By Charles Blaisdell, PhD ChE
Abstract
The Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, theory is a cascading natural process that only since about 1970 has become significant in Climate Change. The basic elements of CRGW theory have been around forever, it is the size (% of the earth affected) that has increased to the point that this natural process can be seen. The CRGW theory starts on land with the concept of a Special Parcel, SP, that has been changed from its virgin state such that less water is evaporated than the original virgin land. (SP examples: UHIs, forest to crop, or surface mining) The lower water evaporation (as indicated by lower surface air specific humidity, SH) creates higher temp and lower relative humid, RH, than the original land. How much a SP has changed the evaporation is not known since the original evaporation is not known, but if the land surrounding the SP is unchanged it can be used as a reference (the zero) for how much the SP has changed. The changed vs virgin land difference in SH remains relatively constant as the size of the SP increases with time. The SP’s lower humidity hotter air rises in a plume about 2 to 4 time larger than the land area it came from to cloud level: thus, amplifying the cloud level effect. The cloud cover is related to the Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD, (the difference between the saturated water vapor pressure and the actual water vapor pressure). Higher VPD less clouds. The less clouds more Sun (lower global albedo). More Sun more atmospheric enthalpy, higher temperatures, and more evaporation of water (SH rising). This cascading series of natural events increase with the size of the earth’s total SPs. Simply put: if less water is put into the atmosphere from land (relative to what was evaporated previously) the global cloud fraction will decrease, and it will get HOTter.
The atmosphere fingerprint supports the CRGW theory: Since 1970 temperatures, specific humidity, enthalpy, and VPD have been rising while relative humidity and cloud cover have been declining. The lower evapotranspiration, ET, (proportional to SH) in over 1500 cities has been confirmed by Mazroonei et al (8). The existence of Urban Heat Island plumes has been modeled and weather balloons have confirmed their existence.
Reasonable estimates of global SP ET (or SH) change in a mathematical models suggest that CRGW could be a significant contributor to global warming and is reversable.
Introduction
This essay is intended to be a summary of all 7 previous essays (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7) with the theme of CO2 is innocent, but Clouds are Guilty (thanks WUWT). To the reviewers of previous essays thanks for your suggestions and comments. I hope this essay will answer some of your comments.
In this essay ET change and SH change are used interchangeably. Evapotranspiration, ET, is defined as the total water flux evaporated into the atmosphere from surface Evaporation and plant Transpiration. Specific humidity, SH is the concentration of water in air. On an annual basis ET is proportional to surface SH. CRGW theory uses %ET change = %SH change. Change not the actual value.
Prior to about 1970 climate scientist assumed that the annual cloud cover and reflectivity of short-wave radiation of the earth were relativity constant, because there was no data to say otherwise (13). With the advent of satellite data that is changing. The “urban heat island effect”, UHI, was known but alone was too small to be a significant climate change variable. In this essay the UHI’s possible amplifying relationship to cloud reduction and climate change is presented. It is also suggested that other land changes could have similar UHI climate change properties.
CO2 is innocent
The main points of the innocents of CO2 are:
- In the lower atmosphere CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs long wave, LW, radiation and heats the atmosphere. The Beer-Lamber law says that this absorption is a function of distance and concentration (of CO2). At 400 ppm, CO2 is saturated in the lover atmosphere. Saturation means that more CO2 will not change the LW absorption in the lower atmosphere. The IPCC agrees. . See (1) and (2) for more information.
- The IPCC’s current theory (radiative forcing, RF) is that in the upper atmosphere CO2 via Planck’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Law will absorb long wave radiation and reflect heat back to the lower atmosphere. To prove this theory NASA put the CERES satellite up to measure the radiation related to this theory. RF theory should show relatively constant short wave, SW, radiation out and decreasing long wave, LW, radiation out with time See Figure 1. Twenty years of CERES data analyzed by Dübal et al (15)and Loeb et al (16) show SW out decreasing and LW out radiation increasing over the 20 years, contrary to RF theory, see Figure 2. Their papers also indicated there may be some evidence of RF but clouds were the main source of SW and LW change over the 20 years.
- Decreasing relative humidity, RH, with time does not fit the RF theory.
- Decrease in low altitude clouds and no change to high altitude clouds does not fit the RF theory. RF theory would support decreasing all altitude clouds
- Another theory is needed to explain the CERES data and the atmospheric observations. CRGW theory does that.
