The cause of global warming is still under debate.” – Choi and Manousiouthakis, 2022
Radiative models estimating the temperature effects of increasing CO2 to 420 ppm indicate 0.64°C of the alleged 1.2°C warming since the 19th century could be explained by CO2 increases.
Image Source: Choi and Manousiouthakis, 2022
A 2013 study suggested only 0.26°C (<33%) of the warming since 1880 could be attributed to the 290 to 385 ppm CO2 increase.
Cleaning of air from real pollutants definitely had an effect on sunshine, less pollution = more sun = more warmth
So China’s and India’s coal plants will save us all. 😁
Unless they cause us to freeze to death in a pollution winter, formerly nuclear winter
SO2 emissions were still rising from 1975 to 1980.
The global cooling from 1940 ended in 1975
Then there was global warming from 1975 to 1980 as SO2 emissions kept rising. Did all the SO2 fall out of the sky in 1975, allowing the cooling trend to reverse to a warming trend in 1975. I don’t think so!
We have about 120 years where humans could have affected the climate with greenhouse gas emissions.
Within that 120 year period, we had
global warming with very little CO2 increase (1910 to 1940),
global cooling with a moderate CO2 increase (1940 to 1975)
and shorter periods with rapid CO2 increases and overall warming, but no global warming at times (1980 to 1986, 2003 to 2012 and 2016 to 2022)
It is claimed that falling SO2 emissions since the peak in 1980 should result in global warming. If SO2 was really an important climate change variable, how can one explain why SO2 emissions sometimes have a positive correlation with the global average temperature, but often have no correlation (1980 to 1986, 2003 to 2012 and 2016 to 2022)
My best guess is that SO2 emissions, and air pollution in general,
has been a minor climate change variable,
SO2 is definitely not a climate “control knob”.
Clearly, the main control knob is out of reach but another sporadic contributor, also out of our control, is volcanic emissions.
Clearly, the main control knob is our position in the galaxy as our solar system spins around the Milky Way in our spiral arm. /kinda sarc.
I think there are multiple knobs out of our control. Some we haven’t found out about yet.
Systems governed by random processes don’t just find an equilibrium and stay there forever. They are subject to statistical fluctuation. A graph of 1000 random numbers between 1 and 10 will produce a rising and falling curve. One that looks suspiciously like a time series of the atmospheric temperature of plant Earth.
Such a graph of random numbers will have wiggles, where it is first up for a time, then down for a time. And it will also almost always exhibit an overall trend because it is very unlikely that the first half of the randomly fluctuating random numbers will equal the second half. About half the time the long-term trend is up, about half the time it’s down.
There is no “cause” in the usual sense of the word for the random wiggles, or the trends. It’s just randomness. Earth’s biosphere is the most complicated artifact in the known universe. All the variables of such a system will fluctuate over time but without any real cause.
Consider the fact that if one flips a “fair” coin 1000 times it is highly likely that you will see 10 or more heads or tails in a row. Using the temperature analogy, that would be ten years in a row when the temperature was high or low, but without any cause other than that fact that even a simple system—a flipped coin—fluctuates randomly.
We do not need an explanation for why a random system like Earth’s atmosphere is sometimes hot. We only need to accept that most complex systems in this universe are inherently unpredictable. But they are often bounded. The graph of random numbers from one to ten never goes below one or about ten.
Climate alarmists fixate our attention on one variably among millions, the challenge us to explain why, if not for CO2, did it go up? The explanation is so simple that Occam would blush. Random systems behave randomly.
Last paragraph, “then” not “the.”
great post
And the vast majority of people — and nearly all climate ‘scientists’ — don’t understand what random actually looks like. A coin flipped 1000 times can produce a remarkable number of heads or tails one after another, which to most people looks anything but random, even though it is.
Excellent post!
Nor is CO2!
Let us take GISTEMP v4 and compare the last 20 year average vs. the first 20 years. So it is 2002-2021 vs 1880-1899. The data are split up by latitude with 8 segments (90N-64N, 64N-44N, 44N-24N, 24N-EQU, same for the SH). From north to south the warming is (in K)..
3.028
1.5815
1.0975
0.798
0.768
0.7615
0.402
0.3135
Here is the problem. Where you think the pollution occurs? Right, it is in mid NH latitudes. Other than GHGs, aerosols do not spread globally. They are concentrated over North America, Europe, East Asia. If pollution had such a strong cooling effect as the IPCC claims (offsetting 1/3 of global(!) GHG warming), then AGW should be spread quite evenly, with some polar amplification. But it would need to exempt mid-NH latitudes, or named industrialized regions.
Instead that is where we have most of the warming. It’s the exact opposite. And that is probably the reason why the paper above suggests to reconsider the role of aerosols. It would make a lot more sense if they warming instead.
Of course the orthodoxy needs cooling aerosols to argue high climate sensitivity towards GHGs.
Since 1975 there have been periods of global warming alternating with periods of no warming (such as the past 8 years). This pattern is more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere. SO2 emissions peaked in 1980 and have been gradually falling. Falling SO2 emissions should block less incoming solar energy, causing global warming of some unknown amount.
There were periods of global warming since 1980 that correlated positively with falling SO2 emissions. And periods of no global warming since 1980 (such as from 2016 to 2022) that did not correlate with falling SO2 emissions. I think the obvious conclusion is that SO2 levels in the atmosphere are a minor climate change vaiiable.
That is not how it works. Sulfuric acid (SA) in the stratosphere is not just “blocking” sun light, rather it absorbs it, heating the stratosphere. A warmer and optically thicker stratosphere emits more radiation right back into space, leaving less energy for surface and troposphere. That is the effect of volcanic eruptions.
SA within troposphere from pollution is totally different story. There it is likely rather warming, adding to the GHE.
So2 in the stratosphere is of volcanic origin as is is injected. Pollution so2 does not rise high and is rained out.
That’s what I am saying..
Oh, the NH areas you say? Coincidentally the areas with highest concentrations of urban population? Given that it’s also the areas that are most densely covered by temperature stations, do you think there might be a connection somewhere?
LOL. Well, it would appear this strange “coincidence” might give us a hint. Yes, anthropogenic “global” warming is happening where humans are. Not where they are not (southern ocean). Obviously GHGs do not care, they spread out globally. So this pattern suggests the warming is indeed anthropogenic, but barely global, and not GHG related.
What could it possibly be then? Just look up! We are whitening the skies and we know this produces a massive forcing.
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails/contrails-the-basic-physics
UHI Effect – the “stations” are largely warming due to UHI due to poor siting.
Temperature in The Netherlands
Doesn’t explain the modern hiatus, nor the feverish wailings of the climate crowd standing on stacks of bogus studies that say it is CO2. Why have they been so engaged in silencing any and all who pointed out discrepancies or errors?. Why do they invoke an autistic maiden as their spokesperson/ religious figurehead?
It is garbage science from top to bottom and all across, deliberately looking at everything though Co2 coloured glasses.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/25/there-is-no-climate-emergency-1107-signatories-and-counting/#comment-3587019
Most of the climate science produced by universities and big research institutions is false nonsense.
Real data rules! Consider the following:
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (MacRae, now – 26Aug2022)
SST is warming according to this data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended (MacRae, now 26Aug2022)
Detrended to show the close correlation.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25
Major volcanoes (some VEI5 eruptions like El Chichon 1982 and most VEI6 events like
Pinatubo 1991+) cause significant (~0.5C) global cooling in the atmosphere and some in the oceans as well – but industrial emissions and smaller volcanoes don’t have much impact. Even Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere.
