By Javier Vinós
This post has been translated into German by Christian Freuer here.
Most people don’t have a clear understanding of the greenhouse effect (GHE). It is not complicated to understand, but it is usually not well explained. It is often described as “heat-trapping,” but that is incorrect. Greenhouse gases (GHG) do not trap heat, even if more heat resides within the climate system due to their presence in the atmosphere. The truth is that after adjusting to a change in GHG levels, the planet still returns all the energy it receives from the Sun. Otherwise, it would continue warming indefinitely. So, there is no change in the energy returned. How do GHGs produce GHE?
GHGs cause the atmosphere to be more opaque to infrared radiation. As solar radiation heats mainly the ocean and land surface of the planet, GHGs absorb thermal emission from the surface at the lower troposphere and immediately pass that energy along to other molecules (typically N2 and O2) through collisions that occur much faster than the time it would take to re-emit the radiation. This warms the lower troposphere. The density and temperature decrease rapidly through the troposphere, so molecules are colder and more separated at the upper troposphere. Now GHGs have a chance to emit IR radiation so when they finally collide with another molecule, they are colder so GHGs have a cooling effect in the upper troposphere and stratosphere.
Because GHGs make the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation, when they are present the emission to space from the planet normally does not take place from the surface (as happens in the Moon). Part of it still takes place from the surface through the atmospheric window, but most of it takes place from higher in the atmosphere. We can define a theoretical effective emission height as the average height at which the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is being emitted. The temperature at which the Earth emits is the temperature at the effective emission height in the atmosphere. That temperature, when measured from space is 250 K (-23°C), not 255 which is the calculated temperature for a theoretical blackbody Earth. That temperature corresponds to a height of about 5 km, which we call the effective emission height.
The last piece we need to understand the GHE is the lapse rate, which in the troposphere is positive, meaning that temperature decreases with height. Without a positive lapse rate, the GHE does not work. Since GHGs cause the planet to emit from a higher altitude, due to making the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation, that altitude is colder due to the lapse rate. The Earth still needs to return all the energy received from the Sun, but colder molecules emit less. So, the planet will go through a period when it will emit less than it should, warming the surface and the lower troposphere until the new height of emission achieves the temperature necessary to return all the energy, at which point the planet stops warming.
The GHE simply states that the temperature at the surface (Ts) is just the temperature of emission (Te) plus the lapse rate (Γ) times the height of emission (Ze).
Ts = Te + ΓZe
Held & Soden (2000) illustrated it in figure 1:
This is how the GHE actually works. An increase in CO2 means an increase in the height of emission. Since the temperature of emission must remain the same, the temperature from the surface to the new height of emission must increase. The increase is small but significant. As Held and Soden say:
Held and Soden
“The increase in opacity due to a doubling of CO2 causes Ze to rise by ≈150 meters. This results in a reduction in the effective temperature of the emission across the tropopause by ≈(6.5K/km) (150 m) ≈1 K.”
So, the temperature at the surface must increase by 1K. That’s the direct warming caused by the doubling of CO2, before the feedbacks (mainly water vapor) kick in, further raising the height of emission.
This also has an interesting prediction. If the warming is due to an increase in CO2 when the increase takes place and the altitude of emission increases, the planet should emit less OLR as the new altitude is colder and a reduced OLR is the warming mechanism. Once the warming takes place, the OLR will become the same as before the GHG increase. It says so in Held and Soden’s figure 1 caption: “Note that the effective emission temperature (Te) remains unchanged.” Same Te, same OLR. So, if CO2 is responsible for the surface temperature increase, we should first expect less OLR and then the same OLR. If at any time we detect more OLR that would indicate another cause for the warming. Anything that makes the surface warmer, except GHGs, will increase the temperature of emission, increasing OLR.
So, this is the test:
– Surface warming but less or same OLR: CO2 is guilty as charged
– Surface warming and more OLR: CO2 is innocent
And the test results can be evaluated for example with Derwitte and Clerbaux 2018:
Derwitte and Clerbaux 2018
“decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analyzed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature.“
CO2 is innocent. Its fingerprint is not found at the crime scene. Something else is warming the planet and causing the increase in OLR.
Bibliography:
Dewitte, S. and Clerbaux, N., 2018. Decadal changes of earth’s outgoing longwave radiation. Remote Sensing, 10(10), p.1539.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539/pdf
Held, I.M. and Soden, B.J., 2000. Water vapor feedback and global warming. Annual review of energy and the environment, 25(1), pp.441-475.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
Stephens, G.L., O’Brien, D., Webster, P.J., Pilewski, P., Kato, S. and Li, J.L., 2015. The albedo of Earth. Reviews of geophysics, 53(1), pp.141-163.
“The truth is that after adjusting to a change in GHG levels, the planet still returns all the energy it receives from the Sun.”
If that was true, the average temperature would never increase or decline. But the average temperature is ALWAYS increasing or declining. So that statement must be false. If I misinterpreted the statement, you ought to write more clearly.
Yep: the statement assumes that we are always at a steady state. Obviously wrong.
I wouldn’t assume such a thing even if steady-state assumptions are useful for calculations. Ask a chemist.
Reaching a radiative equilibrium is a moving target that the Earth always aspires to but never really accomplishes. However, it is so close to it that the temperature of the Earth barely changes over a decade, a mere 0.15ºC perhaps. That, in radiative terms, means the Earth’s energy imbalance is tiny. Saying that the planet returns all the energy it receives from the Sun is just a small imprecision.
One of the reasons why the Earth could never be in radiative equilibrium is that its distance to the Sun is constantly changing, and so is the energy it receives.
” that the Earth always aspires to but never really accomplishes. However, it is so close to it that the temperature of the Earth barely changes over a decade, a mere 0.15ºC”
You are rounding 0.15 C. to zero and I am not.
Javier: ” that the Earth always aspires to but never really accomplishes. However, it is so close to it that the temperature of the Earth barely changes over a decade, a mere 0.15ºC”
Richard: “You are rounding 0.15 C. to zero and I am not.”
If the earth’s global mean temperature continues to rise at a mean rate over time of 0.15C per decade for the next two centuries (twenty decades) — from whatever combination of causes, natural and man-made — then the earth’s GMT in the year 2223 will be roughly 3C higher than it is today.
For someone like me who is more interested in the public policy debate over climate change than in the physical mechanisms of climate change, watching the debate over the physics of GHG-driven warming is like watching a karate match from the bleachers where the participants on the gym floor beat each other silly, but without any one of them ever gaining anything resembling a clear victory over their opponents.
Scientists say another +0.15 degrees C. and the world will end. The big TIPPING POINT.
News at 11pm.
The +50% rise of CO2 since 1850, roughly estimated, was accompanied by about a +1 degree C. global warming since 1850, also roughly estimated.
CO2 obviously could not have caused all that warming since there were small CO2 emissions before the 1950s.
And CO2 emissions, faster than ever from 2015 to 2023, caused no warming at all (UAH data).
How those basic facts and rough estimates lead to a panic over CO2 emissions is hard to believe.
I personally worry about more important things: A meteorite hitting my home while I am sleeping, and invasions of aliens from Mexico.
This comment is serious, not satire.
You don’t know what is going to happen in the future. Assuming it will continue to rise at that rate for two centuries is very likely to constitute a mistake.
You think the goal of scientific exchanges is victory. You are also wrong about that. The goal is to increase knowledge, so everybody can come up as a victor, at least those with an open mind.
What Javier said.
w.
The goal should be thus, however it’s been polluted by the politics of collectivism which is only concerned with winning.
I think it is a disappointing ignorance in much of the discussion on OLR.
The first analysis came out over 20 years ago, and saw the role of cloud cover (ERBE data). And it has been repeated the last 20 years CERES data). Martin Wild has been repeating the importance of cloud cover (global brightening) from about 1983 over the last 20 years.
How can it be possible to attribute the change in IR from top of atmosphere to CO2 with the knowledge we have had for a long time. The part of greenhouse gases plays a minor role, perhaps about 1/3 of the warming (CERES), and then about 1/3 of OLR change.
Let us listen to what was said in 2004:
On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave
radiation for the period 1984–2000.
D. Hatzidimitriou, I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas and E. Drakakis.
“Conclusions. To summarize, our model calculations, which are based on ISCCP-D2 cloud climatologies, and temperature and humidity profile information from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis show that there has been an increase of OLR at TOA of 1.9±0.2 Wm−2 /decade between 1984–2000. This decrease is lower than the decrease displayed by the ERBE S-10N (WFOV NF edition 2) non-scanner OLR time-series, or by the results of Wielicki et al. (2002a, b). Analysis of the interannual and long-term variability of the various parameters determining the OLR at TOA, showed that the most important contribution to the observed trend comes from a decrease in high-level cloud cover over the period 1984–2000, followed by an apparent drying of the upper troposphere and a decrease of low-level cloudiness. Opposite but small trends are introduced by a decrease in low-level cloud top pressure, an apparent cooling of the lower stratosphere (at the 50 mbar level) and a small decadal increase in mid-level cloud cover.”
And then we have Steven Dewitte and Nicolas Clerbaux, 2018.
Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation
“The Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) at the top of the atmosphere quantifies how the earth gains energy from the sun and loses energy to space. Its monitoring is of fundamental importance for understanding ongoing climate change. In this paper, decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave
Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analysed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature.”
“The spatial analysis of the regional OLR change from 1985–2000 to 2001–2017 shows a ‘clear-sky effect’ mixed a ‘tropical cloud’ effect.
Concerning the clear sky effect, we see regional changes of the OLR which are correlated with surface temperature changes. In the Arctic—where the strongest temperature increase occurs—we also see a strong increase in the OLR. In general, in the Northern Hemisphere—where the surface temperature increase is stronger than in the Southern Hemisphere—we also see an OLR increase.
Concerning the tropical cloud effect, we see regional patterns in the changes of the OLR, which are suggesting a relative strengthening of La Niña conditions compared to El Niño conditions. These changes imply societally important regional changes in precipitation. The relative La Niña strengthening can also be seen in the ‘cumulative MEI index’ that we have introduced.”