CRGW Theory – Cascading Natural Steps.
- The Special Parcel, SP
Clausius–Clapeyron law describes the atmospheric behavior in a special parcel, SP: as the SH decreases the temperature increases at a constant enthalpy, see Figure 3. As enthalpy increases this relationship increases. The density decreases as the temperature increases, the decrease in SH has little effect on the density change, see Figure 4.
In a SP the SH change is not known (invisible) because the starting SH is lost to time, but can be relative to surrounding virgin land. Clausius–Clapeyron laws apply to all SPs: urban UHIs, rural structures, forest to crop, surface mining, etc. Prior to 1970 the total area of all these SPs was not large enough to have much of an impact on climate change. All these SPs are sources of ET change (increase of decrease) vs what was there before the SP.
A wide range of ET from UHIs was verified by Mazrooei et al. (2021) (8) and Lu Hao et al. (2021) (9) with a creative method from satellite data. Their data shows SPs in arid environments can have positive ETs and SPs in wet environments have negative ETs, showing a ET range of +10% to -50%. With a -12% ET change globally. Mazrooei et al.’s work proves that the (invisible) starting step of the CRGW theory is real, significant, and negative. See (7) for more information.
- Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD and Clouds
From the SPs temperature and SH the saturation vapor pressure, Psw, and the actual water vapor pressure, Pw, can be calculated. The difference between these is the Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD, and is a measure of the probability of condensation of water to clouds, fog, or rain. The lower the VPD the higher the probability of cloud formation. The VPD has been increasing over time and as expected clouds have been decreasing. This correlation, see Figure 5, is not that good, probability due to the fact that all clouds are not the same. Cloud cover includes dark rain clouds, non-rain clouds, high clouds, low clouds, and partly cloudy all these cloud types count in the cloud fraction but have a different correlation to VPD. CERES data (for 20 years) shows that cloud SW radiation reflectivity is a better correlation to the surface VPD, see (3) pie charts 3 and 4. A higher VPD vs cloud cover slope will decrease the cloud cover and thus the global temperature. See (5) for more information.
- VPD and Enthalpy, En
The increase in SW radiation from the reduced cloud cover is absorbed by the earth to heat the land, oceans, and atmosphere as measured by the enthalpy. The En for the atmospheres can be calculated from the atmospheric (surface) temperature and SH and has increased with time. As expected En and VPD are correlated, see Figure 6. This slope of Figure 6 will be used in a mathematical model.
- Enthalpy and SH
The increase in SW radiation is absorbed by water and evaporates water (mainly from the oceans). On land plant transportation is the main source of water to the atmosphere. The En vs SH correlation is good, see Figure 7. The slope of Figure 7 will be used in a mathematical model
- The Plume
SPs that produce lower density air (hot air) tend to produce a plume. These plumes amplify the VPD correlation to cloud cover. Modeling has shown UHI plumes can be 2 to 4 time the area of the UHI they came from.
Data from weather balloons “Soundings” suggest that a plume of higher VPD air is created over cloud free UHI’s and can be 1 to 4 time greater than the area of the UHI. The plume is created by the lower density of the hot-lower humidity air (lower ET) rising from the UHI and forcing turbulence (mixing) with the much low humidity air in the upper atmosphere.
“Soundings” data show the VPD decreasing as the altitude increases. If the VPD nears zero clouds may form, see Figure 8. Higher surface VPD increases the probability that the rising air will miss zero and stay clear sky. Bigger plumes increase the area of no clouds. Lower SP air density from lower ET (higher temperature, Figure 2) may cause bigger plumes. See (6) for more information.
Figure 8. VPD vs altitude from a SP.
How much of the Earth is changed
Size matters, if the area of all the SPs on land is less than 2% the CRGW theory is insignificant in climate change; but if the SP area is around 10% the CRGW theory could account for most of the observed climate change. Table 1 shows how the area of several SP categories may have changed over the years. (Table 1 is a guess based on several internet sources.) The increase in area from the 1970s to the present suggest the very little CRGW significance in 1970 to significant in 2020.
Put it all together mathematically
I created an Excel model linked here, using proven Clausius–Clapeyron related psychometrics equations and the correlations in Figures 5, 6, and 7 was developed with inputs of total earth area of SPs, Table 1, and the average ET (SH) change. See (4) for psychometric equations used and more information.