So radiative physics does not operate alone? How curious.
Maybe mass-motion physics is involved as well.
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere.
Ja. Ja. When it gets warmer due to more heat from earth, you get more CO2 in the air.
That CO2 (g) reduces the transport of warmth to space is not consistent with my observations.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
HenryP, except that your theory violates Henry’s law, the mass balance and the observations that everywhere is measured, CO2 and its derivatives increase in the ocean surface and on land… The effect of warmer oceans per Henry’s law is maximum 16 ppmv/K, thus maximum 13 ppmv since the depth of the LIA…
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Last page, Fig. 7
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf
Fig. 3 and Table 2.
Ferdinand
Whether or not the 1K up gives 16ppmv CO2 up in the air is not relevant (to me).
Because the extra CO2 does not do anything except making the earth greener. There is no warming effect as I have calculated from the IR spectrum and many others have come to the same conclusion, e.g.
The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment (scirp.org)
I am surprised that you have still not done any calculations on that.
Come down with me in a gold mine here. Feel the sweat on your head and note the elephant in the room. By my books T rises 3K per km down. In other words, to raise Tg (global) by 0,5K, I only need a small shift of the inside of earth of 0.5/3 = 167 m
Now read my report again…..
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
Genuine question here: how much of the temperature increase observed on descending into a gold or coal mine is due to the adiabatic compression of the air and how much is due to the earth’s geothermal gradient?
The air in a mine is always colder than the surrounding rock
Thanks.
I can look it up again. But as far as I remember T goes up exponentially as you go deeper down. Nothing to do with the air or air pressure.
No it is linear https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650519304006
Oh. It is even more than I thought? You are saying it is more than 20K up per km down?
And you still maintain that geothermal cannot be a cause of global warming?
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Oh. Here is Hans Erren. On the usual ad hominem war path again.
The geothermal flux is only like 0.1 W/m2.
That is exactly wrong, then. Is it not?
Going by the results Hans Erren has presented.
If you don’t get it, go back to my comments earlier.
Note that I still have to check his figures. I thought my book said 2.8K per km down. Maybe I read it wrong and it was 2.8K per 100m down.
HenryP said: “That is exactly wrong, then. Is it not?
Going by the results Hans Erren has presented.”
It looks like 0.1 W/m2 is consistent with the Bekesi et al. 2020 data. In fact, a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation from their data gave me exactly 0.1 W/m2 for the region they studied. I actually wasn’t expecting that. It’s probably just an accidental coincidence. There is a lot of variation in the spot fluxes from region to region.
Can you post a link to a global average estimate of the geothermal flux that is significantly different than 0.1 W/m2?
Sorry. I have to attend to some urgent family business. Ask Hans Erren why the figure of 90 milliW/ m2 seems implausible if I need only a change of 20 meters in the diameter of earth to get a change of + 0.5K in the global temperature.
I’ve probably missed some conversations. Where did the 90 mW/m2 come from? Where did the 20 m and +0.5 K figures comes from?
90 mW/m2 is the standard average for global heatflow. The fact that it is hot inside the earth, does not mean it gets out easily due to the huge insulation of rocks. Picture from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
Got it. Thanks. Yeah, 90 mW/m2 = 0.09 W/m2. I threw out 0.1 W/m2 because it was a nice round number. I just hadn’t seen the 90 mW/m2 used in this thread yet so was curious where it came from.
@bdgwx
As the picture from Hans shows, here it also not so easy just to give a simple average for the whole world. (The average temperature of earth that is being touted, excludes Antarctica and Greenland)
For example: There was recently volcanic activity on Pine Island and for the scientists admitted here that the heat from the eruptions melts the ice and makes the water warmer. The report says, “The Pine Island glacier is melting as a result of a volcanic heat source that researchers have found beneath the glacier in Antarctica. The volcanic activity was first noticed in 2007 and then verified in 2014. This volcanic activity was discovered by some scientists from the Graduate School of Oceanography Seas at the University of Rhode Island.’
So my point is: where, exactly, do you measure the outgoing flux of heat coming directly from earth?
Anyway, whether that flux is 0.1 or 0.4 W/m2 does not really make much difference to the argument I made earlier up the thread.
I will repeat it here, with the correct result for the temperature gradient which is confirmed from several sources as being at least 25K per km down.
Come down with me in a gold mine here. Feel the sweat appearing on your head and note the elephant in the room. By my books T (now) rises 25K per km down. In other words, to raise Tg (global) by 0,5K, I only need a small shift of the inside of earth of 0.5/25 x 1000 = 20 m
That is nothing. Now read my report again…..
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
HenryP said: “As the picture from Hans shows, here it also not so easy just to give a simple average for the whole world.”
If you already have the gridded data it is easy. You just do the area weighted average of the values in the grid cells. Getting the gridded data is the hard part.
HenryP said: “The average temperature of earth that is being touted, excludes Antarctica and Greenland”
The average temperature you cited here includes Antarctica and Greenland. GISTEMP, HadCRUTv5, BEST, and ERA are datasets that are full sphere as well.
HenryP said: “So my point is: where, exactly, do you measure the outgoing flux of heat coming directly from earth?”
On the grid mesh covering Earth.
HenryP said: “Anyway, whether that flux is 0.1 or 0.4 W/m2 does not really make much difference to the argument I made earlier up the thread.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re argument was that the warming could be explained by the geothermal flux. The fact that the geothermal flux is only 0.1 W/m2 sufficiently falsifies the hypothesis.
It is if no use debating with Henry as he refuses to study basic physics. Henry is a crackpot.
I have to apologize for the behavior of my countryman Hans Erren. Even though I admit he is knowledgeable in his field, he is terribly rude.
I don’t understand why WUWT does not remove comments that say nothing with regard to the subject and are clearly insulting and meant to be just inserted as an ad hominem attack.
HenryP said: “There is no warming effect as I have calculated from the IR spectrum and many others have come to the same conclusion, e.g.”
That’s the Siem & Olsen 2020 paper. There has been numerous discussions about their experiment with several egregious problems identified. 1) They are trying to cram many kilometers of CO2 effect into a 1 meter box. 2) They record -29.8 W/m2 at the front and only +17 W/m2 at the back. There is no discussion of where the -29.8 W/m2 at the front went or what effect the +17 W/m2 at the back had. How do you not get a temperature change with radiative perturbations that large? 3) Most egregiously there is no accounting for the missing 29.8 – 17 = 12.8 W/m2. It just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT.
Dear friend
I/we could go on debating several of your comments, but I think this one is crucial to the debate on CO2. Note that my most recent post on this was trying to get info together that most people can agree on, and then showing that even if that were all true, the effect would not constitute any disaster. I did, however, refer to my own measurements in that report, which you probably missed.
Now. That a Gh effect does exist is easily provable. After taking a shower and waiting to open the shower cabin for ten minutes, I notice that inside the shower cabin it is still warmer than outside. This proves that the transfer of heat is delayed by water vapor. A similar effect is claimed by CO2. But apparently you (and others, including Hans) claim that this cannot be proven by way of a small box experiment, or even in a big green house (where CO2 is added to get bigger tomatoes and bigger fruits).
Accepting that this is true, the effect must be measured on a much larger scale, with many meters, like you suggest, in the open sky.
Now. I did that, too. This is my report that you probably missed:
An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water
The CO2 warming factor does not fit in, anywhere….
And after that I studied the IR spectrum of CO2 and I realized that the warming properties of CO2 are just as much as the cooling properties. Study all of the references given here,
Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water
and if you see anything that is wrong, please let me know.
