By Jim Steele
With a disproportionate focus on the greenhouse effect and fossil fuels, most people are totally unaware that the earth’s surface is cooled primarily by convection currents carrying warm buoyant air up and away. Indeed, with water vapor and CO2 making the lower 1000 meters of the atmosphere opaque to most escaping infrared, thus preventing radiative cooling, the earth’s surface only cools sufficiently via convection. All honest scientists know heatwaves are caused by suppressed convection.
Graphic A shows a typical heat dome resulting from a high-pressure system that causes sinking air that suppresses rising convection. Air sinking from the colder upper atmosphere is dry and thus maintains clear skies that increase solar heating. A warmer earth surface from climate change should cause rising air, so what causes sinking air?
In the tropics, the greatest warming happens around the equator and that draws in air from the northern and southern hemisphere. Where that surface air converges (aka Intertropical Convergence Zone) air is forced upwards. What goes up must come down, and to maintain balance the air sinks around 30 degrees north and south, forming high pressure systems over the desert latitudes (Hadley Circulation). Outside the tropics the main driver of high-pressure systems is the convergence of upper atmosphere winds in wavy jet streams.
As a kid we loved to play “crack the whip” when skating. A line of 4 or more kids had a single kid on one end stop, which caused the moving line to make an arc. The kid on the other end naturally speeds up to cover the arc’s bigger circumference and thus “whips” around. Likewise, the ridge of a wavy jet stream in the upper atmosphere causes air flow to speed up. When the air flow enters a trough, the air flow slows down. The fast-moving air mass then collides with the slow-moving air causing an upper air convergence that forces air downward generating a high-pressure system (graphics B & C). Similarly, anyplace where upper air currents converge will cause a high-pressure system. How intensive the resulting heat wave depends on how fast the high-pressure system moves eastward.
In the upper atmosphere, the winds of the jet stream average 80–140 miles per hour eastward. That steers the pressure systems of the lower atmosphere. Friction with earth’s surface reduces the speed of a pressure systems to about half the speed of the jet stream. As the jet stream moves over or around mountains, or moves between water and land, or cold air interacts with warm air, or interacts with other pressure systems, the jet stream may be forced to loop more north and south. That reduces the eastward steering speed of the jet stream which causes surface high-pressure systems to slow down or stall. In that case, a lingering high-pressure system will cause an intensifying heat wave.
The wavier jet stream over the northeast Pacific Ocean commonly generates a “blocking high” in that region (graphic D). That blocking high caused Canada’s record high temperatures during a heatwave that stalled over Lytton, British Columbia June 29, 2021. The wavier jet stream also causes frequent blocking highs over Greenland, which caused excessive melting during July 2021. Meteorologist studying heat waves have mapped out regions where blocking highs are most likely to form (graphic E). Combined with monitoring of the jet stream and interacting pressure systems, meteorologist can predict when and where a heat wave is likely to form.
Any warming of the earth’s surface from the greenhouse effect or any other cause, would cause air to rise, the exact opposite of how heat waves are formed. To blame heat waves on rising CO2, alarmists must use statistical attribution tricks. They simply claim higher global average temperatures make the heat wave hotter, even when the heat wave is centered over regions where the has been no local warming. Clearly there are lies, damn lies and statistics and most alarmist climate scientists know how to manipulate statistics.
A nice, clear, simple explanation of the physics that even a child could understand;
though a catastrophist professor may struggle !!
IR absorption by narrow CO2 bands seems feeble compared with massive heat energy transfer by convection from earth’s surface to high altitudes. Convection and conduction have largely been ignored as modes of heat transfer in the crazy rush to net zero.
Yes, a very good article.
Nice post, JS. Even Wikipedia has the correct simple heat wave explanation.
But NOT NYT: “main culprit is climate change.”
And not BBC: “climate change makes it worse.”
And not Vox: “Climate change makes heat waves more frequent, more intense, and longer lasting.”
Yea, and add CNN: I just saw CNN say that an upcoming (today or tomorrow) Trump rally in Las Vegas needs extra EMT’s because, …..wait for it…it will be 104 degrees F in Las Vegas. The last time I was there it was 116. And, oh yea, it’s Trump’s fault because he is in favor of everyone dying from fossil fuels. Wow!
I once went to Phoenix, then MOT semiconductor sector HQ, in mid August late 1990’s. Actual afternoon temperature was 128F per car because of heat wave, and my shoes were sinking into the softened parking lot asphalt on way to lobby. Dry heat be damned.
“Any warming of the earth’s surface from the greenhouse effect or any other cause, would cause air to rise, the exact opposite of how heat waves are formed.”
Well yes.
Except that:
The atmosphere has an ELR which is determined by both the GHE and moist/dry convection (globally).
As the GHE continues then so the ELR moves such that the effective height of LWIR emission to space rises (to colder temps and hence weaker emission).
The new ELR remains parallel to the previous and so gives a warmer surface by default.
