers also part of this alleged conspiracy?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:54 am

Also note that there is nothing wrong with the pyrgeometer hardware, per se. It is the post-measurement calculations that are fudged. The manufacturers have nothing to do with that, as far as I can tell from what I have read.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
September 1, 2022 6:56 am

Do you understand there are pyrgeometers that don’t use the dome-body temperature corrections?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 7, 2022 1:38 pm

Please tell me which model does not add ambient temperature converted to power, and show me the manufacturer’s data sheet for it.  All of the SURFRAD stations do this, which is what Willis is relying on, so those are the ones I focused on.  As far as I know, they all use the same principle and the same adjustment formula.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 6, 2022 12:30 pm

You didn’t say that, but our hard-working host Anthony did.  Do you believe him?  If not, you had better point out that you don’t. Otherwise he might think that you support his efforts.  Do you believe any of the other posters who point out all the lies in sea level rise, polar bear populations, ice melt, proxy reconstructions, ice cores, ocean acidification, butterfly habitats, climate refugees, renewable energy scams, suppression of academic freedom, and all the other bread-and-butter fare around here?  You know, the whole reason the site was founded?  To point out all these lies?  At which it does a great job, I might add?  Except that somehow you think the DWLWIR government scientists are the only ones who are NOT lying?  How does that work in your head, Willis?  Or do you think that all the other lies that are pointed out regularly, in the areas I mentioned above, are actually not lies at all, and everything those government scientists are telling us is true?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 10, 2022 4:46 pm

That’s lovely, Willis. I apologize for guessing what you were thinking, incorrectly. (Not the same as a lie.) So I will not assume that you accept any conspiracy to alter surface temperature records (or any other aspect of CAGW). They are all honest and accurate, or at least honestly inaccurate. I guess Anthony is wasting his time. He sure has wasted a lot. But instead of calling me names, why not worry about your incorrect physics instead? Is it valid to convert ambient temperature directly to power, like the SURFRAD folks do, or not? I only went down your conspiracy rabbit hole because you didn’t want to discuss the physics, which was the problem that I pointed out to begin with. Let’s stick to that, shall we?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 11, 2022 7:31 am

I also find it fascinating that you started this particular subthread with these words: “This claim means that the thousands and thousands of scientists spending lots of money on pyrgeometers are either being totally fooled about what pyrgeometers do, or are part of a gigantic conspiracy.”

Nobody said either of those things, which means you broke the First Rule of Internet Debating by Willis Eschenbach, to wit: Always “quote the exact words you are responding to”.

But never mind about that! I know it is hard work following your own rules all the time, and I totally understand if you just can’t be bothered.

So then, you made an assumption about what we are thinking, to wit: “The odds of either of those being true seem to have escaped the faithful …” Again, no quote, and of course you apparently have no idea what “faithful” means either, but we’ll let that go too.

So, when I replied with a counter-assumption about what you were thinking, for sure without any direct quote either, my bad, you called me a lying sack of excrement and pond scum.

Therefore, first question: what do you call yourself when YOU do that?

Second question: Moderators, do we have rules about name-calling in this forum? And do those rules apply to Willis, or only to everyone else?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2022 7:29 am

And “faithful”? Hahaha! We have no faith in the published “measurements”, but you do, Willis. You are the faithful one…

RickWill
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 31, 2022 4:57 pm

Why would Eppley and Kipp & Zonen manufacture products that don’t measure what they claim?

Because there is a market for them.

And if that is your argument then you are clutching at straws.

I have a wood moisture meter. It is calibrated in % moisture and has a few selectable wood types. I have even checked the calibration by monitoring a fresh log over a period of 6 months and comparing the reduction in weight to change in reading. It is not measuring moisture but it is has correlated conductivity to moisture and is quite good. It is a quick way to get a near enough reading.

The fact that you feel warmer when you are under low cloud at night compared to clear sky has nothing to do with back-radiation. It is simply that your field of view has altered. You are now radiating to a warmer object.

If I placed a blanket around me on a clear night I would also feel warmer but I would not credit the blanket with providing “back-radiation”. I would simply say it provided insulation.

The only way to discard the nonsense that started with the clown Suki Manabe back in the 1960s is to restore observable physics to understanding climate.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  RickWill
August 31, 2022 5:22 pm

This is nonsense, I’ve had enough.

August 30, 2022 5:12 pm

Another good Willie E. article with the usual easy to read charts.
Willie E. is the most consistent author at this website. 
Although not much of a wife photographer. 
Did you get (need) approval to post that photo?
The big debate between Climate Howlers and Climate Realists is not so much over the effect of CO2 alone. The Howlers do have a high estimate. The big debate is over the water vapor positive feedback tripling the effect of CO2 alone. A positive feedback does exist. A warmer troposphere does hold more water vapor. But the feedback seems smaller than predicted and something limits its effect, or there would eventually be runaway global warming. I assume more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds and reduced incoming solar energy. If that theory is wrong, something else must limit the positive feedback

Last edited 30 days ago by Richard Greene
Bob