Let me see if I can convince you that polyatomic gas species (like CO2, H2O, CH4, etc) block infrared radiation by showing you what happens with H2O. This is convenient because H2O is not well-mixed and has a lot of variation.
Navigate to the GOES16 ABI radiometer display of the continental United States here. In the upper left click Product Overlays and select Temperature. Now select ABI band 10 in the left menu. This will show you how much 7.3 um radiation escapes to space and is recorded by the radiometer.
Focus on an isotherm (same temperature) and notice how higher amounts of water vapor are correlated strongly with lower amounts radiation received by the radiometer given the same surface emission flux. For example, as of 19:50Z the 70 F isotherm extends from the Gulf of Mexico up through Missouri yet the emission temperature (amount of 7.3 um radiation received by the radiometer) is higher in the south where there is less water vapor and lower in the north where there is more vapor. Also note that this is not an effect caused by clouds because you can switch the the visible band and observe no clouds along that isotherm.
As you can see water vapor (which is a powerful greenhouse gas) blocks a lot of radiation from escaping to space. CO2 is no different conceptually. It too blocks infrared radiation just in bands not entirely covered by water vapor. The same is true for CH4 and other polyatomic gas species in the atmosphere. There is nothing magical about CO2 that makes it immune from this effect.
Both CO2 an CH4 have absorption there where the sun emits predominantly and there where earth emits predominantly.
Where is your balancesheet, like the one I made for CO2?
I calculate a 14-16 um incoming band irradiance of 0.04 W/m2 and a 14-16 um outgoing band irradiance of 11.8 W/m2. CO2 blocks 295x more outgoing energy than incoming energy. What values do you get?
bdgwx
you are only looking at the 14-16.
What about the 1-2, 2-3 and 4-5, and what about the absorption in the UV, which is how we measure it on other planets?
So, CO2 and CH4 and H2O also blocks sunlight of high energy. That this true is evident from the Turnbull paper on the spectrum of a habitable earth,
pdf (iop.org)
check fig 6 bottom (CO2 is green, CH4 is yellow and H2O is blue)
(The radiation being blocked can be picked up again on earth via the moon)
I did a step for step analysis of the whole CO2 molecule, The results are shown in the first three rows of columns K,L and M
https://1drv.ms/x/s!At1HSpspVHO9pwve1lLJYfTXFWuB?e=CLr7Ak
I came out even. The energy CO2 blocks from the sun is more or less equal to the energy it traps from earth.
A very rough estimate of hHenry’s Law
The global temperature rose by about +4 degrees C. from 20000 years ago to 1850. The CO2 level increased from about 200ppm to 300ppm in that period.
Therefore, warming oceans could have accounted no more than a 25ppm CO2 increase per one degree C. of warming (+100ppm divided by +4 degrees C.)
Some of that +25ppm CO2 increase would be absorbed by biomass on Earth, so the +25ppm CO2 increase could be cut in half.
So roughly in line with his 16 ppm/Degree estimate.
I have a feeling that is isn’t as simplistic as Ferdinand suggests. In the tropics, not only is the solubility of CO2 in water less than at higher latitudes because of temperature, but the high evaporation rates causes the CO2 to become saturated and out-gass even if the water stays at 30 deg C. When the cold tropical rainwater comes back down, it is saturated with CO2 at a pH of about 5.5. There is then the issue of (bi)carbonate exchanges with carbonic acid.
As Eschenbach has illustrated, the oceans are temperature controlled. I dislike averages. A function incorporating temperature, pH, salinity, and windiness would be more to my liking.
It isn’t just temperature. The duration and velocity of winds will impact the out-gassing. Both evaporation and out-gassing are affected by altering the partial pressure at the water-air interface.
100 billion tons changes every year naturally from bicarbonate to CO2 there where it is warm and back again from CO2 to bicarbonate there where it is cold enough. Any calculations that donot include the relevant surface areas involved are doubtful IMHO and show a lack of understanding the actual problem of attributing certain values to a certain temperature interval.
It comes down to the realization that you cannot really determine the average global temperature.
HenryP said: “It comes down to the realization that you cannot really determine the average global temperature.”
Say what? Not only can we determine the average temperature of Earth, but we can do it for the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Sun and other astronomical bodies. We can even do it for some of the exoplanets!
I am sure that, just like Ferdinand, you can ‘calculate’ anything you want to know. Thereby you forget that science is about measuring first….
CO2 – Angel or Demon? | Bread on the water
I read your blog post. As far as I can tell there was nothing in there about the global average temperature being undeterminable. In fact, it actually seemed like you were implying in the commentary that it is determinable. I’m really confused as to what your position is on the matter.
BTW…I saw your comment at the bottom. That is pretty cool that you have a charity helping orphaned children. The world is a better place because of people like you.
Please read my reply to you earlier up the thread.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Oh. Here is Hans Erren. On the usual ad hominem war path again.
“The result suggests that radiative forcing by CO2 alone can account for only about half of the measured global warming.“
This paper simply calculates the no feedback component of the greenhouse effect. As the abstract and conclusion say, they then have to work out the feedbacks. No surprises there.
Lets do a nit-pick Nick … the paper simply MODELS the no feedback component of the greenhouse effect. The quality of the MODEL is as much up in the air as the proposed feedbacks.
“The quality of the MODEL is as much up in the air”
This is a funny pattern at WUWT. A paper is announced, which is supposed to be scientists undermining AGW. But the commentariat doesn’t read what they actually say. Instead they notice that it seems to be written by scientists, and attack it accordingly.
Think you missed the memo I don’t have a side of the climate science … I find the whole field toxic on both sides.
As I stated below emissions will continue to rise until well after you and I are both dead so worrying about this garbage is pointless.
Except that all the no feedback models now assume 1.2K+ warming from CO2 alone.
That is 1.2K for CO2 doubling, when equilibrium is reached. Nothing to do with this study.
They derive direct no feedback at .26K
Nick, the problem is that the supposed positive feedback’s, especially from water vapor, are not found where they should have their largest effect: in the higher troposphere of the tropics…
Moreover, the AR6 models show a lot of year by year variability, while the real atmosphere shows a modest variability. That means that the models lack negative feedback’s, which do operate in the real world…
Yep, this “paper” is more of a joke.
I agree. It is a back of the envelope calculation by a couple of chemical engineers, scarcely a publishable research paper. So why is WUWT promoting it?
Then, by your reasoning, we should discount anything from Michael Mann whose background is really in geology and solid-state geophysics.
Since the science shows that negative feedbacks dominate the climate, all you are saying is that the actual warming due to CO2 is even less than 0.64C.
It’s missing the feedbacks that nobody can show exist?
If they did that, CO2 would account for none of the warming.
Which is what observations support.
The first paper mentions feedbacks. The second paper specifically remarks about the concern over black carbon air pollution.
So that makes the climate sensitivity what ?
280 to 410 ppm for a 1.2 max degree rise
and only half of that
NOT A PROBLEM
Really doesn’t matter if it is a problem or not the world CO2 emissions are still rising and will continue to do as China, India and South Asia modernize.
Yes the world CO2 level is rising, thank goodness for that, well thank the desire of most people to live healthy fulfilling lives, in reality.
Winter in October in the north of the US.
Yep, there are some heating degree days in the upper Midwest and the LEast Coast.
Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to become warmer – because, as Tyndall’s experiment showed, CO2 absorbs at wavelengths corresponding to 400°C and 800°C
Primarily because the sun is hotter than the atmosphere.