A surface thermal will reach the subsidence inversion, which will have a commensurately higher temp than before as it descends, and hence convection is capped with the surface at a higher temp.
Figure 4. Effect of increasing CO 2 on the vertical profile of temperature (schematic). Enhancing CO 2 raises the mean radiating height as shown. The temperature profile warms until the temperature at the new mean radiating height reaches 255 K, the current effective radiating temperature of the Earth.
You are telling us a bit of a just-so story. Probably not possible to test without a great deal of effort. The temperature profile is a solution to a differential equation, which is not only very complex itself, but depends on boundary conditions too. I doubt you can prove that the constant lapse rate pertains to reality, isn’t anything more than the essential element of the just-so explanation, and even careful measurements might not reveal what T vs. Z relationship actually obtains.
ANTHONY, such theoretical arguments don’t add much to the discussion. How about some real data. Given the average height of the jet stream that initiates the downward air flow satellite and radiosonde data show no more than about 0.1 to 0.4 K rise in the middle and upper troposphere since 1979. So the CO2 effect is very minor.. Furthermore the descending air doesnt reach the surface but only only caps the convection at a slightly lower altitude.
To argue that such a small difference is making more deadly heat waves, you must also account for and separate out the effect blocking highs and how they last.
So show me the data where you can argue CO2 is making heat waves worse,
All max temp extremes in the temperate latitudes stem from advection of hot air from extra-tropical regions. For Europe that is North Africa.
The most notable in the UK was in July 2022. The air originated over the Sahara and moved north over Spain/France to reach England on the 18th with hottest air at mid-levels travelling north overnight the 18/19th over eastern England.
As can be seen that air was exceptionally warm – the 03808 (Camborne SW England) balloon ascent overnight 18/19 July recorded the UK’s highest ever (instrumental obviously) 850mb temp of 25.2C.
https://www.torro.org.uk/extremes/summary#:~:text=Highest%20850%20hPa%20temperature%3A%2025.2,Crawley%20on%2012%20January%201987.
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/images/2022071900.03808.skewt.parc.gif
This was the synoptic situation:
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/reanalysis.php?jaar=2022&maand=7&dag=19&uur=000&var=2&map=1&model=avn
The evolution of the heat plume can be followed on the graphic.
By inspection, adding the DALR on the 03808 ascent gives ~ 40C … indeed but for the hottest air having moved north by the pm and a moderate to fresh S’ly blowing an ultimate max of 42C would have been possible with a super.
So given that the Saharan sourced air was warmer than anything that happened before on the instrumental record – what caused it?
First Sahara air advection to/over the UK is relatively common.
So the temperature at source must be the cause.
Note the air travelled over Spain and France so was not cooled by the ocean (again quite usual).
So the answer lies in the temp of the air source.
As you know the Sahara is under the subsidence zone of the sub-tropical jet.
Returning to your “Any warming of the earth’s surface from the greenhouse effect or any other cause, would cause air to rise, the exact opposite of how heat waves are formed. “
No, it is not the exact opposite …. The air above the subsidence zone had descended but below it the surface air connects up to it via convection. That is how the air below the inversion is heated. Should the inversion have reached the ground from previous days heating then insolation would quickly heat the overnight cooled surface air, heat the air to the DALR, and then dry convection would occur (your “exact opposite”).
The subsidence inversion provides the “greenhouse roof” as it were and the surface temperature has to be a reflection of the capping temp – but air also rises from the surface.
So please tell me what caused the capping temp (usually around 900-850mb) such that it produced record temps in the UK?
“satellite and radiosonde data show no more than about 0.1 to 0.4 K rise in the middle and upper troposphere since 1979”
You quote globally averaged values – we do not know what historical temp trends ( and obviously variances around that trend) are for (specifically) the mid-trop over the Sahara.
BTW: “such theoretical arguments don’t add much to the discussion”
Of course it does!
It comes down to a meteorological event which occurs because of known meteorological physics/dynamics.
The explanation it gives us is rooted in unequivocal atmospheric dynamics and to dismiss it as adding “much to the discussion” is argument by assertion.
You say, “All max temp extremes in the temperate latitudes stem from advection of hot air from extra-tropical regions.”
Really? So you are arguing the record heat in Lytton BC was due to advection not suppressed convection? You would be a lonely person in that attribution.
And how often does the inversion layer reach the surface?
No, there is BOTH.
Suppressed convection such that the surface temp has to get higher in order to join up with then pass the subsidence capping.
No, I am not arguing anything about Layton unless and until I can examine archived data.
But yes, it should be obvious that there has to the northward advected air from the NH’s hottest/desert regions into temperate zones in order that extreme max temps are achieved.
Heard of the notion of air masses?
Huh, Anthony, First you say, “All max temp extremes in the temperate latitudes stem from advection of hot air from extra-tropical regions.” Then you say “I am not arguing anything about Layton unless and until I can examine archived data.” But Lytton is in the temperate latitudes. Do not always say what you mean?