Verbal description of the model:
- Pick a starting point global annual temperature (T) and specific humidity (SH) from on-line global data (11) and calculate the global Enthalpy and VPD. (example for 1975: T=14.01 ‘C and SH= 7.59 g/kg(da) calculated En=33.37 kJ/kg(da) and VPD = 3.82hP/kg(da))
- Input an average change in SH to the sum-total of all the SPs on land. (example -12%). Subtract % change in SH from the starting SH. (example SPs SH = 6.68g/kg(da)).
- From psychometric equations a SP temperature can be calculated at the same En in step 1. (example T= 16.3 ‘C)
- Input the total area of all SPs on land. (example 10%)
- Use a global energy balance with the SP’s T and SH to calculate the new average global temperature and VPD. (example: SH = 7.54 g/kg(da) and T = 14.18 ‘C and VPD = 4.04 hP/kg(da), En will be the same as starting conditions.)
- The change in VPD in step 5 will force a change in cloud fraction and the resulting En according to the slope of the VPD vs En correlations. (example new En = 34.16 kJ/kg(da))
- At this point in the model En is an empirical representation of the new level of energy in the atmosphere that can evaporate more water as represented by a strong SH vs En correlation. (example SH= 7.70 g/kg(da))
- With SH and En from steps 7 and 6 a new T can be calculated. (example: T= 14.54 ‘C)
- With step 8 SH and T calculate a new VPD. Example: VPD = 4.24 hP/kg(da))
- Use this interim VPD to estimate an interim En from slope of VPD vs En and an interim SH from SH vs En slope.
- Repeat step 10 until T, SH, En, and VPD quit changing (about 10 iterations). (example final ( T= 15.1 ‘C, SH = 7.95 g/kg(da), En = 35.37 kJ/kg(da), VPD = 4.37 hP/kg(da))
The model’s results for the example above are shown in Figure 9 along with the observed data. Note there are many combinations of ET change, earth area, and plume size that will give results like observed.
Discussion
With new data and input from readers, CRGW theory has been evolving over the 7 essays already published in WUWT. This essay suggests that cascading natural steps in CRGW theory are real and significant contributor to global warming. The psychrometric equations governing atmospheric properties are proven science. The correlation of VPD to cloud cover and enthalpy should exist and should improve with time. The magnitudes of the VPD to clouds and atmospheric enthalpy relationships has uncertainty, but the negative slope of VPD vs Clouds and the positive slope of VPD vs enthalpy support the CRGW theory. The special parcel ET change is just being studies for UHIs, no ET change study has been done for forest to crop or mining. The global area of the SPs could be refined. Plumes exist but need a lot of research to quantify the global contribution. The suggested values for ET change, SP area, and plume size variables produce a temperature rise close to observed.
A mathematical model comes close to matching the atmospheric fingerprint: a strong suggestion that CRGW is a significant contributor to climate change. This model also suggests that CRGW theory can be stopped or reversed. If any combination of higher +ET change, reduced SP area, or new source of water into the atmosphere can stop or reverse climate change.
The CRGW theory is that a lower ET locally mixes with global air to reduce cloud formation, less cloud means more sun and more evaporation of water to increase the global ET (SH). A decrease in local ET (SH) causes a global increase in ET (SH)! – This happens because the SP’s lower ET change is relative to its virgin ET and remains relatively constant while the area of the SP increases the global increase in ET is absolute.
Time for the IPCC to add CRGW theory to their evaluation of climate change?
CO2 is innocent but clouds are guilty.
Bibliography
1. “Where have all the Clouds gone and why care? “ by Charles Blaisdell (2022) web link: Where have all the Clouds gone and why care? – Watts Up With That?
2. “CO2 is Innocent, but Clouds are Guilty. New Science has Created a “Black Swan Event”**” by Charles Blaisdell (2022) web link CO2 is Innocent but Clouds are Guilty. New Science has Created a “Black Swan Event”** – Watts Up With That?
3. “More on Cloud Reduction. CO2 is innocent but Clouds are guilty” (4/13/2023) bby Charles Blaisdell web link More on Cloud Reduction. CO2 is innocent but Clouds are guilty (2023). – Watts Up With That?