I agree with the conclusions that “The regional patterns of the observed OLR change from 1985–2000 to 2001–2017 show a warming pattern in the Northern Hemisphere in particular in the Arctic, as well as tropical cloudiness changes related to a strengthening of La Niña.” The small radiative imbalance is due to increasing energy being stored in the oceans caused by a more La Nina-like ocean.
will the defendant please rise.
foreman, has the jury reached a verdict?
we have your honor.
on the charge of committing catastrophic climate change, we the jury find the defendant…not guilty.
i here by order the intimidate release of mr. co2 from custody.
you are free to go.
this court is adjourned.
Radiation is not ‘reemitted’. When a molecule absorbs radiation (a photon) it is gone. The energy level of the molecule is increased by one photon. And radiative molecules don’t wait to absorb a photon before they emit one. If you could actually see radiative particles, such as a CO2 molecule, it would look like a microscopic flashlight, except the radiation goes in all directions – it is a ‘flash’. Everything that is above absolute zero K radiates, including the so-called non-radiative gases. That is why you can make argon and nitrogen lasers, as well as Co2 lasers. It is all a matter of energizing those molecules to the point at which they radiate freely. Ever see lightning? That isn’t just Co2, it is ALL of the ‘air’ molecules through which the lightning passes. The electricity ionizes the gases which heats them to the point of emitting visible light.
Next, there is one Co2 molecule for every 2500 ‘air’ molecules. That Co2 molecule doesn’t ‘heat’ those air molecules, (heat is the wrong term, but it’s what people understand.) All air molecules are in constant collisions with each other, and in a collision, any of three things can happen: They can ‘bounce’ off each other, they can ‘glance’ off each other or they can transfer energy from one to the other. It ONLY passes energy from the more energetic (warmer) molecule to the less energetic (cooler) molecule, regardless of whether it is an inert molecule or a radiative one. But one Co2 molecule is not going to ‘heat’ 2500 non-radiative gas molecules, THEY are going to control the ‘temperature’ of that Co2 molecule.
And for good measure, Co2 is not ‘well mixed’ as is always claimed. First of all, it is heavier than ‘air’ and will sink to the floor of a self-contained room. It is used to extinguish fires. It ‘hugs’ the ground, and it kills people in nature if there is enough of it. See Limnic Eruption.
Not to mention that, other than aircraft, all Co2 is emitted at the earth’s surface and is also absorbed at the earth’s surface. What magical ‘force’ could ‘well mix’ this mysterious Co2 molecule? None. And of course, all atmosphere is densest at the surface, meaning that is where the greatest concentration of all gas molecules exists, including Co2, of course.
What’s with this ‘doubling of Co2’ anyway? 95% of all emitted Co2 is natural. What mysterious thing would make EARTH double its Co2 output? Humans emit only 5% of the total, annually. If we stopped ENTIRELY, earth would not notice.
Lastly, all gas molecules follow the ideal gas laws. Laws, not hypotheses. The temperature of any gas is a function of its volume and pressure. Period. Co2 has no special ‘gas law’ that pertains only to Co2. A container of Co2 next to a container of nitrogen in the same room will be the same temperature. If you don’t believe that, take a non-contact thermometer to a gas supply company and take the temperatures of all the tanks of various gases. They will all be the same temperature, after filling and stabilizing.
Co2 doesn’t CONTROL anything. And wasting trillions of dollars, a high percentage of all of earth’s wealth, attempting to control Co2, won’t change anything. It CAN’T. Nor is it ‘responsible’ for earth’s temperature being above the so-called ‘black body’ temperature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with earth’s temperature. (But I can explain it.)
I agree with the first two paragraphs but disagree with the third. CO2 vertical profiles show it is quite well mixed up to the stratopause, unlike the other two main GHGs, H2Ov and O3.
Nice post. The specific heat and mass of CO2 preclude it from being the control knob.
”Lastly, all gas molecules follow the ideal gas laws. Laws, not hypotheses. The temperature of any gas is a function of its volume and pressure. Period. Co2 has no special ‘gas law’ that pertains only to Co2. A container of Co2 next to a container of nitrogen in the same room will be the same temperature. ”
Yes agreed. Question from a layman. ….. 1. You have a given, uncontained amount of co2. 2. You heat it. 3. It expands. 4. It’s volume is increased but it’s concentration is not. Pressure remains the same.
The question… Is it the concentration or the volume which is said impede this OLR?
If it is the concentration, how the hell does that work? In this instance, concentration is the distance between molecules not the number of them. We are always told it is the concentration of co2 which is the problem.
If it is the increased volume (or number of molecules) which ”traps” the ”heat”, how does the increased volume affect emission to space? Does that not also increase?
Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Questions are not stupid, they indicate that someone has interest in something they do not understand.
Co2 does not trap heat. It isn’t even heat, it is energy and it is transient. There is no trapping of anything. Radiation is photons, which are units of energy with no mass. Any molecule that can accept a photon can just as easily emit one. And that is exactly what happens, unless energy is transferred via collision first.
In this context “trap” means ΔEout < ΔEin resulting in ΔE > 0. It’s not unlike saying the door on the oven in your kitchen “traps heat” when it is closed resulting in the inside being warmer than it would be otherwise. Given its definition “trap” is appropriate terminology.
That’s a matter of opinion. I just don’t consider that augmenting the kinetic energy of a molecule traps anything.
Fill in the blank. When you close the door on the over in your kitchen it _____ heat causing the inside to be warmer than it would be otherwise.
You are full of crap. If the oven is a constant source heating heating an enclosure, it will not get hotter than the source. Short the thermostat and the heating elements will only get to a certain temperature. The gases inside, will heat to that temperature and become in equilibrium with it. If it is considered a leakproof container, the pressure inside will rise as the temperature rises, until equilibrium. You’ve never had any real science education have you? Something like calculus based upper class physics, chemistry, or engineering. Back radiation actually heating a hot source to an even higher temperature is a joke!
You want to refute accepted physics, show the math for how two objects at equilibrium heated each other to a higher temperature than the hottest one.
I stand by what I said. When you close the door on the oven in your kitchen its interior temperature will increase. You can call that crap and challenge the 1LOT, SB Law, Planck’s Law, etc. all you want. It doesn’t make it any less true.
You are resorting to argumentative fallacies now. Specifically, Appeal to Authority. And even then, you have shown nothing that proves your point.
Do us a favor and past your math that allows reflected energy to warm the source to a higher temperature.
JG said: “You are resorting to argumentative fallacies now. Specifically, Appeal to Authority.”
Nope. I’m appealing to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
JG said: “Do us a favor and past your math that allows reflected energy to warm the source to a higher temperature.”
Sure. The 1LOT says ΔE = Σ[Ein_i, 1, i] – Σ[Eout_o, 1, o]. The heat capacity formula says ΔT = ΔE/mc when there is no phase change. We substitute the 1LOT into the heat capacity formula and we get ΔT = (Σ[Ein_i, 1, i] – Σ[Eout_o, 1, o])/mc. Then setting ΔEout_o = 0 for all o and ΔEin_i = 0 for all i except DWIR which we set to ΔEin_dwir > 0 we get ΔT = ΔEin_dwir/mc. And since ΔEin_dwir > 0 then it necessarily follows that ΔT > 0 because m and c do not significantly change and are finite.
I know…you don’t like the 1LOT and I suspect you don’t the ΔT ~ ΔE relationship either which means you’ll reject the fact that when I system traps energy (ΔE > 0) it warms. I get it. You don’t like the laws of physics. I’ve accepted that I’ll never be able to convince you. I do this for the lurkers.
You can have the last word. Deflect. Divert. Make up as many strawman arguments that I never advocated for. Have fun!
No, your math is sloppy. “m” can’t just be set to a constant. You have mass_surface, mass_ CO2, mass_N2, mass_O2, mass_H2O.
Then you have c_surface, c_CO2, … , c_H2O.
Then you have the E_convection, E_conduction, E_ IR.
Then you must deal with all the gradients involved between each pair of variables.
Why do you think modelers can’t get it right? If it was simple they would follow your lead with a simple equation. You haven’t even shown how entropy works in your little old equation. It applies too you know!
yes, once the system fires up, which it did a few billion years ago, turbulent flux becomes the dominant transport mode near the surface. This includes oceanic and atmospheric boundary layer mixing. Parameters include flux of mass and latent transport of heat. Reduced net transport of radiant equivalent energy aloft can arise from changing any of these parameters. Radiative flux mechanisms only dominate in very low pressure situations or in rudimentary 1D conceptual models.
Javier Vinos said: “And the test results can be evaluated for example with Derwitte and Clerbaux 2018:”
The GHE hypothesis is consistent with the [Dewitte & Clerbaux 2018]. Remember, the GHE hypothesis is not that ΔEout < 0. It is that ΔEout < ΔEin. We expect feedbacks like “longwave cloud thinning” to increase Ein as DC18 and others like [Loeb et al. 2021] observe.
Here is the OLR prediction from CMIP5 from 1985 to 2100. Notice that CMIP5 predicts OLR to increase.
I encourage you to download the CMIP5 data from the KNMI Climate Explorer and see for yourself. Note that TOA OLR is variable “rlut”.
bdgwx,
CMIP5 predicts global surface warming, so it should predict an increase in OLR. Javier is just saying that if all the warming is due to greenhouse gases, OLR should not go up. I think he is correct in this.
This is just another, in a long line of fallacies built into the CMIP models because they are based on 60-year-old radiation logic that ignores the impact of energy transfer from one compartment to another (e.g., ocean to atmosphere). Some of Earth’s surface warming has to be coming from somewhere else.
Andy May said: “Javier is just saying that if all the warming is due to greenhouse gases, OLR should not go up.”
Which implies a misunderstanding regarding how OLR is expected to behave under a GHG dominant warming scenario. Remember, the expectation since at least the late 1800’s [Arrhenius 1896] has been that feedbacks will reduce albedo and bump up ASR and thus OLR at the new balance point. [Cess et al. 1990] which is cited by Dewitte & Clerbaux 2019 discuss how modeling pre-CMIP handles the shortwave feedbacks including water-vapor and cloud thinning that bump ASR. [Donohoe et al. 2014] does a pretty good job of explaining the expectation that OLR will increase.
bdgwx,
You guys are hilarious. Every time you get caught in an obvious model error you come up with some ad hoc “feedback.” I was highly amused when AR6 introduced feedbacks to feedbacks to get around the CMIP6 model’s obvious problems with SSTs in the eastern Pacific.