Yes I do, and that is not a contradiction.
Lytton Is in the Canadian Rockies range and A Foehn effect needs to be considered.
Hence an examination of data especially needs to be considered.
Err, do you really think I can conjure up an opinion without the data?
And what’s more, would you accept it?
I can just imagine the come-back from here if were to.
Do try to converse with some respect for the likely knowledge of your interlocutor on here.
I have noticed and been a victim of your obvious snarkiness before.
So sorry Anthony, I’ll promise to restrain my snarkiness if you promise to restrain your exaggerated and irrelevant claims. Otherwise I have no self control when triggered by such misleading claims.
Hmmmm, indeed foehn effects are possible but you inject that possibility while ignoring all the critical reported facts that the heat wave happened when the jet wave formed an omega block that stalled the heat wave for 3 days increasing temperatures every day. I am sure you know foehn winds usually last for about 30 seconds but sustained foehn can last for several minutes. So why would you inject a very unlikely foehn effect that was never reported. Are you conjuring up an unsupported opinion again [stifled snarky smirk] to divert the issue?
This event is three years ago, but I do recall thinking that a Chinook might have been involved because of the proximity of the ranges to the West. However, this sounding from Vernon, which is about 100km to the east of Lytton, actually two soundings from the 29th show that convection inhibition is quite substantial at 5:00 local time (-1,477 J/kg) with light surface winds and persists though the day,despite intense surface heating, to the sounding at 17:00 at least.
https://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2021&MONTH=06&FROM=2912&TO=3000&STNM=73033
Broken link for Synoptic:
Anthony Banton, please tell us the source of your graphic.
Hmmm Why doesnt Banton want to show his source?
Like I said cut the snarkiness Steele
Try doing an image search on Google.
It will go straight to ….
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-%22GREENHOUSE%22-EFFECT-AND-CLIMATE-CHANGE-Mitchell/2d6fd2205216a1234a4172b70cfff9323c2f3bc9
‘As the GHE continues then so the ELR moves such that the effective height of LWIR emission to space rises (to colder temps and hence weaker emission).’
That’s the canonical narrative. Unfortunately, it’s not happening as actual observations show that OLR is increasing concurrently with increasing ASR and decreasing cloud cover.
It may be warming, but it’s not CO2-forced greenhouse.
For anyone confused by Mr. Banton’s highly misleading (mainly, by what he omits) comment:
1) 98% of the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) is due to water vapor and cloud. (Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, Murry Salby, (2016) p.249)
Further,
2) … Arrhenius’ estimate of 5-6 K for the accompanying increase of surface temperature (Sec. 1.2.4) then translates into ~ 4 K. Yet, the observed change of global-mean temperature since the mid nineteenth century is only about 1 K (Sec. 1.6.1). The discrepancy points to changes in the Earth-atmosphere system (notably, involving the major absorbers, water vapor and cloud) that develop in response to imposed perturbations [such as additional CO2]… . (Ibid. – emphasis mine)
Moreover,
3) The time scale for radiative transfer is an order of magnitude longer [i.e., slower] than the characteristic time scale of air motion. For this reason, air motion controls tropospheric properties like thermal structure and vertical stability. (Id. at 247)
**************
4) Any further increase in CO2 (no matter how large) can only cause a negligible increase in the GHE/surface temperature of Earth.
See this lecture by William Happer (2023) — especially at 16:34.
A figment of a fool’s imagination.
No measured evidence presented whatsoever.
Anthony, although I have a little science and math background, I am not a meteorologist or atmopspheric physicist (if that’s the correct term) and I don’t totally understand laps rates and shifting lapse rates with rising CO2, so this question may not be relevant, but is this related to the tropospheric hot spot and how does that form?
Phil, the tropical troposphere hotspot only forms in climate models, not in reality. And it forms only in models because they overstate the tropical WVF by about 2x in order to model dreaded global warming.
I get people telling me that Dr. Sherwood showed the existence of Hot Spot in his garbage paper, while I tell them the NOAA doesn’t accept his voodo math’s continues to accept standard radio sonde data thus not accepted.
Wait a minute! More CO2 means more CO2. More CO2 will emit more total radiation. If it is doing so at a higher altitude at a colder temp, each individual molecule will radiate away less heat BUT THERE WILL BE MORE MOLECULES RADIATING!
You can’t just look at the the radiation from a single molecule. You have to integrate the entire CO2 population of radiating CO2 to get the total amount!
Mr. Blanton do you have any data covering say 20 years showing where the ELR was and its rise over time? Depending on which lapse rate you are talking about have you do any calculations to see how much the LR has changed due to the updated Cp of air given the increased CO2 or change in water vapor?
If not then what you wrote is not valid.
Nope, just another climate science claim that violates known physical laws. While increasing CO2 molecules leads to more absorptions, the increased number of CO2 molecules also leads to more emissions (Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation). These two factors balance out. The energy flow stays constant.