4. “An Unexplored Source of Climate Change: Land Evapotranspiration Changes Over Time.” (2023) By Charles Blaisdell web link An Unexplored Source of Climate Change: Land Evapotranspiration Changes Over Time. – Watts Up With That?
5. VPD, Vapor Pressure Deficit a Correlation to Global Cloud Fraction? (8/6/ 2024) by Charles Blaisdell web link VPD, Vapor Pressure Deficit a Correlation to Global Cloud Fraction? – Watts Up With That?
6. “Soundings, Weather Balloons, and Vapor Pressure Deficit” (8/ 2024) by Charles Blaisdell web link Soundings, Weather Balloons, and Vapor Pressure Deficit – Watts Up With That?
7. “Not that ET! The Terrestrial ET: EvapoTranspiration, the Unexplored Source of Climate Change” (9/29/ 2024) By Charles Blaisdell web link Not that ET! The Terrestrial ET: EvapoTranspiration, the Unexplored Source of Climate Change – Watts Up With That?
8. “Urbanization Impacts on Evapotranspiration Across Various Spatio-Temporal Scales” (2021) by Amir Mazrooei, Meredith Reitz, Dingbao Wang, A. Sankarasubramanian web link Urbanization Impacts on Evapotranspiration Across Various Spatio‐Temporal Scales – Mazrooei – 2021 – Earth’s Future – Wiley Online Library
9. “Urbanization alters atmospheric dryness through land evapotranspiration” (2023) by Lu Hao Ge Sun, Xiaolin Huang, Run Tang, Kailun Jin, Yihan Lai, Dongxu Chen, Yaoqi Zhang, Decheng Zhou, Zong-Liang Yang, Lang Wang, Gang Dong & Wenhong Li web link Urbanization alters atmospheric dryness through land evapotranspiration | npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (nature.com)
10. “Urbanization Aggravates Effects of Global Warming on Local Atmospheric Drying” (2021) by Xiaolin Huang, Lu Hao, Ge Sun, Zong-Liang Yang, Wenhong Li, Dongxu Chen web link Urbanization Aggravates Effects of Global Warming on Local Atmospheric Drying – Huang – 2022 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
11. Climate Explorer web site Climate Explorer: Select a monthly field (knmi.nl) go to “Cloud Cover” or any other data set, for CC click “EUMETSAT CM-SAF 0.25° cloud fraction” click “select field” at top of page on next page enter latitude (-90 to 90) and longitude (-180 to 180) for whole earth. Raw data link is above the graph.
12. “Horizontal extent of the urban heat dome flow” (2017) by Yifan Fan, Yuguo Li, Adrian Bejan, Yi Wang & Xinyan Yang web link Horizontal extent of the urban heat dome flow | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
13. “Clouds and relative humidity in climate models; or what really regulates cloud cover?” by Walcek, C. (1996) web link Clouds and relative humidity in climate models; or what really regulates cloud cover? (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
14. “Climate and clouds” by web site link climate4you ClimateAndClouds
15. “Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020” by Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt web link: Atmosphere | Free Full-Text | Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 | HTML (mdpi.com)
16. “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate” by Norman G. Loeb,Gregory C. Johnson,Tyler J. Thorsen,John M. Lyman,Fred G. Rose,Seiji Kato CERES 20 years 2
The increase in global urban population, (and rural to a lesser extend) since mid-1900s is very significant. !
I had wondered how much of the Urban warming made its way into the UAH data (UAH land has a linear trend about 1.5 X the oceans) ..
… now we have a mechanism.
ps.. in first dot point above, “lover” –> lower…
Urban areas are only 0.6% of Earth’s surface (3% of land surface)
Oceans are 71%
No UHI in oceans.
This was BeNasty claptrap comment #133
How many measurement stations in that 71%?
What percentage of stations are in the 3%?
(I an too lazy to look it up, but I can easily guess the answer to the first one)
[snip. harrssment]
So being called “Bnasty” and “Claptrap comment “, isn’t harassment ????
Seriously !!
[reply: I’m not reading all the comments. I’m reading yours before approving. You made this bed. To whoever said those other things, please stop. -mod]
Considering BNice2000 has made thousands if not tens of thousands of comments over the years, he’s got a great hit rate.
@bnice2000
You make some great points backed up by evidence, please try not to get baited by people who post nonsense opinions.