Paraphrasing AR6.
Now you create BS ASRs! Sorry, man, I’m not convinced.
Pardon me while I put on my hip waders and gasmask. Getting pretty deep and smelly around here.
For other readers, I’m referring to Donohoe’s 2014 paper.
ASR = Absorbed Solar Radiation. There is only one of them.
Sorry, BS ASR
Absorded Solar Radiation is BS?
This is the BS (from Donohoe):
His imagined, and untestable, feedback to increase ASR.
That is a goal post move. The goal post set in the article is that the GHE hypothesizes a decrease in OLR. That’s not correct. The GHE actually hypothesizes an increase. Donohoe et al. explain the hypothesis. It doesn’t matter if you think the hypothesis is BS or not. It’s still the hypothesis.
BTW…an observation of an increase in OLR with a positive EEI necessarily means ASR is increasing too. That is the 1LOT. And as Javier Vinos’ points out in the article OLR is observed to increase so clearly the hypothesis is testable.
Not really. They show OLR increasing after 80 years of increasing CO2 by 1% every year. What they say is that the warming comes from increased ASR, not decreased OLR. This means the warming is not coming from the GHE but from feedbacks responding to warming. All hypothetical, of course. I don’t see how something hypothetical can settle a scientific matter.
That is not what they are saying. They are saying that additional warming comes from the albedo change and that the albedo change is catalyzed by the planetary energy imbalance caused by a pulse of CO2. No CO2 pulse no albedo change and no warming. And this albedo feedback was predicted at least 120 years ago so it’s not a new concept.
Except we are not sure the albedo feedback is there.
The observation of increasing OLR and the 1st law of thermodynamics says it is there. That’s the smoking gun. But there are attribution studies like [Loeb et al. 2021] that provide corroborating evidence as well.
Feedbacks are not part of the CO2 greenhouse effect but due to the warming. You can fit anything you want in the feedbacks, as they can’t be measured. You can’t trust what models say about clouds because models don’t understand clouds. Cloud microphysics is not understood.
The GHE is not a hypothesis. It is a well-supported theory. The unsupported hypothesis is that changes in the GHE are responsible for nearly all recent warming.
That graph there means models don’t consider the warming is coming from a reduction in OLR, as the GHE says. Since the Sun is not increasing its emissions we must conclude models say the warming is coming from a reduction in albedo. Don’t you think? That is an interesting conclusion that is not publicized in the least.
I think part of confusion is that you are focused on the response of an idealized no-feedback instant pulse of GHGs. In the real world the GHE plays out with feedbacks over a long period of time with a drawn out pulse of GHGs. [Donohoe et al. 2014] describes this pretty well. Figure 1A is the idealized no-feedback instant pulse response. 1C is like 1A except feedbacks are considered. 1D is like 1C except the pulse is drawn out over several years.
Anyway, my point isn’t dependent on the details of how the GHE plays out in the real world. My point is that climate science theory says that we should expect an increase in OLR in the real world. And that finding an observation that shows OLR is increasing does not falsify that theory. If anything it provides corroborating evidence in support of it.
I think the confusion is coming from considering the feedbacks as part of the GHE. The GHE theory does not say anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks are the planet’s adjustment to a change in temperature by any means, greenhouse gas mediated or not.
Feedbacks are essentially unknown. By definition, they cannot be measured because they are the effect of a variable on another variable.
GHE theory says we should not expect an OLR increase coming from the GHE. There is not a single climate science theory. Some models say we should expect an OLR increase from feedbacks and some models say we shouldn’t.
What Donohoe et al. 2014 say is:
Doesn’t say much about increasing OLR, does it?
So that’s the problem. What you call climate science theory is just a computer game about unknown feedbacks that admit anything. I don’t call that science because it is not subject to the scientific method; I don’t call it a theory because there is no theory behind the feedback response to GHE-induced warming. You have chosen to believe in that. I have chosen not to believe in anything that can’t be demonstrated.
Well said Javier. A theory must make predictions that later come true. The GHG “theory” has not done this.
CMIP5 predicted OLR would increase. OLR increased.
Because temperature would increase.
Because the GHE played a significant role in that temperature increase. But, that is irrelevant here because my point is that climate scientists made a testable prediction that turned out to be right contrary the thesis of the article.
The greenhouse effect predicts a decrease in OLR. Some climate models, not all, predict an increase in OLR from feedbacks, not from GHE. Problem is that is indistinguishable from warming from any other cause. The GHE prediction has turned not to be correct, and it was a prediction that would have distinguished warming coming from the increase in CO2 from other causes.
It is an expectation that the GHE causes warming. It is an expectation that warming causes an increase in ASR and OLR. Therefore it is an expectation that the GHE causes an increase in ASR and OLR. You can’t say the GHE prediction is incorrect because of an observation that is consistent with the expectation.
If you’re wanting a fingerprint observation that closest you are going to get is the TLT minus TLS trend simultaneous with the TLT trend. If want to falsify the GHE the best way is to show that either the TLT trend or the TLT-TLS trend are not positive over long periods of time and after controlling for volcanic activity when GHG concentrations are increasing.
I have no problem with the GHE, I think it is a pretty solid theory. I have a problem with the CO2 hypothesis that says 2 times the warming produced by the direct CO2 increased GHE is produced by feedbacks that nobody can measure. It requires faith in a human abstraction (climate models), and as a scientist, I am very short on faith in scientific matters.
So every time we find a contradiction with the solid GHE theory, like the increase in OLR, the answer is “yes, but the feedbacks… because models…” That is not an acceptable answer unless we have lost contact with reality and living within a computer model.
The Earth is warming, the GHE theory says part of the warming should come from the increase in CO2, but we really don’t know where the rest (most of the warming) is coming from because we don’t have the evidence to say it. Where is the increase in water vapor? If there is an increase in water vapor, where is the increase in clouds? Where is the change in albedo? Why is there an increase in solar shortwave absorption?
You believe we are going to get the answers by asking the models. That requires faith.
“You believe we are going to get the answers by asking the models. That requires faith.”
faith in a religious dogma, not in science.
Exactly like: have faith – the earth is flat.
JV said: “Where is the increase in water vapor?”
[Allan et al. 2022] [Dressler & Yang 2008] [Soden et al. 2002] [Soden et al. 2005] [Borger et al. 2022] [Wang et al. 2016] [Santer et al. 2007]
JV said: “If there is an increase in water vapor, where is the increase in clouds?”
Who says clouds should increase?
BTW…I don’t think the cloud topic is as straight forward as your question implies. If clouds by night increase more than clouds by day decreases then you’ll have more clouds overall, but ASR and thus OLR will still increase. There are similar considerations with the height and microphysical composition as well.
JV said: “Where is the change in albedo? Why is there an increase in solar shortwave absorption?”
The change in albedo is the ASR increase. ASR can increase due to increased water vapor, decreased snow/ice extent, cloud pattern changes, land use changes, etc.
‘It is an expectation that the GHE causes warming. It is an expectation that warming causes an increase in ASR and OLR. Therefore it is an expectation that the GHE causes an increase in ASR and OLR.’
Your first statement is incomplete, because it fails to note that GHE causes warming because it decreases OLR. Your second statement is therefore misleading because it implicitly includes GHE, which causes warming because it decreases OLR. Your third statement is therefore a logical fallacy.
As my late high school football coach once said, “Bad snap, bad hold, bad kick – the whole thing stinks”.
Frank from NoVA said: “Your first statement is incomplete, because it fails to note that GHE causes warming because it decreases OLR.”
No. I’m sorry. That is not correct. The GHE only decreases OLR under an instant pulse of GHGs scenario and only at the moment of the pulse. OLR begins increasing immediately. And after only 20 years it will even exceed the point at where it started. Under a 1%/yr pulse scenario OLR decreases for about 20 years and then begins increasing. And after about 80 years it will exceed the point at where it started. [Donohoe et al. 2014].
Frank from NoVA said: “ Your second statement is therefore misleading because it implicitly includes GHE, which causes warming because it decreases OLR.”
Of course it includes the GHE. The GHE causes warming. And again, the GHE does not cause a decrease and only a decrease in OLR.
Frank from NoVA said: “Your third statement is therefore a logical fallacy.”
I stand by my statement. The confusion here is that there is a misunderstanding regarding how the GHE works. And I don’t mean some hypothetical idealization of it. I’m talking about the real GHE and how it plays out on Earth including albedo changing feedbacks.
‘The GHE only decreases OLR under an instant pulse of GHGs scenario and only at the moment of the pulse.’
Sorry, man. A while back I asked Nick Stokes for a reference to any long dated GCM runs that might have investigated the long-term effects of CO2 doubling. Here’s the SI from Paynter et al (2018). Take a look at Figure S2, panels C&D. Does that look like OLR is increasing?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2F2017JD027885&file=jgrd54423-sup-0001-data_si.pdf
Frank from NoVA said: “Take a look at Figure S2, panels C&D”
Figure S2 does not have a C or D so I’m assuming you meant figure S3. C is LWCLR which is the longwave clear sky effect and D is the LWCRE which is the longwave cloud radiative effect.
Frank from NoVA said: “Does that look like OLR is increasing?”
Yes.
Let me explain the graph. The concept being discussed in the publication is based N = F – αT where N is the net downward radiation flux, T is the surface air temperature and α is the feedback parameter. When N is positive ASR > OLR. N is being plotted in figure S2 for the 4x experiment. What you are seeing in figure S3 is the component breakdown of N depicted in S2.
Consider only CM3 for simplicity. At T = 0 N = 6 W/m2. At the moment of the pulse we have a 6 W/m2 imbalance. Of that N = 6 W/m2 imbalance SWCLR accounts for about 0 W/m2 and LWCLR accounts for about 6 W/m2. In other words SWCLR remained unchanged and LWCLR declined by 6 W/m2. Remember, positive N values are downward where N = F – αT and F = SW – LW so we reverse the sign on LW components. Now notice that as T increases (which you can also think of as a progression of time) the LWCLR declines which means the upward push at TOA is increasing. At about 3.5 K of warming we cross the threshold where LWCLR is higher than when it started.
Your own source [Paynter et al. 2018] confirms what Nick and I are saying. That is it is an expectation that GHG pulses and the GHE that OLR will increase.
‘Figure S2 does not have a C or D so I’m assuming you meant figure S3.’