While the energy flow may not remain totally constant the change in the total can only be determined by integrating over the whole of the system, not just one molecule. Heck, the total might turn out to be greater!
Jim Steele:
You say, “in that case, a lingering high-pressure system will cause an intensifying heat wave”
Yes, but WHY do temperatures intensify within the heat dome?
BH, Jim Steele directly answered your question in the second sentence of his second paragraph.
ROTFLMAO
You made my day.
“Yes, but WHY do temperatures intensify within the heat dome?”
Smoke and mirrors hanging above DC, the UN, Penn State and MSM headquarters?
statistical attribution tricks, from the experts…
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/
Need I add a /sarc?
Haha….From their website
”Most studies are performed rapidly, in the aftermath of extreme weather events – or even while they’re still happening – to answer the increasingly common question: ‘what was the role of climate change in this event?’
Has anyone pointed out to them that, statistically, what they are doing is a variation of Monte telling the contestant which door has a goat behind it in the famous Monte Hall Problem ?
It woz climate change wot dunnit
Strat, I hope you don’t believe these “attribution” studies have much validity.. If so show your proof.
Jim, I don’t believe Strat thinks attribution studies are worth the powder to blow them to hell,
Of course I don’t, Jim.
I’m somewhat offended by the suggestion that I would be taken in by their claptrap
Sorry Strat, but your reply was nebulous enough I had to check. There was nothing sarcastic about calling them “statistical attribution tricks” . I thought you have been a better critical thinker in the past.
We all have our off days…
😉
Don’t worry, Jim. I think 99% of us realized that you were not being sarcastic about the AGWist’s trickery.
THANK YOU, btw, for another excellent article! 🙂
Just make averages of everything and then its CO2 hands-down.
“Where that surface air converges (aka Intertropical Convergence Zone) air is forced upwards. “
That’s the wrong way around. The air rises because it is warmed and picks up water vapor (lighter than air). That provides the motive power; surface air is drawn in to replace it.
“They simply claim higher global average temperatures make the heat wave hotter”
They would say that, wouldn’t they. That is because it simply makes sense. This article describes what causes local variations in tiime and space, and always has. It doesn’t explain the increasing heat.
“Where that surface air converges (aka Intertropical Convergence Zone) air is forced upwards. “
That’s the wrong way around. The air rises because it is warmed.
Physical law, warm air rises, right, so it’s forced, isn’t-it ? 😀
What’s wrong about ? 😀
No, it’s actually natural convection rather than forced convection. But anyway, it isn’t forced by the converging surface winds.
Forced by physical law, that’s all, you understand that ? 😀
Clarify, quantify and identify the difference between “natural” and “forced” convection?
(I’m assuming that by “forced” you mean Man somehow caused it. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry. But it still needs to be clarified either way.)
It was Mr Gans who said it was forced convention. I’m saying it is natural.
Natural convection, Grashof nos apply .Forced convection Reynolds, Nusselt and Prandtl nos apply
Dimensionless numbers are the key to understanding the difference between natural and forced convection. The latter is invariably used in the design of industrial heat transfer equipment.
Reference the Dittus Boelter and Sieder and Tate equations for heat transfer across fluid boundary layers.
“ natural convection “
Yep that’s what happens to any minor heat in the atmosphere,…
…you know… like pretend CO2 warming !
All gone!
Another desperate Nick reply. I didnt argue that solar warming at the equator was not part of the equation. I emphasized the convergence dynamic because it is the more important driver of convections cells. But for you to say convergence was not a major contributor only reveals your ignorance. Why do you think real scientists call it the Intertropical CONVERGENCE zone?? Hmmmm? Or maybe you can demonstrate how rising air is all due to heating at 60 N and S where the Ferrel Cell and Polar cells converge?
And of course attribution narratives makes sense to all the climate ignorant Chicken Littles of the world that dont engage in critical thinking (you included). But it is still misinformation and bad science devoid of all understanding of how are climate works!
Convergence just means that surface air converges. It has to, to replacee the warmed moist air rising. It isn’t forcing the air to rise. As I said, it is the other way around.
Once more, and slowly so you understand, rising ITCZ air is a matter of being warmer, moisture AND convergence.
And I am still waiting for you to explain rising air at the cold 60 degree latitude. Why do you avoid answering? (as if I dont know)
The convergence is a consequence, not a driver. As to the Ferrel and Polar cells, they are just an example of Rayleigh-Benad convection.
The descending air from the Hadley cell creates a high pressure area, forcing air both back to the tropic (trade winds) and toward higher latitude. The Hadley Cell thus forces the Ferrel cell, and in turn, in a mirrored way, the polar cell.