El Niños evaporate much water, temporarily increase world temperature every 3 to 7 years, in sync with tectonic plate movements and deep-sea volcanic activity, north of New Guinea
And the ones in 1998 and 2016 spread warm water around the world, causing a step change in each case.
We don’t know where the 2023 will end up, but for some reason nearly all the NH seems to have gone very cold.
__________________________________________________________________________
CO2 absorbs at ~15µ. A black body that radiates at ~15µ would be a brick of dry ice.
Tell me again how the LW radiation from CO2 is going to heat the atmosphere.
It should cancel out the15µ radiating up from the surface hence the surface shouldn’t
cool off as fast, but it’s the sun that heats the atmosphere.
Actually, I found a graph of a generic pyrgeometer graph the other day, measuring downwelling radiation in the high IR band….. range a maximum of 20-25m in the lower atmosphere.
… it has a notch in the 15µm band.
This indicates that CO2 actually cancels any DWLW radiation in that band.
It is the transfer of the CO2 absorption energy by collisional quenching, that thermalises to the atmosphere, but at only 0.04%, any immeasurable local warming will be immediately taken care of by convection.
CO2 does not and can not warm the atmosphere or the surface.
I presume it is static high pressure over a largish area that produces a clear sky with temperatures raising very high. There is very little or no breeze. These can stay in place for several days or several weeks.
Obviously there is relentless sunlight during the day but what is the role of CO2 in that area during that time? The claim that the heated lower atmosphere causes cooling convection seems not to apply. The heat seems to accumulate.
Thermalization involves thermal energy. IR and all other electro-magnetic wave energies are not thermal. Discovered by E. Foote in the mid 1800s.
IR does NOT thermalize CO2.
There is EM wave pressure that does involve an exchange of kinetic energy. Upwelling (ground to space) EM energy actually cools the molecules by offsetting the EM wave pressure due to solar irradiance.
“how the LW radiation from CO2 is going to heat the atmosphere…”
Steve, I’m getting a brain cramp. I’m not being facetious, I’m seriously trying to understand. Sometimes I think I’ve got the whole greenhouse theory wrong.
Consider a molecule of CO2 floating around up there somewhere the air at 15°C.
1. That molecule is already radiating EMR, as does all matter above absolute zero. (Stefan Boltzman Law.)
2. The molecule absorbs some ray of longwave radiation at the right frequency passing by. (Beer Lambert Law.)
3. The longwave radiation enegy is not destroyed, it’s transformed into thermal energy; the molecule becomes warmer than the adjacent molecules, say 15.0001°. (First law of thermodynamics.)
4. Now that there’s a temperature difference, heat must flow to the lower temperature molecules. (Second law of thermodynamics)
But that heat is mostly transferred by conduction, not radiation, and now the whole atmosphere is a tiny bit warmer than if that ray had passed though into space, no?
“2. The molecule absorbs some ray of longwave radiation at the right frequency passing by. (Beer Lambert Law.)”
He specifically said longwave radiation at 15 microns. What source of LWIR are you considering that is radiating at 15 microns when the air temperature in the vicinity is 15C?
H2O Is much more greenhouse gas than CO. Check this IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia city air from 400 to 4,000 (wn’s). Integration of the spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2only 8%. Since the sample was inner city air it is likely the concentration of CO2was much greater than that of remote location such as rural site or the ocean.
Fig. 7 was taken from the essay “Climate Change Reexamined” by
Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and be downloaded for free.
H20 has a dipole moment that reacts to the electro-magnetic field much more dynamically than CO2 that has no dipole moment.
Why CO2 is very important ….
Says the guy who thinks terms like “energy” and “power” are just “semantic games”?
They are as you just have to divide energy by time as in …
Joules/seconds = J/S = Watts.
Not a huge task.
I know that. I pointed this out to you earlier, and you accused me of “getting caught up in semantics”. This was after I pointed out that there is no such thing as “downwelling IR power”, even though you and the climate scientists claimed there was (and then you lied that they didn’t). Remember?
Of course there is “downwelling power”
It the duration of the downwelling energy.
And as it’s not instantaneous, but rather continuous, you continue to make no logical sense.
And this graph clearly shows no overlap of the CO2 absorption band by H2O. Not a drop.
The overlap is what is at play in the GHE of CO2.