My bad. Actually I meant Figure 2 in the main paper. Per the paper CM3 surface temperature increases by 4.84K at T=4700. And per the charts, LW and SW are decreasing and increasing with temperature, respectively.
Figure 2 in the publication is the same as figure S3 in the supplemental materials except that it is for the 2X experiment.
Remember, LWCLR is the graph is a component of N. N is the planetary energy imbalance N = ASR – OLR. When you see LWCLR declining in the graph that means N is declining and thus OLR is increasing.
‘Figure 2 in the publication is the same as figure S3 in the supplemental materials except that it is for the 2X experiment.’
Yes, let’s stick with the 2x ‘experiment’, please. Again we’re discussing GFDL’s model CM3 that doubles CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm at a rate of ~1% / annum for a period of 100 years and then runs out for another 4,700 years until N stabilizes at ~ 0.00 W/m^2, yielding an ECS of 4.84K.
Paynter et al don’t provide a lot of detail re. their forcings, but I think we can glean what we need from the paper’s graphs:
Starting with Figure 1B, N (the net downward TOA radiative flux) starts at ~1.5 W/m^2 at Time = 0 (after 100 years of increasing CO2) and then decreases to ~0 over the next 4,700 years. Similarly, Figure 1C shows the evolution of N with Temperature, T, starting at ~1.5 W/m^2 at T ~ 2.5 K and then decreasing to ~0 W/m^2 at T 4.84.
I estimate the CM3 LW and SW components of N from Figure 2 A-D as follows (all numbers in W/m^2):
SW_CLR: 2.00 ==> 3.25 (+1.25)
SW_CRE: 1.00 ==> 3.25 (+2.25)
Total change for SW = 3.50
LW_CLR: -1.00 ==> -5.75 (-4.75)
LW_CRE: -0.50 ==> -0.75 (-0.25)
Total change for LW = -5.00
Total change for N = -1.50
So here is a question for you: If, per your sign convention, OLR (LW) is increasing by 5.00 W/m^2 and ASR is increasing by 3.50 W/m^2, why is T increasing by 4.8 K – 2.5 K= 2.3 K over the 4,700 year modeled period?
I think the answer is that you’ve missed the implications that N is defined as the ‘net downward TOA radiative flux’ with respect to both LW and SW radiation. Specifically, since green house gases emit LW radiation in all directions, a decrease in LW down from TOA also means a decrease in LW up from TOA, hence your OLR is actually decreasing. Note, this does not apply to SW because all atmospheric gases are transparent to SW.
PS – One other question for you. Given that Paynter et al’s ECS estimate of 4.84K implies an increase of about 27 W/m^2 LW from the surface, where do you suppose they come up with the additional 18.5 W/m^2 (27 – (5.0 +3.5)) needed to ‘balance’?
Frank said: “N is defined as the ‘net downward TOA radiative flux’ with respect to both LW and SW radiation.”
Right. Positive N means means a net flow inward to the planet.
To get a positive N you can either increase ASR (SW) or decrease OLR (LW).
CM3 says the N = +2.5 W/m2 initial imbalance is composed of -1 W/m2 of SW and +3.5 W/m2 of LW. In other words SW decreased by 1 W/m2 and LW decreased by 3.5 W/m2. That is a net of +2.5 W/m2 of imbalance.
Remember, N = SW – LW. So when ΔLW < 0 then ΔN > 0.
Frank said: “Specifically, since green house gases emit LW radiation in all directions, a decrease in LW down from TOA also means a decrease in LW up from TOA,”
The only LW down at TOA is solar. A decrease in LW down occurs only when solar output decreases. Solar output only changes by like maybe 0.25%. That means LW down only changes by like maybe 0.01 W/m2. Of course in this experiment solar output is held constant so its moot.
Frank said: “hence your OLR is actually decreasing.”
No. Remember LWCLR and LWCRE are expressed as contributions to N where N = ASR – OLR. They are NOT contributions to OLR.
Frank said: “Note, this does not apply to SW because all atmospheric gases are transparent to SW.”
The surface absorbs about 47% of incoming solar radiation. The atmosphere absorbs about 23% of it. The remaining 30% is reflected.
Frank said: “ One other question for you. Given that Paynter et al’s ECS estimate of 4.84K implies an increase of about 27 W/m^2 LW from the surface, where do you suppose they come up with the additional 18.5 W/m^2 (27 – (5.0 +3.5)) needed to ‘balance’?”
I’m not sure where you got the 5.0 and 3.5 figures. I see 6.5 W/m2 increase in ASR and OLR at the end of the CM3 experiment. Anyway, the Planck surface radiative response is balanced by the GHE radiative response. From 255 K to 288 K the GHE is about (395 W/m2 – 240 W/m2) = 155 W/m2. That is a response of 155 W/m2 / 33 K = 4.7 W/m2.K. With an extra 6.5 W/m2 of ASR in the experiment we only need to account for (27 – 6.5) = 20.5 W/m2 of extra GHE which would be a response of 20.5 W/m2 / 4.8 K = 4.3 W/m2.K and on par with the 4.7 W/m2.K from the previous 33 K.
‘CM3 says the N = +2.5 W/m2 initial imbalance is composed of -1 W/m2 of SW and +3.5 W/m2 of LW. In other words SW decreased by 1 W/m2 and LW decreased by 3.5 W/m2. That is a net of +2.5 W/m2 of imbalance.’
So, here you acknowledge that the initial imbalance of 2.5 W/m^2 was due primarily to a decrease in OLR. Doesn’t this mean that you also agree with Vinos that OLR initially declines with the introduction of additional CO2? In other words, for an increase in surface temperature, we would need to see a decrease in OLR to confirm that the warming resulted from enhanced green house effect? Note, upon further consideration, I would also agree that to re-establish planetary ‘equilibrium’, OLR must eventually rise to the point where it equals ASR and reduces N to zero.
‘From 255 K to 288 K the GHE is about (395 W/m2 – 240 W/m2) = 155 W/m2. That is a response of 155 W/m2 / 33 K = 4.7 W/m2.K. With an extra 6.5 W/m2 of ASR in the experiment we only need to account for (27 – 6.5) = 20.5 W/m2 of extra GHE which would be a response of 20.5 W/m2 / 4.8 K = 4.3 W/m2.K and on par with the 4.7 W/m2.K from the previous 33 K.’
Nice arithmetic. I’ve seen estimates from 3.7 W/m^2 for 2xCO2 alone, to 8.0 W/m^2 for 2xCO2 +water vapor feedback + ‘other’ feedbacks, so 20.5 W/m^2 seems like a very heavy lift. Also, isn’t the impact of increased CO2 on forcing supposed to be logarithmic?
one additional triviality, as a result of SB, when considering the virtual greenhouse effect with virtual effective radiating temperature of 255K using blackbody assumption – Is that for each additional K more power is required.
For example,
for 255K to 257K requires 7.6 W m-2
for 288K to 290K requires 11.4 W m-2
a 3.7 W m-2 virtual no adjustment response at 288K would result in a 0.7K virtual effect.
a 3.7 Wm-2 virtual no adjustment response at 255K would result in a 1K virtual effect.
Frank said: “So, here you acknowledge that the initial imbalance of 2.5 W/m^2 was due primarily to a decrease in OLR. Doesn’t this mean that you also agree with Vinos that OLR initially declines with the introduction of additional CO2?”
Of course I acknowledge it. I was the one trying to explain it Javier Vinos. I even linked to the Donohoe et al. 2014 publication showing how it works. That is…OLR drops quickly and then begins rising as the GHE plays out.
Frank said: “In other words, for an increase in surface temperature, we would need to see a decrease in OLR to confirm that the warming resulted from enhanced green house effect?”
No. In fact, observing a continual decrease would not only falsify the positive feedback hypothesis that has been around since the 1800’s it would mean there is a negative feedback playing out which would have all kinds of bizarre implications.
Frank said: “Nice arithmetic. I’ve seen estimates from 3.7 W/m^2 for 2xCO2 alone, to 8.0 W/m^2 for 2xCO2 +water vapor feedback + ‘other’ feedbacks, so 20.5 W/m^2 seems like a very heavy lift.”
The canonical 3.7 W/m2 figure is for 2xCO2 is the radiative force. The 20.5 W/m2 figure is for the radiative response. The force and the response and different concepts. Do not conflate the two.
Frank said: “Also, isn’t the impact of increased CO2 on forcing supposed to be logarithmic?”
Yes. Myhre et al. 1998 found that the logarithmic relationship holds at least to 1000 ppm. The first 100 ppm from 300 ppm is 1.5 W/m2. The next is 1.2 W/m2. The next is 1.0 W/m2 and so on.
Glad to see you’re still checking in on me…
‘Of course I acknowledge it [decrease in OLR]. I was the one trying to explain it Javier Vinos. I even linked to the Donohoe et al. 2014 publication showing how it works. That is…OLR drops quickly and then begins rising as the GHE plays out.’
JV’s point was that if we don’t first observe a drop in OLR, i.e., if it remains unchanged or increases, then any warming must be caused by something other than an increase in CO2 or other GHG. Do you concur?
‘In fact, observing a continual decrease would not only falsify the positive feedback hypothesis that has been around since the 1800’s it would mean there is a negative feedback playing out which would have all kinds of bizarre implications.’
I’m pretty certain that most folks would hold that the system will move towards re-establishing radiative balance between ASR and OLR. I would call that a negative feedback. Where do you see positive feedbacks prevailing, and why wouldn’t these be destabilizing?
‘The canonical 3.7 W/m2 figure is for 2xCO2 is the radiative force. The 20.5 W/m2 figure is for the radiative response. The force and the response and different concepts. Do not conflate the two.’
Yes, the canonical figure is 3.7 W/m^2, but I recall the IPCC had SSP scenarios where the worse case forcings, including the impact of an increase in albedo, were pushing 8.0 W/m^2. That would support an increase in surface temperature from 288.15K to 289.61K, which is 1.46K. You’ll need to explain to me how this forcing feeds back to a ~27 W/m^2 ‘response’ absent a change in orbital mechanics or continental position.
Frank said: “JV’s point was that if we don’t first observe a drop in OLR, i.e., if it remains unchanged or increases, then any warming must be caused by something other than an increase in CO2 or other GHG. Do you concur?”