Earth’s surface radiates very little at those temps.
Earth’s surface can heat the atmosphere radiatively, because it is (on average) warmer. The 2nd Law allows that.
A significant (let’s be diplomatic here) error comes from saying that the atmosphere is transparent to both solar radiations and infra-red emittings from the surface.
It is a Flat Out Lie – a lie by omission as it is very difficult, nigh on impossible, to find any actual figures for what Oxygen & Nitrogen do absorb. Just low resolution hedgehog style graphics.
But it is considerable, hence why you can stare into a sun-rise or a sunset but not the mid-day sun
They do absorb because they emit, they are the very working principle of Roy Spencer’s ‘microwave sounders’ and how he calculates his monthly figures for temperature.
The notion of feedback or esp positive feedback is pure insanity
So CO2 absorbs at 15micron or minus 79°C. The common misunderstanding is that the original absorbed energy (photon) can be ‘re-emitted in all directions‘
Wrong.
The process of absorption is exactly the workings of a Carnot Heat Engine.
Actual (electromagnetic) energy is converted to mechanical energy
i.e. Some of the energy is absorbed/retained by the molecule and some is released at a lower temperature. The original photon is completely destroyed and becomes 2 ‘energy packets’ of photons – both of longer wavelength (lower temp) than the original while the sum of their energies equals that of the original.
The original photon is lost/destroyed in the absorption process.
Neither of those new photons can return to where the original came from.
Well yes they can but they can not be absorbed. They can have no effect on the energy content (thus temp) of the source of the original. Eirther by actual heating or by slowing the rate of cooling. Same thing really.
There is no feedback, there is no ‘net flow’ Energy always always always flows from hot to cold.
Never the reverse.
Radiation is a perfectly completely and absolutely different mechanism from Conduction or Convection
Thus the idea of ‘Forcing’ is garbage.
Only objects with high temps can force objects at lower temps.
The only object in the sky that can force Earth’s surface is the sun.
Akin to connecting a 6 Volt power supply to a 12 Volt battery and expecting the former to add energy (charge or force) the latter.
Yet when a Climate Scientist says it will happen, everybody bows down, tugs their forelocks and bends over backwards.
WTF is going on here?
Let alone CO2 doing any forcing at the temps and pressures found anywhere inside Earth’s atmosphere.
Its emissivity in that situation is hardly even measurable. CO2 effectively does not radiate from with Earth’s atmosphere.
Yes, inside boilers, furnaces and engines of all sorts, CO2 does have significant emissivity – but in the atmosphere, it has none.
The notion of feedback or esp positive feedback is pure insanity but is required by the explanation of the Green House Effect in order to achieve ‘atmospheric’ or CO2 forcing.
The mere use of the word ‘Feedback’ tells you it is garbage – it is telling you that energy is going ‘back’ or up the thermal gradient
And ‘positive’ feedback is childish, simplistic and naive in the extreme.
That that alone is required tells any clear thinking soul what nonsense this thing is.
Of course The Confusion (Disneyfication) comes from looking at, lets say, a conventional audio amplifier.
i.e. A small signal goes in, an larger copy of that comes out and is in phase with the original
It is vital to realise how that amplifier does not use neither ‘positive feedback’ but especially, how its workings do not violate Entropy
It’s the same question Sadi Carnot asked but in reverse.
He wondered where the energy went inside energy-to-mechanical conversions, but in the audio amp, where does the energy come from to provide the apparent positive signal gain or feedback.
Basically, the atmosphere does not have wall-sockets containing electricity – or ‘power’ in its broadest sense.
The only way the Green House Effect can be valid, as commonly explained, is for there to be a place, time or object in this universe at a temperature of zero Kelvin.
Meaning that all energy to mechanical conversions, forward and reverse, would be 100% efficient.
But if that were the case and assuming a Big Bang, the universe would never have cooled to what we witness today
So CO2 absorbs at 15micron or minus 79°C.
____________________________________
The temperature of dry ice. But dry ice does radiate. It isn’t the nearly absolute zero radiation from outer space, and it does prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling off as fast as it would if it weren’t there. The sun at 5500 C makes up the difference and the surface enjoys a modest amount of warming as a result.
Peta, I think that this dissertation well and truly proves that eschewing alcohol and carbohydrates is not the panacea for clear headed thinking that you tend to go on and on about from time to time.
Peta,
I don’t know where you have read that all, but it is anyway far from reality…
“So CO2 absorbs at 15micron or minus 79°C. The common misunderstanding is that the original absorbed energy (photon) can be ‘re-emitted in all directions‘”
CO2 absorbs at 10 and 15 micron, but also re-radiates in the same wavelengths with the same energy per photon (as that is frequency dependent), indeed in all directions. Whatever its own temperature or of its surroundings.
The vibration energy from the absorption may be transferred to other molecules by collisions before the CO2 molecule can re-radiate, but that is a matter of density of the atmosphere. The opposite also occurs.
The peak frequency and the total energy of any object above 0 K indeed depends of its temperature, but such a continuous frequency spectrum only is true for solid and liquid materials not for gases!
The reason why is nicely explained here in the answer no. 1:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
Gases like O2 and N2 don’t absorb in the main frequency band emitted by the earth’s temperature, but GHGs do absorb in very specific wavelengths, independent of their own temperature…
“Neither of those new photons can return to where the original came from.
Well yes they can but they can not be absorbed.”
If that were true, how do you think that a CO2 laser can melt steel at 1200°C, while the laser itself is cooled to maximum 100°C and the beam of around 10 micron should have zero effect on anything in the room?
https://physicswave.com/carbon-dioxide-laser-construction-and-working/
Only recently has it been learned that collision induced absorption, e.g. from O2-O2, plays a role in earth’s energy budget.
https://blogs.iu.edu/sciu/2017/09/05/oxygen/
Got a reference for the 10 micron absorption by CO2? I find none.
A CO2 laser emits at 10microns, it’s powered by electricity.
The only way the Green House Effect can be valid, as commonly explained, is for there to be a place, time or object in this universe at a temperature of zero Kelvin.
You should have your head examined by a doctor.
I’m optimistic, they will find nothing.
You spout alt-science claptrap!
CO2 absorbs at 15 microns regardless of the temperature. A spectrum of the Sun taken at ground level shows absorption bands at 15 microns and other wavelengths.
EM from the Sun or ground is a distribution of wavelengths, like a mis-shapen bell curve, and 15 microns is a thin slice of it.
However, climate scientists seem to fixate on radiative transfer and forget that conductive and convective processes are much stronger, or even exist.
For a very good reason, heat transfer to space by conduction and convection is zero.
Peta of Newark: “So CO2 absorbs at 15micron or minus 79°C.”
False. CO2 absorbs 15 um at all temperatures within the gas phase.
Peta of Newark: “Only objects with high temps can force objects at lower temps.”
False. The door on my oven is at a lower temperature than the inside of my oven yet if I close the door it will force the temperature of the inside to a higher value. I encourage you to do the experiment and verify this yourself.
Peta of Newark: “CO2 effectively does not radiate from with Earth’s atmosphere.”
False. The fact that CO2 both absorbs and radiates within Earth’s atmosphere is exploited to measure its concentration via NDIR (non dispersive infrared) and CDRS (cavity ring down spectroscopy) instruments (albeit tuned to the major vibrational band at 4.3 um). It is also exploited by the GOES ABI radiometer via channel 16 (albeit tuned to the minor vibrational band at 13.3 um) for meteorological applications.