Furthermore to say convergence “just means that the surface air converges” is a totally idiotic statement. Convergence is not limited to thee surface air. DUH
So lets look at upper air convergence which is the focus of this article that you are desperately trying to divert attention from. Are you arguing that convergence can not cause air to rise or descend? Are you arguiing it is heat, not convergence, that causes upper air to flow downward in high pressure systems? [muffled snickering]
Mass of air is conserved. In 3D, it neither diverges nor converges, except temporarilyly in wave motions. At the ITCZ, air enters from converging surface flows and exits via warm air rising. But it is the warm air rising that provides the driver. Converging surface winds replace the air that has risen.
Convergence here just means that the surface winds converge. That is the C in ITCZ.
air masses “ neither diverges nor converges”. Really??? Well Nick you need to re-write all the meteorological weather textbooks. And like many alarmist scientists do, re-write the data showing divergence and convergence. [belly laugh]
Yeah, he doesn’t understand that SINKING air in high pressure ridges means air is descending which is why it warms up and dries the region causing clear to mostly clear skies.to develop.
“In 3D, it neither diverges nor converges”
Zero divergence is basic in fluid mechanics; it is just conservation of mass. It means that for any volume, the amount going in equals the amount going out. It applies to low Mach number flows, generally reckoned at M<0.3. Atmospheric flows certainly qualify.
If surface winds converge, as they can, there must be a corresponding updraft tn the third dimension. That doesn’t say they caused it. It is just a basic conservation condition.
Nick is saying the atmosphere is controlled by the gas laws.
Therefore, CO2, being a non-condensing gas… has ZERO EFFECT.
Thanks Nick. 🙂
Nick is the master of embracing a scientific factoid and then totally misapplying it in order to make a fallacious argument.nNot many peopple can butcher science the way Nick does.
Nick seems to think that the atmosphere is an homogenous, non-compressible fluid. That’s the only time the “conservation of mass” applies. If pressure and density changes you can certainly have less mass leaving the convergence zone than is entering. You just can’t have more mass leaving than entering!
“Zero divergence is basic in fluid mechanics; it is just conservation of mass.”
This *ONLY* applies to a homogenous, non-compressible fluid. Something the atmosphere is *NOT*.
If two airflows in the atmosphere converge and the resulting density and pressure winds up being different than either of the two inflows then the mass leaving the area of convergence does *NOT* have to be the same as the mass entering.
‘The air rises because it is warmed and picks up water vapor (lighter than air).’
No. The troposphere convects because GHGs warm the atmosphere at low altitude / higher density via collision and cool the atmosphere at high altitude / low density via radiation.
Very nice Jim, we desperately need this kind of information.
Bob, it was out there in various forms even before Jim put together his very nice visual post summary. But you have to seek it out.
In my first comment way upthread I simply pointed out that NYT, BBC, and VOX didn’t bother to even try. They all led on some strong or weak version of ‘climate change’ instead. IMO, ‘knew or should have known’ gross negligence.
Of course you are right Rud but Jim has a way of making it more understandable. I really appreciate that.
Harold the Chemist Says:
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume. This is 0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. At 20 deg. C, a cubic meter of air has a mass of 1.20 kilograms. Thus this small amount of CO2 can only cause a small amount of heating of such a large mass of air.
The claim by the IPCC that CO2 from the use of fossil fuels causes global warming is lie.
And any miniscule mythical CO2 atmospheric heating is immediately dealt with by the over-riding control of the atmosphere….. the gas laws.
And the hot air “laws”:
Your comments
Only ignorant people claim CO2 can not impede Earth’s ability to cool itself, as nearly 100% of climate scientists have believed since 1896. Some of them are chemists.
Here’s the effect of that ‘small amount of CO2’ has on the Earth’s radiance:
I find it informative to view this graph in terms of the effective radiating altitude. The ATM Window radiates at heat commensurate with surface temperatures and thus escapes to space un impeded. H2O radiates around 280K which is centered around 1-2 km altitude commensurate with vapor condensation as cloud formation releases latent heat. CO2 radiates most heat at 220K which is commensurate with 10-11km altitude, the height of the polar tropopause and considerably below the tropical tropopause. The colder radiating altitude relative to what’s expected from the surface, doesnt mean the heat is trapped, but just that CO2 cant emit effectively to space from lower altitudes. CO2 wavelengths are emitted less intensely /slower from that higher altitude. That altitude is also aligned with CO2’s cooling effect. The non-greenhouse gases, O2 and N2 (99% of the atmosphere) can only shed their absorbed energy via collisions with CO2.
“The colder radiating altitude relative to what’s expected from the surface, doesnt mean the heat is trapped, but just that CO2 cant emit effectively to space from lower altitudes. CO2 wavelengths are emitted less intensely /slower from that higher altitude.”
It means the IR emitted from the surface at those wavelengths is completely absorbed by CO2 which then either re-emits it or loses it by collisions with neighboring molecules. At the lower altitudes collisional deactivation is the dominant mode, above the 10-11 km altitude emission becomes more important mode and hence is what is seen from space. The energy missing in that CO2 notch represents the energy that remains in the atmosphere instead of radiating into space if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere.