It is a section of the freqency band that H2O does not cover.
Additionally the effect is greatest aloft and over deserts and the NP (Antarctica is so extreme in the interior that it has as an iverse GHE), where the air is very dry.
Try looking at the still from the YT vid as seen above.
A clear overlap.
Thanks for this Harold. People are often astounded to hear that H20 is the most powerful greenhouse gas, brainwashed as they are.
It is the most powerful
However it precipitates out and therfore cannont be the most important.
As it’s concentration is dependent on temp.
If removed completely it will run-away a feedback process whereby snow will form through the winter over high lat NH > removes WV > less GHE > cooler > more snow/icesheet > less WV GHE > cooler … and so on.
It provides a baseline on which WV depletion cannot pass.
Hence “Snowball Earth” and the hypothesis that CO2 was removed.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/snowball-earth-the-times-our-planet-was-covered-in-ice/
“As for what actually caused the immediate trigger, attention has focused in recent years on a sequence of very large volcanic eruptions that occurred in what is now the high arctic of Canada. These eruptions occurred around 717 million and 719 million years ago. When you get fire fountains — lava that comes out of one place over a period of weeks or months — you get a strong thermal upwelling in the atmosphere from the heating effect of that lava. These upwellings can loft sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere where they hang around for a significant amount of time. These sulfur gas particles reflect incoming solar radiation and have a strong cooling effect. Because of the coincidence in timing between these eruptions and the onset of the first and longer of the two Snowball Earths, it’s been postulated that that may have been the immediate trigger.
3… The longwave radiation energy is not destroyed, it’s transformed into thermal energy; the molecule becomes warmer than the adjacent molecules, say 15.0001°
No, the vibrational energy within the CO2 molecule is NOT expressed as temperature.
Only once the energy of the vibration is passed to another molecule (99.96% of the atmosphere) can that energy be thermalised.
The amount of CO2 makes this absolutely immeasurable and it becomes part of the normal convective/conductive/air transport energy within the atmosphere.
This happens within the first 10-15m of the atmosphere. Tiny increases of CO2 makes absolutely zero difference.
No, the vibrational energy within the CO2 molecule is NOT expressed as temperature.
True.
However, temperature is based on kinetic energy. Vibrational energy or more specifically valence energy is a form of potential energy. It does not alter the kinetic energy or the momentum of the molecule and as such is not involved in a kinetic energy transfer.
When sinusoidal functions are overlaid on the molecular potential energy and include the electron orbital speed and electrostatic forces, the valence energy is not transferred to any measurable degree.
People are offering conjectures as hypothesis and stating those as factual and this is misleading large swaths of the population.
The only time CO2 is involved in thermalization is when it exchanges kinetic energy with another molecule during a collision.
“The only time CO2 is involved in thermalization is when it exchanges kinetic energy with another molecule during a collision.”
Which it does at a ratio of some 50,000 to 1 compare to re-emittance time.
(I have seen much larger ratios mentioned, depending how they calculate the CO2 relaxation time)
ie.. basically always…
Since this happens in the first 20 or so metres, which is a very active convection/conduction zone, the tiny amount of energy at thermalisation is taken care of immediately by convection… more energy. more convection.
No disagreement on the 20 meters.
The definition, the scientific definition of thermalization does not apply to valence energies (aka photons).
Thermalization is moving towards or achieving thermal equilibrium. EM waves are not thermal energy.
Hi DavidP,
You’ve got the process roughly right but with some fundamental misunderstandings.
1) molecules store energy in different vibrational, rotational, or electronic states. They don’t obey SB Law per se. SB Law applies to a surface which is made up of molecules and has a temperature which is the average of those molecules. So SB Law predicts the amount of w/m2 which the surface will radiate, which in turn is the average of the molecules that make up the surface and the average they are radiating energy. Any given molecule could be going up, down, or staying the same, its the average that SB Law predicts.
2) yes, we know from extensive spectroscopic experiment that in certain wavelengths, 15u is not the only one, CO2 absorbs photons and gains energy as a consequence.
3) The energy gained may be expressed in a change of vibrational, rotational, or electronic states of the absorbing molecule. There are many ways for a molecule to store energy.
4) Per above, molecules don’t have a temperature, they just have energy stored a variety of ways. The higher an energy state they are in, the more likely they are to transfer that energy to another molecule or emit that energy as a photon.