Peta of Newark: “The only way the Green House Effect can be valid, as commonly explained, is for there to be a place, time or object in this universe at a temperature of zero Kelvin.”
False. The GHE is defined as the difference in surface temperature (or surface upwelling infrared radiation) between the Earth as it is and a hypothetical Earth with everything kept exactly the same except for the downwelling infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere. This value is approximately 33 K (or 155 W/m2).
Your equating 15 micron radiation with -79ºC is completely flawed there is no such relationship between wavelength and temperature.
In other “news” from a decade ago…
Meteor rocks Chelyabinsk, Russia
Edward Snowden leaks classified NSA wiretapping information
President Obama to speak about recent Boston Marathon bombing
The good news never ends.
I’m sick of new “we know the truth about climate change” studies.
There are many causes of climate change, both manmade and natural
No one knows the exact effects of each variable
So no one knows the exact effect of CO2.
We do know the estimated +50% rise of CO2 since 1850 was accompanies by a roughly +1 degree C. increase of the global average temperature. Data for CO2 and temperature in 1850 are very rough estimates, not accurate measurements, but let’s just assume there was a +1 degree C, warming in the past 172 years.
And let’s assume CO2 increases caused some unknown percentage of that warming. A worst case estimate would be to claim CO2 caused all of the warming since 1850. And natural causes of climate change had no effect at all. Even if that worst case estimate was true, which is unlikely, we need to calm down, sit back, and carefully analyze what we know from observations. Which I have done for the past 25 years. And the logical conclusion is obvious: We are doomed here on Earth. We should all pack our bags and move to other planets.
Richard says:”There are many causes of climate change, both manmade and natural.”
When did the human part commence and how do we tell the difference?
Deforestation, anyone?
Land use changes can change the climate. IMO, land use changes account for much of the observed warming. The Urban Heat Island is underestimated by the warm-mongers.
Doesn’t answer the question.
Good questions.
100x 👍
Alarmists keep saying the science is settled, etc., but the actual science, the collected data, says we have nothing to fear, in fact I would hope that the gentle warming continues for another 172 years – expect I would have to put up with the alarmist racket. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses eventually gave up on their doomsday predictions, but climate bed-wetters just keep upping the volume on the stupid.
This trucker started running into snow late last night on I-70 westbound coming out of Vandalia, OH and heading to my home terminal in Anderson, IN. Big white flakes and plenty of them, a real snow flurry in the middle of October!
When I walked in the door at home I got myself something to eat and checked my e-mail and the news online. At 02:00 I got up and headed to bed and the big puffy white flakes were really coming down outside.
Of course the ground is too warm for it to stick and the temp at that time was about 35 deg. F., but SNOW in mid October in the lowlands of central Ohio and Indiana! Been awhile since I’ve seen that! Gotta feelin it’s gonna be a long, long winter for this driver!
With inflation and NG prices doing what they are I bought a fireplace insert a couple months ago. I had it installed by the certified chimney sweep we have always used.
I tried it out and after pulling the blower unit which wasn’t kicking in and checking it out and reinstalling it, it’s working great. So quiet that you have to be close enough to feel the hot blowing air before you hear the blower even when it is on as high as it will go.
The plan is to turn off the furnace and just leave the HVAC blower running to distribute the heat through the house but I await colder weather to see how effective that will be.
I’ve got about $4,100 in the unit installed. My wood source is. free, I just have to go get it, cut the relatively few pieces that are too long and split some that are not small enough and stack it in the lean-to I built on the back of my detached garage. All hardwoods, Oak, Ash, Walnut, Hickory, with half of it already split and cured for a year and the other half cut and split spring of this year. I already have a stack 5′ high and 32′ long laid in and that is half of what I expect to lay in before it really gets cold. I have enough room for 4 rows like that stacked 6′ high if I want. The one year cured stuff stacked on the right and less cured on the left.
I figure that thing is easily going to pay for itself in two winters even if it doesn’t heat the whole house effectively but only the parts we spend most of our time in.
Sounds like you are ready!
I think so. I even bought a wood moisture tester. This winter is the only time I should need it though. After that all the wood should be plenty cured and I can just grab the grayest pieces.
I’ll just alternate the side I stack the wood that needs a year to cure on. Since it is a relatively small insert the wood is split smaller and that allows it to cure faster.
In the end, the government can do what it wants about fossil fuels. But people, including me, are going to do what they can to hold onto to the hard earned wealth we have. And if a part of those efforts means burning a lot of wood to help heat our homes instead of the occasional fire in the fireplace for ambiance, then so be it.
Stay alert for agitation to require a catalyst on your chimney or outright bans on wood burning, as has happened in California.
Indiana is generally dominated by more conservative types and if they do make such a law eventually it would probably grandfather in non-catalytic types.
After I fired it up yesterday both Geisha the cocker and Gabby the cat plopped down in front of it before the blower even kicked in. They share sunbeams also.
You still have ash trees left in Indiana?
Yep! A lot of them got taken out, but not all. Ash is an excellent hard wood for wood working. Hard to tell cut ash from some species of oak just by looking at the grain. The fact is that Ash has not just been decimated by the emerald ash borer but also several other diseases. The perfect storm in a lot of places. But in my part of Indiana there are still stands of healthy trees.
The answer is very easy to find. Just Google this … How much did “man-made” CO2 alter earth’s temperature last years?
around 2040 , we expect to have a solar minimum and also an AMO cycle minimum, which will give us the opportunity to measure the exact part of CO2 effect …
wait and see …
The paper was published and sponsored by the International Federation of Automatic Control which is primarily focused on controlling devices. What is an institution focused on control system and other forms of automation doing publishing non peer reviewed papers regarding the climate that use other blogs and Wikipedia as primary sources? How is this not spam?
How did non published a Tavistock tripe end up in IPCC reports? Why do you think the IPCC is credible?
utter nonsense, saying co2 caused half of warming is stupid, false and NOT rational…..co2has no such power, NO “insulator” has the power to add warmth to any system.
Bill Taylor: “NO “insulator” has the power to add warmth to any system.”
Say what?
give one example of any insulator adding heat to any system please…..insulator slow the movement of heat energy they do NOT “add” any heat in any way.
My oven. When I add an insulator (close the door). It gets warmer (or “warmth” gets added to the system) such that ΔT > 0. It does this by adding energy to the system.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I did not say the insulator adds energy to the system by increasing Ein. I also didn’t say the insulator adds heat. What I will say is that it (insulator) adds energy to the system by decreasing Eout. The burners still provide the heat. The point is that insulators DO have the power to add warmth (ΔT > 0) to any system.
Also, I think you’re playing it too loose with terminology. Warmth, heat, and energy are all different things. Warmth is the temperature of a body. Energy is the ability to do work. Heat is the net transfer of energy. Do not conflate these concepts.
TY for the example, you are saying that even when turned OFF adding insulation to my oven would make it warmer which is IDIOCY…….nothing to be gained at this point….science fact = slowing the loss of heat is NOT adding heat to a system.
Bill Taylor: “you are saying that even when turned OFF adding insulation to my oven would make it warmer”
I said no such thing. In fact, I even said the burners provide the heat. Obviously the oven is ON.
And if you think adding insulation to your oven by closing the door and observing ΔT > 0 is “IDIOCY” then I invite you to do the experiment and prove me and the 1st law of thermodynamics wrong.
“ It does this by adding energy to the system.” (It being the insulator.)
“I did not say the insulator adds energy to the system…”.