We agree up to the point where you argue “The energy missing in that CO2 notch represents the energy that remains in the atmosphere instead of radiating into space” And that claim is demonstrably false. The energy most assuredly does not “remain”.
The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths expected to escape via CO2 emissions.
First consider that any redirected IR that warms the surface causes the surface to then radiate the entire spectrum for the resulting temperature. Thus energy redirected by CO2 emissions, now up to 30% will be emitted via the atmospheric window as well as the wavelengths absorbed by H2O vapor.
Second the resulting surface warming from re-directed IR, energizes 99% of the atmosphere consisting of non-greenhouse O2 and N2 that collided with the surface, that cause convection that carries the heat via convection to altitudes where collisions with CO2 now allow CO2 wavelengths to be emitted and escape to space.
“The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths expected to escape via CO2 emissions.”
No the notch shows the amount of surface energy that is absorbed by CO2.
In the lower altitudes most of the energy warms up the atmosphere via collisional deactivation. Any further warming of the surface will increase the surface emissions as you say until the outgoing radiation equals the incoming, it’s known as the Greenhouse effect.
Phil, you are just repeating what I said without addressing your fallacy that the “energy remains”. I say the notch represents the “energy that does not escape via the wavelengths of CO2 ” vs you saying “shows the amount of surface energy that is absorbed by CO2.” The statements argue the same dynamic.
What you fail to address is my criticism of your claim that the energy REMAINS
Then that was due to your rather confusing wording: “The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths expected to escape via CO2 emissions.”
You said “escape via CO2 emissions” whereas as I pointed out it “shows the amount of surface energy that is absorbed by CO2.” It appears that you agree with that now.
It represents the rate at which energy is returned to the atmosphere by CO2 thus causing heating which as you point out leads to increased radiation. The temperature must increase until the additional amount emitted “via the atmospheric window” equals the amount blocked by the CO2.
You are being very disingenuous Phil. Nothing I said was confusing except for you who doesn’t want to listen to anything other than your meme.
From my first reply to you I also said “We agree up to the point where you argue “The energy missing in that CO2 notch represents the energy that remains in the atmosphere instead of radiating into space” .
And you continue to blather without refuting anythinng I’ve reported or without evidence to show the ” CO2 notch represents the energy that remains in the atmosphere”
Again “The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths expected to escape via CO2 emissions.” It does NOT reveal if that energy is trapped and remains as you woefully argued!
“You are being very disingenuous Phil. Nothing I said was confusing except for you who doesn’t want to listen to anything other than your meme.”
I don’t have a ‘meme’.
Your confusing statement, which you have repeated, is “The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths expected to escape via CO2 emissions.”
Which implies that the missing energy is something to do with CO2 emissions, it does not, it’s related to absorption by CO2 of the emissions from the surface.
If you’d said “The CO2 notch ONLY reveals the amount of surface energy that does not escape via the wavelengths due to CO2 absorption,” I’d have no problem.
Phil , CO2 emits or sheds via collision what it absorbs. Your persnickety quibble seems more like an effort to persist in your avoidance of dealing with my disagreement with your assertion that the energy absorbed by CO2 “remains”! Obviously you can’t support that claim!
The phenomena of “trapping” heat is a fundamental belief for alarmists. The fact that N2 and O2 are thermalized like a heat sink destroys the instantaneous radiation diagrams where “back radiation” is what drives the 33° surface temperature increase. N2 and O2 mediates the radiation release to a later time and screws up the averages.
I’ve yet to see where anyone in climate science has taken the time to identify the entire thermo system known as the biosphere and then integrate everything to come up with totals versus time.
It’s always “this one single CO2 molecule absorbs this much and then radiates this much and the rest is trapped heat”.
He explains the first part well them stumbles on what REMAINS which he doesn’t explain that I keep waiting for.
“Phil , CO2 emits or sheds via collision what it absorbs”.
Yes as I said, I also explained that in the lower atmosphere it’s mostly transferred to the atmosphere via collisional deactivation, typically in about 1 nanosecond (~10 collisions), emission takes much longer.
“Your persnickety quibble seems more like an effort to persist in your avoidance of dealing with my disagreement with your assertion that the energy absorbed by CO2 “remains”! Obviously you can’t support that claim!”
Actually I can.
Take a view of the emissions from a region in the tropics with a ground temperature of 300K and 400ppm CO2. You’ll see a graph similar to the one I included above with a notch due the the absorption by CO2 which energy is transferred to to the atmosphere. Upward heat flux is ~300W/m^2. In the absence of CO2 the notch is absent and the upward heat flux is ~331W/m^2. Thus ~31W/m^2 is been added to the atmosphere, such an addition to the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature and a consequential increase in emissions until outgoing radiation balances incoming. That would require a surface temperature of ~7K, thus the absorbed energy remains in the system in order to maintain the flux balance.
Hate to burst your bubble.