So yes, the atmosphere is a tiny bit warmer via conduction. Bnasty will scream that this gets cancelled to zero by convection, but that’s a RESULT of the warming, and if it is 100% cancelled is highly debatable. But there is another effect also which is a change in the MRL (mean radiating layer). The earth has a black body temperature of 255K as seen from space. But when we measure temperature from space, we are measuring the average of all the photons coming at us in w/m2. We have no idea where any given photon came from. It might have come from earth surface and made it to space in a single shot, but unlikely. It might have been emitted from the very TOA (Top of Atmosphere) but also unlikely. What we are measuring is the w/m2 being emitted on average from the average height above earth surface. That average height (mean radiating layer) is, on average, at 255 deg K, the black body temperature of earth.
So, presto, CO2 doubles. A bunch of stuff changes, there’s feedbacks, etc, but eventually the whole system comes back into equilibrium. What’s the BB temp of earth then? 255 deg K, same as before. What’s changed? What’s changed is that any photon emitted by CO2 now has TWICE the chance of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule higher up in the atmosphere. If there were a million molecules above it before, now there’s two million. Since “on average” the BB temp of earth has to return to 255 deg K, the “average” photon exiting to space must “on average” work its way higher in the atmosphere to get that “clear shot”. So, the MRL must increase in altitude by that average increase in height to get the clear shot.
So…now the MRL is at a higher altitude, but its still 255 deg K. The thing about the MRL is that in order for it to be representative of the mean, everything below it must be warmer and everything above it must be colder. This reply is too long already, but the quick explanation is to follow the lapse rate down to the surface, and because you started at 255K, but at a higher altitude, you will arrive at a higher temperature when you get to earth surface.
Keep in mind that I am describing first order effects here. What happens as a RESULT of the warming are any number of feedbacks, some being positive and some negative, and if anyone tells you they know they answer to that, be skeptical. Are they high? No, they’d be really easy to pull out of the very noisy unreliable data we have if the were. Are they low? Probably. In fact, they could even be negative. But the answer wasn’t to help understand the total effect, it was to dig into the first order effects.
“ Bnasty will scream that this gets cancelled to zero by convection,”
Seems someone doesn’t know how the gas laws work.
The gas laws always try to balance any warmth to try to achieve the gravity based pressure/density gradient.
Anyone that ever lit a match knows that.
Listen to this video all the way through.
I’m not going to sit through a 2 hour video to figure out what point you are trying to make.
Yes warming causes convection. I never said otherwise. In fact, by saying that, your are admitting that your foundational premise, that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, is wrong. The primary effect of CO2 is to warm the atmosphere. Convection is one of the many secondary feedbacks the primary effect causes.
The secondary effects to which you cling cannot exist without the primary effects happening first. They are not the only secondary effects though. You can argue that the sum of all the effects driven by the primary effect sum to zero, but you cannot argue that the primary effect doesn’t exist.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, that does clear things up for me.
And yet you have down votes!?
It’s complex and uncertain, people want simplicity and certainty, and they literally accept the greenhouse / blanket analogy, with no comprehension that the physical explanation is completely different.
Sometimes the ignorance is astonishing:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fixd8wr1kn82sra2irjba/Screen_Recording_20250117_065854_YouTube.mp4?rlkey=ccyjnvw2olx5wgjhalk3p1hr0&st=v4lzyswx&dl=0
The down votes come from a band of merry trolls lead by Bnasty who has a poor grasp of physics founded upon a bedrock irrational belief system in which CO2 doesn’t do what tens of thousands of experiments world wide say it does. Any evidence presented to him has been met with sarcasm, insults, and assorted aspersions along with a statement to the effect that the evidence presented is not evidence. It was interrupting enough to make it difficult for people like you and me to carry on a discussion. The mods eventually intervened, have deleted many of his more egregious posts, and warned him that if he continues he may be banned altogether. He’s toned it down it down a lot since then, but still down votes me on every comment as do his blind followers. I could say the sun is yellow and he and his cult followers would down vote me.
CO2 warms the atmosphere. Of this there is no doubt.
How much? How big are the feedbacks? Are some of them negative and some positive and what is the net of them combined? Dunno.