You chastise people for conflating terms then you describe a system where electrical work is done on the system to increase the internal energy and you call it heat. Heat requires there be a difference in temperature to cross the boundary and an insulated stove prevents that.
I think Bill has it correct there is no “adding” by closing the door. You can’t write an equation showing “door energy”.
ty for you effort, i attempt to explain things in the simplest terms possible…but some refuse to learn in this example closing an oven door even when it is on is NOT the insulator making it warmer(adding heat) it is the heating elements in the oven making to warmer now because the insulator slowed the loss of warmth when the door closed but the act of closing the door as i have explained added NOTHING heat, warmth or energy to the system/oven.
First, let me fix the quote for you…
If you’re going to quote me then do it right. By truncating what I actually said here you completely changed the meaning in this case. I don’t have a problem with truncating people’s statement. What I have problem with is doing so to change the meaning of what they actually said. That’s dishonest.
mkelley said: “You chastise people for conflating terms then you describe a system where electrical work is done on the system to increase the internal energy and you call it heat.”
I didn’t say that. I didn’t even use the word “electrical”. What I said is that the burners provide the heat. And I standby that statement. The burners are warmer than the oven itself therefore there is a net transfer of energy from the burners to the oven. That is the source of heat being supplied to the oven.
mkelley said: “I think Bill has it correct there is no “adding” by closing the door.”
You don’t think warmth is added (ΔT > 0) to oven when you shut the door? Really?
mkelley said: “You can’t write an equation showing “door energy”.”
Oh yes I can. It’s called the 1st law of thermodynamics. It’s ΔE = Ein – Eout. When you close that door Eout decreases without significantly changing Ein. Therefore ΔE > 0. Energy is now accumulating in the oven and it because that door was closed. And because ΔT = ΔE/c*p we know that ΔT > 0 as well. Closing that door caused both energy and warmth to get added to the oven. That is the law of conservation of energy.
You don’t have to use the word electrical you used the word burners. Same same. If gas it could be chemical work.
Here is a picture from a thermodynamics book describing what you brought up. It is electric work. And it is as I wrote.
Only work or heat can cross a boundary and heat requires a temperature difference.
Your equation does not have a “door energy” as I stated because the door add no energy as you stated.
No the element added the energy the door is a boundary and adds nothing.
mkelley said: “Your equation does not have a “door energy” as I stated because the door add no energy as you stated.”
I’ll repeat..again..the door does not add energy to the oven by increasing Ein. It adds energy to the oven by decreasing Eout. I made that abundantly clear from the very beginning.
And the equation does have a “door energy” component. Both Ein and Eout are shorthand for Ein = Σ[Ein_i, 1, N] and Eout = Σ[Eout_i, 1, N] where Ein_i and Eout_i are the individual components of all energy transfers. The door definitely has an Ein component. It’s just that Ein_door = Ein_outside so when the door shields the oven from the outside you remove the Ein_outside component and replace it with the Ein_door component. And since they are equal the total Ein does not change.
I cannot stress this enough. The law of conservation of energy and thus the accounting of all Ein and Eout are essential in analyzing thermodynamic systems. And the law says in no uncertain terms that energy can be added to a system not only through an increase in Ein but also through a decrease in Eout. And anything that modulates either is a cause of energy being added to the system. Closing that door changes Eout therefore it is a cause of energy (E) and warmth (T) being added to the system such that ΔE > 0 and ΔT > 0.
what you posted is that if a person has a bucket of water and is slowly pouring it out then they slow way down on how much they are pouring out that THAT is ADDING water to the bucket by decreasing the outflow which is IDIOCY….you are wrong and lack the basic sense to understand that reality.
I didn’t say that. Just simply having a bucket of water in stasis and then tipping it to pour some out would subtract mass from the bucket; not add it. Your argument is a strawman. Just know that you created it so you own it. Don’t pin that on me.
I do like the leaky bucket model though. I use it all of the time. Let’s go with it here to. Consider a bucket with a spigot at the top and a drain at the bottom. The spigot and drain are open in such a manner that the mass of water going in Min and going out Mout in a period of time are equal such that Min = Mout. Water mass was not added or subtracted from the bucket during that time because the inflow and outflow are matched.
But at some point you decide that you want to add mass M to the bucket. Because you understand the law of conservation of mass you know that ΔM = Min – Mout and decide that instead of increasing Min you decrease Mout so you close the valve on the drain. The action of closing the drain valve causes mass get to added to the bucket because ΔMout < 0 which means Min > Mout and thus ΔM > 0. That is the law of conservation of mass and has a nearly exact equivalency to the law of conservation of energy.
You can call that “IDIOCY” all you want. It does not change the fact that the law of conservation of mass or energy is an unassailable underpinning of reality.
Bill, technically the Sun adds the warmth….if you have a 100 watt light bulb in a box, and add more insulation to the box, the inside of the box is going to get warmer….but an analogy of CO2 to insulation isn’t really good….
it is the accurate analogy, they are saying the greenhouse effect (which is INSULATING effect) is causing an increase on the total warmth of this planet and it is NOT doing that, it is slowing the movement of the energy through our atmosphere which indeed does hold more warmth than there would be with no insulation but again it is ADDING NO HEAT to the system…..with no atmosphere the “average” temperature would be close to the same but it would be extremely hot in the day and extremely cold at night, on average about the same but the heat energy entering and leaving far faster than it does with an atmosphere.
You’re conflating the concepts of warmth (temperature), energy (ability to do work), and heat (net transfer of energy) here. Insulators definitely cause warming (or add warmth) to a system such that ΔT > 0.
Also, the Moon does not have an atmosphere. It’s albedo is also less than that of the Earth. Yet it’s average temperature is about 200 K as compared to the Earth of 289 K.
What is the max temperature of the moon?
also the moon does have an atmosphere not much but it does have some.
mkelly said: “What is the max temperature of the moon?”
About 400 K. See Williams et al. 2017 for more information.
If you have a 100 watt light bulb in a box, you have a heat SOURCE *inside* the box. The Sun is not inside the Earth’s atmosphere, so you have provided a poor analogy.
No matter how many blankets you put on your bed, if it’s in a cool room on a cold night the sheets underneath won’t be warm, until after YOU (aka the heat source) get in.
An insulator *adds* NO heat, all it can do is reduce heat LOSS.
if i may a tiny addition to your point indeed the sun is outside our atmosphere which means some of its energy is blocked from our surface by the atmosphere. but inside their box the entire output of energy from the bulb is inside the box
And that is STILL nothing but a top-end, hypothetical “potential” contribution, as it is still incorporating the foundational assumption “ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL,” the ONLY way CO2 has any temperature effect at all.
The atmosphere is dominated by condensation-induced dynamics. Phase changes of water. It drives the winds, turbulence, and dynamic transport of heat and mass.
Arguing (for how many decades now?) about CO2 ECS, will never get anywhere close to adequately describing the system. A low ECS is not in any way suggestive of a small amount of climate change, nor is a high ECS suggestive of a large amount of climate change. What is climate change anyway? More or less drought, and flood? More or less contrasts of warm and cold? ok.
The changes to water cycle, irrespective of CO2, has never been computed. Only the supposed feedback of water cycles to GHG forcing is computed, using grossly simplified temperature water vapour relationships.
These are two very different things. The direct perturbation of water cycles has never been computer. Imagine that.
The massive ambiguity of water cycles is by far the largest uncertainty of future climate projection, and yet it is studied in practically zero detail. Too complicated, they say. It all just evens out….