You are obviously using daily averages in your radiation calculations. You end up with ~31 W/m² being added each day when using the average radiation values.
Here is the problem. That is 31 W/m² EACH DAY! Over a month’s time, that is a lot of energy being trapped in the atmosphere. Maybe you should revise your calculations to reduce a constant addition of heat to the atmosphere each and every day!
Remember, radiation is not the only process going on in the atmosphere.
What bubble? Nothing unreasonable about an average temperature of 300K in the tropics, given the T^4 dependence perhaps I underestimated.
Why don’t you answer the question I asked?
31 W/m² trapped in the atmosphere each and every day adds to an unreasonable value over time.
Can you show us a revised value that is more reasonable?
“outgoing radiation balances incoming”
The issue is that it doesn’t *have* to be CO2 radiating to induce that balance. Phil seems to be unable to admit that.
Not true, that’s exactly what I said, it’s not CO2 radiation, the outgoing radiation has to increase to balance the retention of energy by CO2. For example:
“In the lower altitudes most of the energy warms up the atmosphere via collisional deactivation. Any further warming of the surface will increase the surface emissions as you say until the outgoing radiation equals the incoming, it’s known as the Greenhouse effect.”
“ the outgoing radiation has to increase to balance the retention of energy by CO2.”
But it doesn’t have to be from CO2 or even in the CO2 radiation window!
Exactly, that’s what I said.
But then the heat is not trapped is it?
If in equals out, where does the energy come from that raises temperature. Remember, you and GHE requires the SURFACE to warm, but if in equals out, how does the surface heat?
But then the heat is not trapped is it?”
Yes because the energy retained in the system has increased resulting in increased temperature.
If in equals out, where does the energy come from that raises temperature. Remember, you and GHE requires the SURFACE to warm, but if in equals out, how does the surface heat?”
When you add CO2 as shown above heat which would otherwise have left is retained thus temperature increases until equilibrium is reached.
You still haven’t explained how heat is “trapped”. If the temperature is greater than space then there *will* be heat transport to space in some manner. Otherwise you have a violation of all kinds of theories, including the laws of thermodynamics and Planck’s black body theory.
The Earth is not an isolated system with no mass/energy exchange with the outside. It’s not even a partially isolated system where mass/energy can enter but never leave.
Someone in this thread or perhaps another one mentioned the problem with using “averages” to analyze the heat transport involved with the Earth’s biosphere.
Retained heat *should* cause both maximum and minimum temps to be going up but most of the literature I have seen shows that it is primarily minimum temps that are being affected. The proof being the greening of the earth, the constant record setting grain harvests, the disappearance of deserts instead of an increase in desertification, etc. indicating that max temps are barely affected if at all.
Of course the dependence of climate science on the use of daily mid-range temp values as their base for calculating anomalies can’t discern what is happening with minimum and maximum temps.
Part of the problem is that heat transfer is an exponential function. Use of “averages” can’t tell you the total amount of heat loss, only an integral of the heat transfer can do that. Yet I’ve never seen any paper that has bothered to integrate the radiation flux over time. The Earth loses heat even during the day and as the daytime temps go up the heat loss goes up at least exponentially, Planck would tell you it goes up by the 4th power of the temperature. The integral of an exponential, e^2, is not the mid-range value, it is e^x + Constant.
Maybe it would help to look at it in a different manner. The Earth cools until the heat input equals the heat loss. Heat loss is an exponential, heat input is sinusoidal – where to they intersect?
“You still haven’t explained how heat is “trapped”.”
Yes I have, I’ve explained it in detail, try reading the posts!
Basically the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR which would otherwise reach space. That energy is transferred to the atmosphere/surface thereby increasing the temperature (the heat is trapped), the temperature increases until outgoing energy balances the incoming reestablishing equilibrium. Thus the system contains more energy than before the addition of CO2.
You *still* haven’t explained how it gets trapped. Heat in is linear, heat out is exponential. As CO2 intercepted IR is thermalized the temp of the atmosphere goes up and you get an exponentially higher radiation from the system. Planck says so.
Linear in – Exponential out. Where is the trapping?
As I said, read the post!
In the example I gave the absorption by CO2 resulted in a 7K increase in temperature, that’s the trapped energy.
In that example CO2 reduced the outgoing radiation by ~10% resulting in an increase in temperature of ~2.5%.
LOL Phil idiotically thinks if energy is transferred to the surface or atmosphere it is trapped. Huh????? First if CO2 warms the atmosphere the air doesn’t subside and warm the surface, it rises.
Second, Phil provides a half-ass argument that only considers a partial dynamic. If the heat is transferred to O2 and N2, that heat cannot be shed via radiation. The warmed O2 and N2 transfers heat back to CO2 at a higher altitude where it then radiates the heat back to space. Otherwise the atmosphere would experience runaway heating as heat would accumulate. Outgoing energy cannot balance incoming unless radiated away. Thus the importance of the CO2 cooling effect!