Like I told JV our opportunity to observe the initial OLR drop is long gone. We would have needed to have done it 100 or more years ago.
Frank said: “I’m pretty certain that most folks would hold that the system will move towards re-establishing radiative balance between ASR and OLR. I would call that a negative feedback. Where do you see positive feedbacks prevailing, and why wouldn’t these be destabilizing?”
I’m talking about the albedo feedback here; not the Planck feedback.
Frank said: “Yes, the canonical figure is 3.7 W/m^2, but I recall the IPCC had SSP scenarios where the worse case forcings, including the impact of an increase in albedo, were pushing 8.0 W/m^2. That would support an increase in surface temperature from 288.15K to 289.61K, which is 1.46K.”
It’s the same concept either way regardless if 3.7 or 8.0 W/m2 is cited. Those are radiative forces. The force is best described as what the planetary energy imbalance would be if the force were applied instantly. To rebalance OLR must increase to match ASR. But to get OLR to go up by the amount of the original force the surface must respond by an even larger amount since each incremental increase in temperature results in an incremental increase in W/m2 which is then partially returned back to the surface due to an incremental increase in DWIR from the GHE. This effect is the primary reason why the lapse rate increases under the GHE. In other words, the bottom gets warmer and the top gets colder. And when you add on top of all of this the albedo feedback which increases ASR the surface has to respond even more to close the ASR-OLR gap. I think the statement that best helps understand why the response is always larger than the force is that when the surface warms due to the uptake of excess energy it increases UWIR which in turn increases DWIR.
‘Like I told JV our opportunity to observe the initial OLR drop is long gone. We would have needed to have done it 100 or more years ago.’
Like prior to the Roaring Twenties? Somehow, that seems like an extraordinary example of special pleading given this:
Annual CO₂ emissions by world region
‘The force is best described as what the planetary energy imbalance would be if the force were applied instantly. To rebalance OLR must increase to match ASR. But to get OLR to go up by the amount of the original force the surface must respond by an even larger amount since each incremental increase in temperature results in an incremental increase in W/m2 which is then partially returned back to the surface due to an incremental increase in DWIR from the GHE. This effect is the primary reason why the lapse rate increases under the GHE. In other words, the bottom gets warmer and the top gets colder. And when you add on top of all of this the albedo feedback which increases ASR the surface has to respond even more to close the ASR-OLR gap. I think the statement that best helps understand why the response is always larger than the force is that when the surface warms due to the uptake of excess energy it increases UWIR which in turn increases DWIR.’
The IPCC itself defines the GHE (~159 W/m^2) as the difference between LW emitted by the surface and LW emitted out to space, so I find this force / response multiplier narrative to be rather amazing. Can you provide any independent sources as to how 3.7 W/m^2, or even 8 W /m^2, becomes 27 W/m^2? I mean, how have serious people from Linzden to Happer missed this?
So CO2 does not trap heat like a greenhouse at all, and thus the term GHE is just another complete fraud intended to mislead the public. The power of a greenhouse to transform temperatures is so dramatic it can be downright scary to a layman considering the horror of being trapped in one on a hot day.
If CO2 acts by increasing opacity to infrared radiation, it will also block more incoming IR radiation from the sun and thus decrease surface heating with a proportionate increase in lower tropospheric heating. That heat then escapes back out to space more quickly and thus may in fact unexpectedly result in lower surface temperatures, not higher.
I get an outgoing 14-16 um band radiance of about 7 W/m2.sr.
I get an incoming 14-16 um band radiance of about 0.01 W/m2.sr.
CO2 blocks a lot more outgoing terrestrial radiation than incoming solar radiation.
Increased surface temperatures increase convection, the exact opposite of how a green house works.
Convection occurs within a greenhouse too. But that is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 does NOT block more IR radiation from the Sun.
How about the “greenhouse effect” of CO2 enrichment inside most greenhouses. used to accelerate plant growth, just like CO2 enrichment in the troposphere does for outdoor plants?
The wife got a part time job making flower arrangements in a greenhouse but lasted about two days because of the summer heat — she’s Greek and like heat, too. I practically had to carry her home after the second day.
Yes. It means increased GHGs in the atmosphere will increase atmospheric temperature also by increasing solar radiation absorption. But that also means a reduction in the net flux from the surface, and so surface warming.
Absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere decreases surface temperature.
CO2 absorbs very little, CH4 absorbs more, and water vapor is responsible for about 70% of the atmospheric absorption of sunlight by GHGs.
Regards,
w.
Javier, I agree that something other than CO2 is warming the earth. I believe it is the ocean and the way solar heat is stored and released in the oceans as I described in my video Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=314s or transcript https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
but in your comments you argue the oceans lag warming. So what is the “something else” that is warming the earth and why not oceans?
I think (and Javier may add to this) he is referring to changes in meridional transport in the troposphere and stratosphere. Variations in the meridional transport (from the tropics to the poles) cause climate change at all time scales. What causes these changes is not 100% known, but high latitude planetary waves (affecting the polar vortex), ENSO (varying the release of heat from the Pacific), and long-term changes in the Sun and Earth’s orbit (affecting ozone) play a significant role. See Javier’s book for the details.
(11) (PDF) Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (researchgate.net)
I suggest that it is known, or should be.
Variations in meridional transport anywhere within the vertical column of an atmosphere (or oceans) are simply the convective overturning system operating as it should to neutralise any imbalances that seek to alter the balance between the upward pressure gradient force and the downward force of gravity.
The only legitimate question is whether our emissions would produce a measurable response within the system compared to natural variability.
The evidence and logic would indicate not.
Andy, here’s some data to consider while making your argument. First, the 22-year average of advection.
Positive values show areas that are exporting power, and negative values show areas that are importing power.
And next, the monthly changes in the amount advected from the tropics after the removal of seasonal variations.
Hope this helps,
w.
Thanks Willis, great illustrations. The winter months are actually the most important. Averages for DJF and the change over the years in DJF transport would be nice to see, it might make a good post for you. Same with JJA in the SH, although it is probably more boring.
The poles are huge net emitters of OLR in the wintertime, since nothing is coming in except through meridional transport.
Hi Jim, I did not want the article to be about my hypothesis but about the GHE and its meaning.
My hypothesis is not really that different from yours. It relies on differences in heat transport to high latitudes during winter. Still, mine is primarily an atmospheric theory because nearly all heat delivered to high latitudes during winter is carried there by the atmosphere. All meridional transport papers agree on that.
The winter high latitudes are like a different planet. They have almost no water in the atmosphere, the driest places on the planet. They are dominated by radiative cooling and often the GHE works in reverse because temperature inversions make the surface colder than the atmosphere. They are like a bleeding wound in the planet hemorrhaging heat into space. The amount of heat transported there is the main cause of climate change. It has always been. Even Milankovitch forcing works through changes in meridional transport.
The ocean is important because the atmosphere transports heat above the ocean basins and the ocean is the source of most heat to the atmosphere. The opening of the Arctic gateway is the ultimate cause of the Cenozoic descent into an ice age. The isolation of Antarctica actually stopped the process for a time by reducing the loss at the South polar cap. But the rising of the Himalayas and closening of the Panama gateway just helped and accelerated heat loss by enhancing meridional transport making the Arctic the source of most climate change on the planet.
Winter Arctic sea ice loss is reducing the rate of global warming and is being helped by polar vortex weakening due to low solar activity that allows the atmosphere to bring more heat to the Arctic. When the multidecadal oceanic oscillation kicks in driving more heat to the Arctic the whole climate science community is going to be very surprised.
That is my view of climate change.
Responding to your question, my opinion is that what has warmed the planet is a reduction in meridional transport due to the grand solar maximum plus the contribution from the increase in CO2.
No test is needed to exonerate ALL atmospheric gases. The climate models are sunlight 24/7 and the surface is always hotter than the atmosphere.
Very simply, the IR energy levels of the surface (15 degC) are full to a higher temperature than the IR energy levels of the gases in the atmosphere, particularly at the -17 deg C of the upper tropical. Thus, any IR directed downward by the atmosphere will be reflected (rejected) by the surface.
When you, at 98.6 deg F start in a room at 30 deg F, do you warm the room or does the room warm you? Clearly you warm the room. It’s that simple.
Because this junk science does not work, the climate nonscientists ignore this simple thermodynamic fact and pretend that the IR in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere directly. However, an object cannot warm itself. It does not matter as the IR energy is redistributed constantly and IR lost to space. The atmosphere is constantly trying to cool itself.
Yes, the surface is hotter than the atmosphere and will warm the atmosphere. But, again, the nonscientists ignore the fact that this is not solely a radiative situation.
85% of the energy carried away from the surface is from conduction and subsequent convection, producing a huge heat engine that actually ramps up when heated. The rising moist warm air then cools as it rises, by adiabatic cooling, the water vapor condenses, releasing latent heat and returning cooler back to earth while the heat as IR is lost to space.
No tests are required. It’s not rocket science, either, although such studies are much too complicated, particularly when you ignore the convection, global heat engine.
higley7 February 25, 2023 7:24 am
I’m sorry, but that’s simply not true in the slightest. The models simulate both day and night, and the surface is sometimes cooler than the atmosphere.
There are huge problems with the climate models, but those two are not among them. See my post “Meandering Through A Climate Muddle” for some of the problems.
w.
higley7 said: “Thus, any IR directed downward by the atmosphere will be reflected (rejected) by the surface.”
That’s not how radiation works though. Photons don’t have a “I was emitted by a source at temperature T” property. Bodies (like Earth’s surface) don’t absorb photons based on the temperature of the source that emitted them because they don’t know the temperature. Bodies (like Earth’s surface) absorb photons based on their frequency and only their frequency.
It is how radiation works. From Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation:
“””””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.”””””
This is the only way equilibrium can be reached. Otherwise, the hot body gets hotter and hotter each time the “radiation + back radiation” is reflected back. It is an ever increasing series!
Lay it out in a series using even a 50% factor.
1 => 100 W
2 150 W
4 225 W
6 on and on
Even 1W will result in an infinite series if the hot body gets hotter from “back radiation” and equilibrium will never occur!
In terms of photons, if the hot body is radiating 10 photons at temp T, it keeps right on radiating 10 photons at temp T. If it receives 1, the net radiation between the two bodies is 9.
That is the only way two bodies can achieve equilibrium.