For example, the massive drainage, devegetation, and dessication of the terrestrial surface clearly disrupts large-scale circulation and moisture transport. Land areas shift to a sensible heat regime, and warm up. Dust and aerosol pollution disrupt cloud condensation process aloft. The winds and pressure perturbed. Greater land-ocean temperature contrast, and disrupted moisture transport from ocean to land. Anti-cyclones parked over the continents. Hmmmm. Now you’ve really changed climates.
Everything about everything to do with climates is about water dynamics. High temperature? water. Drought? water. Flood? water. Lower temperature? water. Low wind? water High wind? water. Aint nobody lookin at it.
What a waste of time to be so obsessed with CO2 forcings and feedbacks, spinning our wheels for decades. Two camps with no clue. One saying no CO2 effect therefore no climate change? wrong. The other saying it’s really about meddling with trace gas concentration? wrong. Others saying all natural? wrong. Others trying to reduce climate changes to a single causal factor? wrong. There are endless factors influencing condensation-induced dynamics.
JCM says:” One saying no CO2 effect therefore no climate change?”
Not at all. I am saying CO2 doesn’t cause climate change. The climate has changed over thousands of years, but not due to CO2.
Your selection of the time magnitude of thousands of years suggests your hypothesis relates to the first instances of human caused climate changes during the earliest agrarian societies 5000 years ago. You might be right. The landscapes of the Indus Valley, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Supe-Caral Chico civilizations are today desertified ruin.
Closer to 0, but at least in the right direction.
They cannot even claim half of warming is from CO2.
First, it is a trace gas and simply cannot do what they say.
Second, their “science” claims it is CO2 and water vapor in the upper tropical troposphere that is warming Earth’s surface. Since the surface is 15 deg C and the upper tropical troposphere is minus-17 deg C, it is impossible for any IR radiation sent downward to warm a warmer surface.
Third, all these wrong climate com[puter models use only CO2 to cause warming and ignore over 50 other major natural factors.
Fourth, the models have sunshine 24/7 and completely ignore that at any given time half that half of the planet is cooling (at night).
Fifth, the temperature record is defective because of the dropout of many rural sites and purposeful warming of data from the already urban heat island effected urban sites. We stopped warming in 1989 and have been cooling gently since 2002 and more actively since 2006.
Bottomline is that no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the climate. It’s that simple. Any policies aimed at decreasing CO2 is anti-plant and bad for the planet (CO2 increases are greening the planet) and bad for us. CO2 is PLANT FOOD!
prepare for attacks for daring to use truth and simple common sense.
Charles Higley said: “Since the surface is 15 deg C and the upper tropical troposphere is minus-17 deg C, it is impossible for any IR radiation sent downward to warm a warmer surface.”
False. There is no law that says the placement of a cool body cannot cause a warm body to get warmer. On the contrary there are laws that say if the placement of the cool body is shielding the warm body from an even colder body then the warm body must warm. Do not misinterpret what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. All the 2LOT says is that heat (net transfer of energy) is from warm to cool when the system is evolving by its own means.
And if you don’t believe what is being said here then I invite you to do the experiment proving it for yourself. Turn your oven on high (so that it doesn’t cycle) with the door open and wait for the thermometer inside to achieve the new steady-state. Now close door. The door is cooler than the inside yet it will still cause the inside to warmer.
The reason why this happens is because the action of closing the door causes Eout to decrease without significantly changing Ein. Per the 1LOT we know that ΔE = Ein – Eout and that when ΔEout < 0 and ΔEin = 0 then ΔE > 0. And per the heat capacity formula ΔT = ΔE/m*c we know that ΔT > 0 when ΔE > 0. Everything is still consistent with the 2LOT as well because heat (the net transfer of energy) is still in the direction burner (hot) => inside (warm) => outside (cool).
The atmosphere is no different. When you place a body at -17 C between a body at 15 C and a body at -270 C the body at 15 C will be forced to warm. The flow of heat is still sun (hot) => surface (warm) => atmosphere (cool) => space (cold) so it is consistent with the 2LOT.
This is false. All 2LOT says is that a cold body cannot influence a warmer body without something else also happening. 2LOT is about entropy, to make sense of energy conservation. There is no 1LOT without 2LOT in nature.
This is the best consolidated version of consensus ideology on climate. It is where they consolidate their case:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y
The consensus is that one of two things can happen with increased initial atmospheric opacity:
“the reduced radiative energy flux must be compensated through increased temperatures or altered latent/sensible heat fluxes.”
This is yet to be resolved in consensus, because nobody is quite interested in boundary layer and surface process. Temperature can rise, or something else can happen.
“In the lower PBL, the main energy transport takes place through small-scale turbulence with short time scales which may not be well represented by monthly mean values from the atmospheric model used for the reanalysis. Furthermore, the PBL w may not have been assimilated well, due to scarce observations for that level and the incomplete understanding of this lowest layer of air.”
This means that we have very little understanding of the boundary layer, particularly in global process. No GCM can yet simulate these processes.
“The consideration of the vertical energy flow, where latent heat transfer and convective processes compensate for reduced IR energy transfer, entangles the GHE with the hydrological cycle. Radiation-transfer considerations alone do not provide a complete picture of the real situation connected to the AGW, as convection and latent heat both set the atmosphere’s vertical temperature profile and involve evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. ”
It is widely recognized that with an unlimited supply of water the climate system is quite insensitive to minor perturbations to radiative opacity. Convection easily compensates. The question is then how the system responds when there is a limitation of water, such as the complex nature of the Earth system.
“The radiative equilibrium temperature gradient (Manabe and Strickler 1964) is also unstable in the troposphere (the temperature decreases with altitude), and convection sets in and takes over a significant amount of the vertical energy flow. Whereas the added opacity will act to restrict the flow of radiative energy transport, convection will not allow the temperature gradient to increase. In other words, a bigger share of the 240 W/m 2 of the vertical energy transport will be transported by convective/advective means with a stronger GHE, and a smaller share by radiative means because the sum of convective vertical energy transport plus the diminished radiative flux must add up to about 240 W/m 2 in order to balance the incoming shortwave radiation.”
None of this is resolved, in spite of efforts to glaze over it. Furthermore, nothing yet of the direct human perturbation to surface moisture and biologically mediated cloud nucleation, and atmospheric transport is factored into any GCM or discussion of climates. It is assumed to not exist.
There is no use to selling the notion that AGW is easily explained by a law and that any dummy must accept it. It just isn’t so. One can concede a radiative effect of gases and also no temperature rise. One can also concede that perturbed boundary layer process and convection has caused a temperature rise. With or without a radiative effect. There are still a million things to figure out, in spite of efforts to glaze over such problems. In spite of the wide ridicule of people who dare ask questions or dig further into these things.
If it was all so simples, that it could be reduced by a law to a simple linear equation there would be no need to resort to GCMs for ECS concepts. ECS would be known. But it is not so, ECS is not known, and the GCMs are not yet resolving the question. They are not converging. Furthermore, the GCMs have not yet even factored in the direct human disturbance of landscapes and resulting direct perturbation to boundary layer fluxes, condensation, and atmospheric transport dynamics. So ECS is really really not known.
Anyone who claims any of this is simple is kidding themselves. Anyone who claims the system can be reduced to simple concepts is plainly wrong. Anyone who claims the science is settled in any manner suitable for policies which are disrupting global economic systems, without ongoing critical debate, needs to check themselves. Anyone who lumps critics automatically into conspiracy theorist circles or into a certain political ideology has completely misunderstood the meaning of science, science communication, integrity, humility, policy development process, and critical inquiry.