Welcome back Jim, I thought you’d run away to hide and let the Gorman twins push your nonscience.
“If the heat is transferred to O2 and N2, that heat cannot be shed via radiation. The warmed O2 and N2 transfers heat back to CO2 at a higher altitude where it then radiates the heat back to space.”
Your memory appears to be failing as that contradicts what you said earlier: “consider that any redirected IR that warms the surface causes the surface to then radiate the entire spectrum for the resulting temperature. Thus energy redirected by CO2 emissions, now up to 30% will be emitted via the atmospheric window as well as the wavelengths absorbed by H2O vapor.”
“First if CO2 warms the atmosphere the air doesn’t subside and warm the surface, it rises.”
Of course if you increase the atmospheric temperature you will reduce the convective and conductive losses from the surface and the surface will warm.
“If the heat is transferred to O2 and N2, that heat cannot be shed via radiation. The warmed O2 and N2 transfers heat back to CO2 at a higher altitude where it then radiates the heat back to space.”
Yes but as indicated by the spectrum I posted that is only a small fraction of the amount absorbed (the ‘notch’). The spectrum indicates that the emissions are from CO2 molecules at temperatures lower than 220K, check out the Maxwell=Boltzmann equation, not many N2/O2 molecules at that temperature carry enough kinetic energy to excite the CO2 vibrational transition (≳8,000J/mole)!
As I said in the example I gave, the absorption by CO2 caused the temperature to increase by 7K, that’s the retained energy.
You don’t have a clue do you?
CO2 does thermalize N2 and O2. That subtracts energy going to the surface. It also raises the atmosphere’s temperature, not the surface temperature.
The surface does absorb energy from CO2, but the net energy is from the surface upward. That is a broad spectrum of which a lot goes out the atmospheric window and not at CO2’s frequency.
If CO2 excites O2 and N2 then those molecules can excite CO2 with a reverse collision
“If CO2 excites O2 and N2 then those molecules can excite CO2 with a reverse collision”
No, it takes multiple collisions to deactivate the CO2 ro-vibration, to activate the rovib requires one collision with the right energy at the exactly right direction, not very likely with the molecules at 220K, as I said check the M-B equation. It appears you don’t have a good understanding of the processes involved.
No it doesn’t as pointed out it results in a temperature increase of 7K, very reasonable.
Not long ago, for 3(?) years there was, more or less constantly, the “Blob” in the Pacific Ocean, creating one of these heat domes a fair distance off the coast of Canada and the western US. There were multiple articles about the causes and consequences of this.
One article, the only one such I saw, claimed there were belts, by latitude, of high altitude air flows that are pretty much permanent. I guess these could meet the definition of jet streams. Anyway, one well know, but little understood such belt was know to create a more or less permanent standing wave pattern that frequently remained in place, relative to the surface, for longish periods but then suddenly jumped to a new location, generally or always eastward. It was this wave/trough that produced the long enduring “Blob” heat dome, noticeably effecting west coast weather.
Is it true that there are such multiple air flow streams at various altitudes and latitudes? Do many of them create semi-permanent waves.
In the UK we get two distinct types of heatwave. The hottest type happens during negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, with the associated wavier jet stream. Known as a Spanish or Saharan plume, these gave record high maximum temperatures in July 2019 and in July 2022, but they are very brief at 1-4 days duration, the rest of the month could be washout because of the negative NAO.
Longer lasting heatwaves occur during positive NAO conditions, these are the heatwaves that Met Office say will increase, because their circulation models predict increasingly positive NAO states with rising CO2 forcing. Their projections are for major heatwaves like in 2003 and 2018 happening every other year by 2050.
Of course they have no idea that such heatwaves are discretely solar driven and predictable centuries ahead.
The Discrete Solar Forcing Of Major Heat And Cold Waves.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
Reading through the discussion in this and almost every other thread on climate shows that the term ‘settled science’ should be classified as misinformation.
Kudos to all those that understand and can argue on the topic, as I surely cannot
This article and the last Steele article made the recommended reading list on my blog.
I would add that heat waves are weather events not climate. And that the US heat waves peaked in the 1930s, before CO2 became a satanic gas, and every bad weather event became “climate change”.
Also, the warming since 1975 was mainly TMIN rather than TMAX. Depending on how you do the calculations, from 60% to 66.7% TMIN versus 33.3% to 40% TMAX.
TMIN records are more likely to be caused by an increased greenhouse effect while TMAX records are more likely caused by more absorbed solar radiation, from less air pollution, and a decline of cloudiness.
Why would rising CO2 selectively affect only lower temps, and then only in selective locations? Less heat escapes at night? What is the CO2 doing during the day?
During the day, CO2 and water absorb IR light from the sunlight. About 40% of the sunlight is IR light.
Needs some homogenising and pasteurising-
Delhi’s maximum temperature of 52.9 degrees due to Mungeshpur station sensor error: IMD | Delhi News – The Indian Express