Again, from Planck;
“”””Since a quantity of energy emitted causes a decrease of the heat of the body, and a quantity of energy absorbed an increase of the heat of the body, it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”””””
higley7 said: “Very simply, the IR energy levels of the surface (15 degC) are full to a higher temperature than the IR energy levels of the gases in the atmosphere, particularly at the -17 deg C of the upper tropical. Thus, any IR directed downward by the atmosphere will be reflected (rejected) by the surface.”
bdgwx said: “That’s not how radiation works though. Photons don’t have a “I was emitted by a source at temperature T” property.”
Jim Gorman said: “It is how radiation works.”
No it isn’t. Photons do NOT carry with them the temperature of the body that emitted them. I know…there’s no way I’m going to convince you of that. I can’t even convince you that the 1LOT and Stefan-Boltzmann Law work. I’m just pointing out for the lurkers that this insistence that a receiving body knows the temperature of the source body is absurd and that the receiving body does NOT reflect photons based on the temperature of the source.
You didn’t read my post nor what Max Planck found through experiment did you.
You must believe that frequency is the only part of radiation that counts. It is not. Look at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in more detail. The end result is POWER, not just frequency. Looking at it as “a photon” simply doesn’t include the power portion which controls how many photons are emitted or absorbed.
The net result is that a cold body CAN NOT heat a hot source. The source will continue to radiate at its temperature and area regardless of how much power a cold body can direct its way. The powers DO NOT ADD at the hot body. As I said, you could never achieve equilibrium if that occurred. Read Planck’s theory if you don’t believe me. That is compensation.
If you want to disagree, show the math of how a cold body causes the temperature of a hot body to rise. You’ll have to deal with entropy to do so, so get busy!
Stop deflecting and diverting. Do you or do you not support highley7’s belief that body’s decide whether or not to absorb radiation based on the temperature of the body that emitted them? Yes or No?
You didn’t even read what Jim Gorman posted did you?
What does the phrase “the compensation required by the second principle” from Planck mean?
Stop deflecting and diverting. We are not discussing Planck’s Law and the fact that blackbodies emit more photons at higher temperatures. We are discussing the statement “Very simply, the IR energy levels of the surface (15 degC) are full to a higher temperature than the IR energy levels of the gases in the atmosphere, particularly at the -17 deg C of the upper tropical. Thus, any IR directed downward by the atmosphere will be reflected (rejected) by the surface.“ which thermodynamics including but not limited to Kirchoff’s Law says is false, but which Jim defends.
1) “energy levels” traditionally refer to electron levels. Those are immaterial to IR.
2) Vibrational and rotational movements of atoms/molecules are what is involved with IR.
Read this pdf. Vibrational Spectroscopy (Infrared, IR-Spect.) – Tanta
I am not saying that IR is reflected, although it can be, again read Planck. It can also be scattered.
You have shown your ignorance of Planck. His treatise does not only deal with “black body” radiation. Much of his theories deal with “monochromatic” radiation. That is, single frequency” radiation and not black body radiation. In addition he deals with entropy in a very detailed fashion.
Your dismissal of Planck’s experiments and mathematical derivations of radiative heat transfer is just plain ignorant. You need to reflect on what you might learn by studying his texts.
Lastly, you have failed to show how equilibrium is ever achieved without compensation as described by Planck. Until you can do that your ruminations are worthless.
“1) “energy levels” traditionally refer to electron levels. Those are immaterial to IR.
2) Vibrational and rotational movements of atoms/molecules are what is involved with IR.”
And anyone familiar with Physical Chemistry knows that there are electronic, vibrational and rotational energy levels. In the case of IR emission by CO2 we’re talking about vibrational levels and the rotational fine structure.
Here is what you said:
“”””””Photons don’t have a “I was emitted by a source at temperature T” property. Bodies (like Earth’s surface) don’t absorb photons based on the temperature of the source that emitted them because they don’t know the temperature”””””
But, they do carry with them, a signature that says “I was emitted at xxx° temperature”. It is commonly known as wavelength!
Molecules and atoms do absorb IR at unique wavelengths, ala CO2. So, ultimately, yes bodies do “decide” in a sense, whether or not they will absorb heat emanating at a given temperature or not! Why do you find that controversial?
Planck discusses this using oscillatory springs that only vibrate at given frequencies. You really should study his treatise carefully and in depth. As far as I know his work on heat radiation and entropy have never been refuted, only extended.
JG said: “Here is what you said:”
Yep. :That’s what I said and I stand by it.
JG said: “But, they do carry with them, a signature that says “I was emitted at xxx° temperature”. It is commonly known as wavelength!”
No they don’t. Planck’s Law does NOT say that photons carry the signature of the temperature of the emitting body. What Planck’s Law says is that for a blackbody it 1) emits more photons at all frequencies for higher temperatures and 2) that the frequency of peak emission is higher for higher temperatures.
I will repeat this again. Photons do NOT contain information about the temperature of the body that emitted them. The only information they contain is a frequency. And because they do NOT contain temperature information about the source that means receiving bodies cannot decide to absorb them based on that temperature.
JG said: ” So, ultimately, yes bodies do “decide” in a sense, whether or not they will absorb heat emanating at a given temperature or not!”
Are you deflecting and diverting here. We are not talking “absorbing heat”. We are talking about higley7’s statement “Very simply, the IR energy levels of the surface (15 degC) are full to a higher temperature than the IR energy levels of the gases in the atmosphere, particularly at the -17 deg C of the upper tropical. Thus, any IR directed downward by the atmosphere will be reflected (rejected) by the surface.”
I will repeat this again. The surface does NOT reflect DWIR based on the temperature of the atmosphere.
And I’ll you again. Do you or do you not support highley7’s belief that body’s decide whether or not to absorb radiation based on the temperature of the body that emitted them? Yes or No?
“No they don’t. Planck’s Law does NOT say that photons carry the signature of the temperature of the emitting body.”
You are just plain wrong.
from wikpedia:
The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency or inversely, its wavelength (λ):
E = ĥω where ĥ is the reduced Planck constant, ω is the frequency
Frequency is the inverse of wavelength, λ.
The frequency at which a photon is emitted is based on the temperature of the emitting body.
Wein’s Displacement Law: λ_peak = b/T
where T is the absolute temperature and b is Wien’s displacement constant.
You may get a distribution of λ around the peak but there *will* be a peak that is dependent on Temperature. Thus the receiving body *will* know the temperature at which the photon was emitted +/- whatever the distribution is.
TG said: “You are just plain wrong.”
I gave you the chance to clarify your position. I now have no other choice but to accept that you reject the fact that 1) bodies do not decide whether to absorb photons based on the temperature of body that emitted them and 2) that Planck’s Law says bodies emit more photons at all frequencies with the peak emission occurring at higher frequencies as temperature of the increases. That’s what I’m saying and you are saying I’m wrong about that. Fine. I’ll just log this as yet another absurd argument along with the challenges of the 1LOT and SB Law that you and Jim are making and move along.
In other words, you can’t refute anything, so you’ll take your ball and go home.
Your argument attempts to do away with IR spectroscopy. In your words, Planck says everything radiates like a black body, which also means everything absorbs like a black body.
Funny how CO2 absorbs/emits most at 15μm. I wonder what frequency and temperature that is.
You can’t even quote what is being said correctly. Quit paraphrasing and actually address what is being said.
“t 1) bodies do not decide whether to absorb photons based on the temperature of body that emitted them and”
No, that is *NOT* what compensation is all about. Go read Planck. Absorption of lower energy (i.e. lower temperature) photons just get absorbed and then emitted back again. They do not heat the body. In order to heat the body they would have to be at a higher energy level than the receiving body.
” that Planck’s Law says bodies emit more photons at all frequencies with the peak emission occurring at higher frequencies as temperature of the increases.”
So what? That does *NOT* say that lower frequency photons with less energy can heat a body emitting at a higher frequency!
Colder bodies simply can’t warm hotter bodies. It’s just that simple. If they could nothing would ever wind up in equilibrium. If they could then putting an ice cube next to your glass would warm the soda in the glass!
Wein’s Displacement Law should be a perfect clue as to what actually happens. But you refuse to even address it.
Take your ball and go home. It’s a waste of time trying to educate you.
You should learn something about emission of light yourself before purporting to ‘educate someone’ about it. A blackbody at 300K will emit a wide range of photons varying in wavelength from ~3 to over 30 microns. It will emit 15 micron photons at ~6.6 W/m2/sr/µm. Reduce the temperature to 200K and it will emit 15 micron photons at 1.3 W/m2/sr/µm. A body absorbing 15 micron photons can’t distinguish between those emitted at 200 and 300K. ‘Lower energy photons’ are not ‘lower temperature photons’. Take some low energy photons (10 micron) and focus them on steel and you’ll melt the steel.
Is a CO2 molecule a blackbody or does it emit at specific frequencies?
Look at this chart and tell me why CO2 is not shown transmitting or absorbing as a blackbody!
Show rme a reference that shows CO2 radiating as a blackbody!
You do realize if everything on earth transmitted as a blackbody, it would be hard to distinguish between substances.
Forgot the chart!
Well I was responding to a comment about a ‘body’ emitting. Your statement about CO2 radiating is even more misinformed. An excited CO2 molecule emits at 526 cm-1 regardless of the temperature of its location. However they all emit from a vibrational temperature of 757K which is hotter than most of the Earth’s surface.
Wein’s Displacement Law says the spectral radiance of black body radiation per unit wavelength peaks at the wavelength λ_peak
λ_peak = b/T
What does T stand for? Lower energy photons just get turned around and re-emitted. They simply don’t increase the temperature of the hotter body. If they didn’t then you could never reach equilibrium and an ice cube next to your coffee cup would warm your coffee!
You and your ‘twin’ need to make up your mind about whether you’re talking about black bodies or molecules! Lower energy photons do not get ‘turned around’. You don’t appear to understand Wein’s Law.
And you seem to think that an ice cube can warm the coffee in your cup while it’s sitting beside the cup.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Quite, it wouldn’t happen. I’d take a bet on CO2 at 1000K though but I’m not sure what material the cup would need to be made from to be transparent to the IR.
Suffice it to, a CO2 molecule or a conglomeration of CO2 molecules are NOT a black body, and do not absorb nor emit like a black body.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/temperature/plancks-law-of-blackbody-radiation/
This site has a good derivations of the different derivations.