JCM said: “This is false.”
It is true. Do the experiment yourself. Turn on your oven, leave the door open, and let the thermometer on the inside achieve steady-state. Now close door. I promise you the door, which is cooler than the inside but shielding the inside from the colder outside, will cause the thermometer to warm. The physical principals in play are the 1LOT (ΔE = Ein – Eout) and heat capacity (ΔT = ΔE/m*c).
I have not been reading about whatever you’re doing with your oven. But if you’re interested in a relevant discussion for thermodynamic process in the climate system give me a shout. I just hone in on people misusing and abusing thermodynamic concepts to make phony arguments for open thermodynamic systems.
they just claimed the DOOR itself warmed the oven which is pure IDIOCY……you have no chance using truth science and fact against that few peoples religion…..
I’m more than happy to discuss energy in the context of the climate system with you or anyone else. But over the years I’ve learned that I have convince people to accept the 1st law of thermodynamics first or the conversation goes nowhere.
It is an unassailable fact. When ΔEin > ΔEout then ΔE > 0. Energy can be added to a system not only by increasing Ein, but also by decreasing Eout. That is a fact so well tested and not once found to be untrue that it has been given the special designation as the 1st law of thermodynamics.
congrats you have passed a unit of introductory physics. The trouble comes when determining how and when you apply the elementary concepts you have learned, when it is appropriate. and when it is not. This isn’t always easy. The atmosphere is a thermodynamic system dominated by dynamics of turbulence and convection. mass is free to exchange between the boundary layer and free atmosphere. this alone influences radiation budgets observed by transmitting energy to different parts of the atmosphere, both vertically and horizontally. This has consequences for your ΔEin > ΔEout. restricting oneself to radiation flux mechanisms, and blankets/doors/ceilings analogies, creates a huge gap of comprehension which is quite common in the climate space i’ve discovered. It omits the massive flows of heat and mass by non-radiative means. It is a flawed mental model. Neural pathways have somehow been restricted. I think it has resulted from the ease of observing changes to radiation flux with IR sensors, but says nothing of the mechanisms of change. If one was offered a magical instrument such as a handheld latent flux sensor or total convection sensor I suspect the conclusions might be different. But for some it’s too late. The neural pathways have been entrenched. Alternatively, amateurs are trying to engage in a dialogue for which they are clearly not qualified, revealing their flawed understanding by recommending such poor and inapplicable experimental designs as closing oven doors. It serves to create a mockery of the subject, and comes off as an insincere attempt. The most important lesson for any scientists is to recognize there are things they do not yet understand. It is the uneducated person who believes he has the answers. Repeatedly blasting the same clearly flawed arguments is revealing of this lack of humility. Someone who has not yet been appropriately schooled.
Isn’t the question with the oven that makes it analogous to the earth’s surface temperature the following: does the temperature of the radiating element in the oven change as the door is opened and closed. I would say no.
What I find strange about these discussions is the sole focus on radiative transfer theory. Its as if atmospheric mass in a unit of volume and the earth’s gravitational field play no role in either the surface temperature of the earth or the atmospheric temperature gradiant. Strange.
What happens to surface temperature if N2 is increased/decreased by 20%?
The reason why it is analogous is because the heat flow chain is the same (conceptually). They are both Input (sun/burner) => Bulk (geosphere/inside) => Insulator (GHGs/enclosure) => Output (space/outside). The temperature of the bulk increases as the effectiveness of the insulator increases.
Mass and gravity do affect the temperature of Earth just as mass and material composition affect the temperature of the oven.
You’re last question is a good one. I’ve never thought about it before or seen commentary regarding it. I’m going to have to think about it.
A mental model of a solid static impenetrable atmosphere forcing the surface is a poor launching pad for conceptualizing climates. The radiative effects are inextricable from the atmospheric dynamic motions and heat transport. The atmosphere is free to transport mass and heat anywhere to optimize radiative balances. It does not sit solid flat and static. The system responds to any radiative perturbation, by various means. Questions remain about the thermodynamic constraints on these processes.
Your fundamental mistake is that you are only considering energy flow between the surface and the atmosphere. That’s not the point, the temperature of the Earth’s system as a whole depends on energy from the sun and heat loss to space, the loss to space only involves radiation. When you look at the upward heat flux at the ToA you’ll see that there is a large dip around 667cm-1, exactly where CO2 absorbs.
curve_s2.gif
I do not dispute any of that. However, it is an error to reduce flux delivery mechanisms to radiation. A wide variety of mechanisms are involved in delivering energy to the effective radiating height. This energy is then observed as radiation in OLR, of course. The all-sky peak Wien frequency of OLR is centered on a frequency corresponding to 273.15K. You can put radiative absorption bands where ever you want, it says nothing of diffuse broadband emission perturbations elsewhere in the spectrum. This of course does not preclude or negate a notion radiative forcing, it is only meant to highlight the dynamic nature of our atmosphere. That the emission characteristics of OLR spectra depend on many properties, radiative and non-radiative.
For the analogy of an oven door, this proposes we are living inside the door itself, in a mass that is rigid. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The relevance of the 273.15K value is that it is the triple point of water. condensation/vaporization of water has nothing to do with radiative absorption characteristics of gases, but it impacts what is observed in OLR. This is one small example of how non radiative processes influence the characteristics of radiation observables, such as frequency and intensity of spectra.
It promises to be a very hard winter in North America and a very rainy summer in Australia.
“Lake effect” gives intense snowfall in northern Michigan.
So, in the end all they find is that simplified models are very close to useless.
But it seem a good idea to spell it out again and again in climate science.
Oh and of course the detailed calcutlation for uncertainty of thier statements for the real world is missing just like for any other similar modeling study.
And they need to address R. McKitrick critique on attribution as well, just like any other modeling study.
Let me once again suggest that pollution of the water/air interface is partly to blame for ocean warming.
I’d post the link but I’m away from my computer – I recently put an explanation as a comment to an article on this site.
Briefly: oil/surfactant smooths the surface, lowering albedo and reducing evaporation, both causing warming
This effect may explain the warming from 1910 to 1940. It suggests a cause for Tom Wigley’s blip. It gives us another way of avoiding the suicidal rush to Net Zero.
It’s a plausible and unexamined warming mechanism.
What do I have to do to get someone to fund a minor research programme – paint my naked body orange and dangle from the Dartford Crossing bridge?
It may be on my public Facebook page. If you find it please help spread it around. Anyone would think that the Net Zero fanatics fear other explanations of AGW.
JF
Warming is limited by the heat capacity of the troposphere and the available energy of direct solar radiation.
We’re coming out of the little ice age, the coldest period since the Holocene started – what can we do to keep it going?
the “climate” is a set of statistics describing the past weather, of course the climate always changes because the stats involved also always change…..the climate is not a force has no power and has never caused even one weather event…..
The climate is able to affect the brains of some people. Not sure why.
Again.. working from a totally unproven assumption that atmospheric CO2 causes any warming at all !
How can a molecule, CO2, cause any warming when physics has demonstrated it only has an effect on 8% of the infrared earth emits? CO2 infrared absorption – Climate Auditor :
You can see that 4.3 microns is barely in the spectrum. And 2.7 is outside of it. Those are the 3 primary wavelengths that CO2 absorbs/ emits. It’s like saying a cargo net makes a good roof.
Well, this backs up the heavy physics model of Happer who shows that increasing CO2 past certain levels does not increase warming by add’l heat absorption from the increased CO2.
What global warming