If molecules don’t follow Wein’s law then all bets are off.
Wein’s law is:
T = 2897.8 μm K / λ_max or λ_max = 2897.8 μm K / T
A photon is part and parcel of an EM wave and has a given frequency depending on the temperature.
Anybody that dismisses Planck also dismisses the experimental discovery of “quanta” or in other terms, photons.
No the frequency does not depend on the temperature of the emitter. The frequency of the photon emitted by an excited CO2 molecule is the same whether the CO2 is at 200K or 300K.
Then praytell, how do we know that CO2 is radiating at -80°C? Your explanation has no way to determine CO2’s actual temperature.
CO2 is not radiating at -80ºC that’s a misunderstanding of Wien’s Law which refers to the position of the peak in the blackbody radiation curve and is irrelevant to CO2 emission. CO2 emission is from the first vibrationally excited level of the O-C-O bending mode at 667cm-1 above the ground state (with some rotational fine structure). That corresponds to a vibrational temperature of ~1000K.
So this illustration is all bonkers? CO2 doesn’t REALLY radiate at ~215K?
There is nothing wrong with the illustration. Yes. CO2 radiates at 215 K. And although CO2 does radiate at 215 K that’s not what that graph is saying. The dashed lines are the blackbody curves at 220 to 320 K in increments of 20 K . Notice that the peak spectral radiance shifts to higher wavenumbers at higher temperatures.
The illustration isn’t bonkers! What it shows is that in equilibrium a gas can’t have a higher radiance than a blackbody at the same temperature. Consequently CO2 molecules that are radiating to space have to be high enough in the atmosphere to not be absorbed by the intervening CO2 molecules. This graph shows that those molecules are at a temperature of 215K (the ones in the sidebands where the absorption isn’t as efficient are at about 260K). In other words the CO2 emissions seen from space originate near the tropopause. The emissions still originate from CO2 molecules which are excited to a vibrational temperature of ~1000K.
Word salad!
How do you know the molecules are at 215K?
Will anything absorbing that energy see the radiation as if it came from an object at 215K or 1000K?
You know the CO2 molecules are at a temperature of 215K because of their radiance. If you reran the Modtran calculation with the sensor at 2km you’d see the CO2 radiance corresponding to ~300K.
It will see a photon of wavenumber 667cm-1 i.e. a vibrational temperature of ~1000K, regardless of the temperature of local atmosphere.
You are dancing.
Here is what I said.
“””””I was emitted at xxx° temperature”. It is commonly known as wavelength!”””””
See that term wavelength I used? That is part and parcel of the EM wave. It is the signature that allows absorption.
The power contained in the EM wave is determined by the temperature of the molecule.
Give a reference that shows the photons within that wave can be at 1000°K
I learned that a photons energy is E = hc / λ. I don’t see an energy in that equation.
About time you went and took a freshman Physical Chemistry course!
“Here is what I said.
“””””I was emitted at xxx° temperature”. It is commonly known as wavelength!”””””
See that term wavelength I used? That is part and parcel of the EM wave. It is the signature that allows absorption.”
And it is not determined by the molecule’s temperature.
“Give a reference that shows the photons within that wave can be at 1000°K”
The photons emitted by an excited CO2 molecule are the result of the transition from the excited vibrational energy level to the ground state. The frequency of the transition is 667cm-1, in other words the molecule is excited by about 8kJ/mole above the ground state. The vibrational temperature of that level is 959K, that’s the temperature you’d have to raise CO2 to for that frequency to arise from the surrounding heat.
“I learned that a photons energy is E = hc / λ. I don’t see an energy in that equation.”
h=6.626×10-34 J.sec
Checkout what the SI unit of energy is!
Steven Mosher: “wrong wrong wrong ….. You cant critique the AGW argument until you demonstrate that you understand it.”
Exactly so.
No one here on this forum, nor on any other skeptic forum that I am aware of, has ever presented a clear explanation of the physical theories and theoretical physical mechanisms which the mainstream climate scientists claim are the cause of global warming.
Speaking as someone who looks at the climate change issue from a public policy viewpoint, the most important facet of the science debate over physics and physical mechanisms is the mainstream climate science explanation for why the basic 1C to 1.2C of CO2-induced warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is amplified into a +3C warming, or a plus +4C warming, or whatever.
At its most simplistic level, the Held and Soden amplification theory is that the basic 1C to 1.2C of CO2-induced warming at the surface allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor than it otherwise would, which then in turn induces a feedback mechanism which amplifies the original base level warming.
The physics and the physical mechanisms being postulated are a good deal more complex than that. But for most of those reading this forum, the process of gaining an in-depth understanding of the postulated physics and physical mechanisms the mainstream climate scientists are pushing requires that we crawl before we can walk.
The best thing those of you who do have a thorough understanding of the physics and the physical processes mainstream climate science is now pushing is to start with the basics and to then move on from there in expanding our understanding of their scientific arguments.
Once that process is done, the critiques being made of mainstream climate science will carry a lot more weight with those who are inclined to be open-minded about the science.
You had six paragraphs of text to “teach” AGW, and just focusing on CO2 emissions would have been fine, but you failed miserably.
AGW also includes air pollution, land use changes, Urban heat island effect, and faulty measurements and adjustments of the temperature data, either deliberate or unintentional.
The strong water vapor feedback assumed in climate models has never been observed in the real world.
Exactly, the CO2 hypothesis of global warming remains unsupported by observations. It is amazing it is being used as an excuse to change many nations’ energy infrastructure under the motto “save the planet.” Are we out of our minds?
Exactly, the CO2 hypothesis of global warming remains unsupported by observations.
Irrelevant statement: You implying we don’t know everything about climate change, so we know nothing. That is claptrap.
The exact causes of global warming can not be determined because there are too many possible causes of warming without complete detailed knowledge about any of them.
But it can be stated with high confidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself. That means more CO2 is very likely one contributor of the 1975 to 2015 warming trend.
I am not implying that. The hypothesis that feedbacks multiply the direct warming from CO2 by a factor of 3 (from 1 to 3 ºC per doubling) is only supported by climate models. Climate models are an abstraction of the human mind, so they do not constitute scientific evidence.
There’s really not much more to say. The hypothesis is based on faith in a human abstraction. The first duty of a scientist is to be skeptical, and there’s a lot to be skeptical of.
The hypothesis is not based on faith. It is based on the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship for water vapor, the albedo difference between snow/ice and land/water, and more speculatively the microphysics of cloud formation and evolution. The first two have been known since the 1800’s. The 3rd has only gain prominence in the last few decades.
It is based on the faith that the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship and a few other physical principles can explain the response of the entire climate system to a change in temperature. We don’t even know how many things we are missing. Evaporation is controlled mainly by wind speed, not the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and we know wind speed changes, but we don’t know why or in which direction should change with warming. And hundreds or thousands of other things not correctly represented in models.
The truth is we don’t know how much warming the increase in CO2 should have caused, and we have made little progress in answering that question in 45 years. Yet we are told that we must reduce our emissions by X% in Y years to avoid reaching +1.5ºC. If we don’t know how much warming the increase in CO2 causes how can we know that? It is obvious we are being lied to.
The entire thing is a house of cards based on the inadequate output of the human mind we call models.
Nicely put!
Then please do so. After over 40 years I would think someone somewhere must have been able to explain it so people can understand it. I’ve got over 50 books on climate science and have done extensive reading of the scientific bibliography. I am also a scientist with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline. If I can’t understand it (and you think I don’t understand it), who can? Do you understand it?
Ph.D. sometimes stands for Piled High and Deep !
Here is all that everyone needs to know:
(1) The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder
(2) Summers will be warm, and winters will be cold.
(3) Most correct answers to climate change questions are “we don’t know that yest”
($) No one will admit to (3)
WoW ! Even I an old ignorant grandmother understands this.
Great. Thank You.
Muchas gracias, viejecita. Poner la ciencia al alcance de los que la financian con sus impuestos es un deber.
Mil Gracias a Usted :
Veo que a otros,( a los que leo siempre, y aprecio, aunque frecuentemente sus escritos me rebasen ) , les parece simplista. Pero a las viejecitas curiosas, nos encanta poder comprender por lo menos algo. Aunque luego haya más facetas que tener en cuenta. Hay que estar muy preparado para admitir, como Judith Curry, que , de algunas cosas, una sólo sabe que tiene dudas.
Pues eso ; Que muchas Gracias.
Bien dicho, jovencita. Te llamo asi porque cuando ya estas aprendiendo, ya estas joven.
Como se dice, te deseo “Salud, y pesetas, y tiempo pa’ gozarlas …”
w.
There is no proof, evidence, or scientific argument no matter how elegant or profound that is going to alter that state of the debate on global warming/climate change and what causes it (if there even is a debate at this point). The other side has already carried the day on this matter, so save your breath.
Getting the science right matters to me.
And it should matter to people of science and technology, but this is largely a political problem now, and I don’t think anything science has to offer can change that dynamic.
Politicians never change. The only way to get change is to vote them out.
Lol, all sides buy into anything they can use to manipulate the ignorant.
WHAT IF THE NEW POLITICIANS ARE WORSE?
Separating actual science from always wrong wild guess predictions of climate doom is my priority.
What debate?
Basic physics exonerates CO2. CO2 infrared absorption – Climate Auditor
CO2 will poison the air before it causes climate issues that adversely affect us.
A humble question: if the effective emission height is about 5 km what harm do the CO2 exhaustions of airplanes flying at 10 km?
Nothing, as far as I can tell. CO2 moves freely up through the stratosphere, much higher than planes.
but does it cool at 10 km?
Yes. Higher than the average height of emission any GHG acts as a coolant agent for the atmosphere, facilitating IR outgoing radiation.
OLR is greatest during the nino, when atmospheric specific humidity is highest.
Planetary heat uptake is the highest during the nina, when surface temperature is lowest.
It all seems backwards.
In observation there is no such thing that the OLR diminishes and the surface warms.
In observation there is no such thing that the higher water vapor content increases heat uptake.
It’s all backwards….
OLR increases when the surface warms….
Heat uptake is least when water vapor is highest.
No amount of ad-hoc feedback adjustments to IR radiative reductionist theory will make any of it work.
It’s not unlike the ability using our eyes to observe the yellow tint of jaundice on the skin of a loved one….
a spectral observation by remote sensing. However, we would be beside ourselves if we limited the investigation of cause to spectral phenomena. The wrong color paints on the walls? Incorrect exposure to UV light?
Such a notion is just as ludicrous as limiting the investigation of climate drivers to radiative phenomena, due to our fascination with noticing symptoms by radiometer….
the physics is much more fascinating, engaging, and elegant than what the radiation enthusiasts propose, I assure you.
Javier, thought you might enjoy this if you haven’t seen it.
Best to you and yours,
w.
Thank you Willis
The altitude of CO2 average emissions is in the stratosphere. If the altitude increased the emissions would increase. I know the alarmists like to average all the gases together to bring the altitude down but that is wrong. Every gas needs to be looked at separately.
It doesn’t really matter though. The emission altitude of well mixed GHGs is fixed. It is determined by the gravitational force, the mass of the atmosphere and the available energy.
Does anyone have evidence the optical depth is changing?
tau = -ln(Transmitted Flux / Surface LW Up)
I think, not really.
The fact no one is looking at it since Miskolczi showed it was flat tells us all we need to know.
Yes – the required constraints are still supported in CERES.
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas factor in CERES EBAF Ed4.1 Version 3, March 2000 – Feb 2022:
Clear Sky values:
TOA LW UP 266.01
Surface LW UP 398.51
G = 398.51 – 266.01 = 132.5
g = 132.5/398.51 = 0.33
Atmospheric greenhouse gas factor is stable and stationary. The 0.33 is not a coincidence, but required!
Furthermore, G = OLR / 2 = [H + LE] = surface net radiation is supported to within 0.5 W m-2 in CERES.
266.01 / 2 = G
Incredible stability, and a testament to the incredible work being done by the CERES team!!
It leaves only non gaseous and non radiative flux parameters to explain climate changes, no doubt.
as a PS Surface LW Up = 3 OLR / 2 is also supported to within 0.5 W m-2. These are non coincidental relations!! Pure geometry at work.
398.51 = 3/2 (266.01)
Thanks for showing the numbers. This should be required reading for all skeptics (and climate scientists).
I think one of the big problems skeptics have is they trying to account for warming with negative feedbacks to warming. The feedbacks occur immediately. There is no warming.
I refer to these as boundary layer feedback. The primary one is increased evaporation (driven by increased CO2 downwelling IR) which enhances the water cycle and counterintuitively, reduces the water vapor greenhouse effect.
“Global rainfall increases typically cause an overall reduction of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) in the upper tropospheric levels of the broader scale surrounding convection subsidence regions. This leads to a net enhancement of radiation energy to space over the rainy areas and over broad areas of the globe. ” Dr. William Gray
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
thanks for the paper! looks good and I plan to check it out.
what’s for certain is that the greenhouse gas factor is not a free variable… totally stable on climate scales, and set unequivocally from first principles without reference to gaseous composition or radiative transfer codes. unbelievable!!
Schwarzschild 1906 – “Thus our considerations are neither complete nor compelling, but by explaining a simple idea in its simplest form, they may form the basis for further speculations”.
Beyond natural drivers, from my perspective there is possibility for humanity to meddle in the partitioning of surface LE + H. This is where things get interesting.
Climatology’s reductionism to radiation transfer and atmospheric optics is wrong wrong wrong. splitting hairs on trivialities, and missing the nature of things.
Once again I agree. Ocean cycles with salinity changes and current variations can affect the latent energy. These can be driven by many factors including movement of the ITCZ as Jim Steele has been studying.
Still a long way to go before we understand our climate.
I like the ideas in the work.
I would reorganize Figure 1, however “Annual Global Budget”
Net IR = 59 looks good. This is transmitted flux to OLR.
Rain looks fine = 85. Net Latent Flux to OLR. The consensing matter emitting full spectrum OLR into clear sky at altitude.
Sensible heat = 27 OK. But I would caution this does not contribute to the OLR.
This non radiative flux H is that which is retained in the turbulent boundary layer below the cloud deck, due to the existence of the atmosphere.
We can derive the H using CERES data, once more.
The Greenhouse Gas Effect G = 132.5
The CERES observed Atmospheric Effect = LW up surface – OLR
Atmospheric Effect = 398.75 – 240.2 = 158.6
H = Atmospheric Effect – Greenhouse Gas Effect
H = 158.6 – 132.5 = 26.1
This value, in my opinion, is often confused with a radiative IR effect, sometimes termed ‘LW Cloud Radiative Effect’ by radiation enthusiasts.
It is also scooped into accounting schemes, using radiative equivalent atmospheric absorption concepts.
“Since GHGs cause the planet to emit from a higher altitude, due to making the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation”
Surface warming shifts the entire lapse rate line to the right. Temperatures at all altitudes warm.
The radiative balance altitude increases.
The cause is warming. Warming is not the result.
The earth doesnt magically radiate from a cooler altitude just because of CO2.
And yes, ERBE has been telling us OLR increases with surface temp, thus the warming is NOT from retained energy .
Planets use whatever physical/chemical means available in an attempt to to equlibrate surface temperatures.The surface would be significantly colder on the night-side, and much hotter on the day-side without IR active gases in the atmosphere, especially without water present. The surface temperature would heat up until extreme convective heat transfer conditions accelerated surface wind speeds that would whip-up giant clouds of dust in order to regulate earth’s temperature by the increased reflection and absorption of solar energy by the dust in the atmosphere, thus blocking out a good percentage of the solar energy at the surface.
All that is required for a change in the Earth’s OLR radiation is for the Albedo to change. CO2 we know warms the surface of the planet. How can we ignore the probability that the slight warming resulting from GHGs causes a slight change in the Albedo resulting in an increase in OLR radiation?
You have to get the mechanism right. Truth is that CO2 causes more greening of the planet, both on land and sea.
more green = more black = more heat is trapped.
That is what is causing albedo to change….
https://breadonthewater.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/albedo1674915190404.webp
That would be another reason that CO2 could be blamed for the increase in OLW radiation, namely increased Sun’s radiation absorption at the surface requires increased OLW radiation to achieve energy balance.
I would have used the fact that warmer surface from GHE has less ice and snow thus more absorption of energy at the surface. More absorption at the surface requires more OLW radiation to achieve an energy balance.
I invalidated ‘another reason’
See comment below.
I calculated that the net cooling effect of CO2 (by deflecting SW) is more or less equal to the warming effect (by trapping LW)
Summary of analysis CO2 spectrum NIST (1)
Scroll to the first 3 rows and look in columns K,L and M
An evaluation of the greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide | Bread on the water
Those who follow my work know that I’m a data guy. Here’s some important information regarding the ideas in the head post. I offer this without comment, I’ll leave that to Javier and to the vox pop.
w.
Ja. Ja. Like the cooling effect caused by the CO2 by deflecting SW does not exist.
Seim and Olsen (University of Oslo, 2021) did actual experiments (as opposed to theoretical blah blah blah) and found:(a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do; and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.
This confirms experiments carried out over 100 years ago by Prof John Wood (and repeated since) that greenhouses do NOT operate by trapping IRR via CO2 and converting it to LWR.
And there are good physical reasons for this. Didn’t anybody here do physical chemistry at university, particularly with respect to the ways and manner in which gases can absorb and transport energy? Hint: there are 4 ways, 3 of which are controlled by the laws of quantum mechanics, not statistical mechanics, and therefore have nothing to do with the Stefan Boltzmann equation. These 3 ways are a function of the wavelength of the input energy and IR absorption falls in that range. We should appreciate that the temperature of gases is a macroscopic measure of what is happening to energy levels at the molecular and sub-atomic scales, but importantly, temperature measures only some of that energy. Hint: it measures only 1 of these 4 means by which gases hold energy, and it is not the quantum ones.
Crisp, let me refer you to the discussion/dissection of the Seim/Olsen experiment by Kevin Kilty here on WUWT. Seim/Olsen have a number of problems in their experimental setup.
Then you can read my discussion/dissection of the R. W. Wood (not “John Wood”) experiment here.
In my opinion, there are many problems with the “CO2 roolz the temperature” hypothesis. But those two experiments are not among them.
Best regards,
w.
Regarding “The truth is that after adjusting to a change in GHG levels, the planet still returns all the energy it receives from the Sun”. This is after equilibrium between energy income and energy outgo gets restored by the planet having a surface temperature increase.
There is no increase in the surface temperature from increases in CO2 because we get reductions in high altitude water vapor. In fact, without increased absorption in the wings of the CO2 absorption bands we would get cooling.
“This is after equilibrium between energy income and energy outgo gets restored by the planet having a surface temperature increase.”
Because the higher surface temp implies a higher radiation level, right?
donklipstein February 27, 2023 6:31 am
Don, I fear you’re repeating the common error of the climate alarmists, which is the assumption that TOA radiation imbalance can only be rebalanced by increasing surface temperature.
In fact, there are a number of ways for the balance to be restored:
So no, there’s no law saying surface temperature must change to restore TOA balance.
w.
good stuff
Changes in surface albedo: Currently reinforcing temperature increase.
Changes in cloud albedo: Currently reinforcing temperature increase (low confidence).
Changes of advection: Mostly a small negative feedback, caused by a positive feedback that is disproportionately happening in/around the Arctic.
Advection changes in the ocean such as with El Nino: ENSO indices have flat long tertm trend.
Changes in atmospheric absorption of sunlight by clouds: Repeat of an above point.
Changes in atmospheric absorption of upwelling surface LW by clouds: At least half of the outgoing radiation from clouds is downward. Increase of cloud absorption of radiation from the surface is at most a negative feedback that only partially negates a surface temperature increase from GHG-change-caused radiation imbalance.
Changes in the rate of surface latent and sensible energy losses to the atmosphere: Sounds to me like change of latent vs. sensible is a positive feedback to change of global average surface temperature while being a negative feedback to global peak surface (where there is water) temperature. Also, John Christy demonstrated that most climate models overconsider this factor, because increased latent heat transport is the main cause of the tropical upper tropospheric warming hotspot that has been happening very greatly less than predicted.
Changes in the percentage of atmospheric LW radiation going upwards vs downwards: Increase of greenhouse gases increases the downward percentage and decreases the upward percentage.