What I do know is the food production is at record highs, and globally the incidence of hurricanes, floods droughts and wildfires show no discernable trend. The evidence that sensitivity is high is extremely weak, and the evidence that there are no concerning changes happening in our biosphere are very strong. That’s the point we as skeptics should be (in my opinion) directing the debate toward. Sensitivity doesn’t matter if bad things aren’t happening (and they aren’t). In fact, we can tie massive increases in crop production to elevated CO2, we know heat deaths are rising but cold deaths are dropping many times more, and we know deserts are shrinking because high CO2 environments allow plants to grow with less water. All around me I see profound benefits of CO2. The alarmists rely on alarming outcomes. They point at the current fires in California and scream climate change, but when the numbers are compiled for the entire globe, I expect 2025 will be just another normal year.
That was a pretty good explanation.
Tx!
Seconded.
Close, but no banana for you.
davidmhoffer wrote:
“So SB Law predicts the amount of w/m2 which the surface will radiate”
No it doesn’t. S-B law tells you how much power will be developed from one object to another, given the temperatures of both (and emissivities/absorptivities etc). Surfaces do not radiate power, they radiate energy, based on their temperature.
Absolutely totally and completely wrong. The SB Law equation is:
P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
Where:
P is measured in watts per square meter and:
T is measured in degrees Kelvin.
There is no second body in the equation.
Please note that this equation only describes a single surface. No where in the equation is there any reference to any other surface because it is immaterial. It could be a body floating in space at 2.3 deg K, it could be in your living room at 293K or it could be next to a blast furnace at 2,000 deg C and it would not matter.
At a given temperature T, it will radiate a given w/m2 P.
I think you are confusing this with what the equilibrium temperature of a body is. For that you need to know the starting temp T so you can calculate how much P it is radiating. Then you need to know the amount of P being radiated toward that surface by all other sources it is exposed to. If that P2 exceeds the P1 of the surface, then the surface temp T will increase until P1=P2. But if that P2 being radiated toward the surface is lower than P1, then the surface will cool until P1=P2.
“The SB Law equation is:P=5.67*10^-8*T^4”
That’s a specialized version of the equation. Which part did you leave out?
“There is no second body in the equation.”
Yes there is. It’s right here: P = εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4)
What did you set Tc to in order to get your simplified equation?
And what do you think “power” means, if a body can just “emit” it?
That’s not technically the SB equation. That is the radiant heat transfer equation which is derived from the SB equation and the 1LOT.
BTW…I’m not a fan of using P on the left hand side since P is often used for power in units of watts (W). The left hand side in this case is the net of the radiant flux leaving the surface and the radiant flux entering the surface and has units of W.m-2. Note that “radiant flux” in this case has units of W.m-2, but in other contexts it has units of just W it is also confusing called radiant power. It is unfortunate that there isn’t a widely adopted standard for usage of terms here so we have to be careful with definitions. Anyway, I prefer F as a nod to flux. Just understand that flux in this context has units of W.m-2.
The radiant heat transfer equation is the only one that applies in the real universe, since power and work both require two bodies. Anything else is pure fiction. You are welcome to it, but don’t expect the rest of us to buy it.
The one you call the “S-B equation” is the “radiant heat transfer equation” when the cold body is at 0 K. Nothing else.
No it isn’t. The SB law relates the radiant exitance and temperature of single body. It says nothing about any other bodies.
What do you think “radiant exitance” means? Is “somewhere else” considered “another body”, or not? What temperature is it?
“radiant flux”
And what is your definition of “radiant flux”, since you don’t really want to measure it in Watts and you don’t want to call it “power”? What is it, exactly? Is it different from “radiant energy”, which is of course measured in Joules like every other form of energy?
Mathematically it is defined as εσT^4. In plain language this is the amount of energy in the form of radiation exiting a body through its surface at a moment in time. The units are W.m-2. It is called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
This the amount of energy in the form of radiation passing through a surface at a moment in time. The units are W.m-2. Radiant exitance is a type of radiant flux distinguished by the fact that it is leaving a body.
That’s because it isn’t strictly a measure of power. It is a measure of power passing through a surface. The units are W.m-2.
Yes. Radiant energy has units of joules (j). Radiant exitance and more generally radiant flux has units of W.m-2.
The difference between the SB law εσT^4 and radiant heat transfer εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4) is that the former is a radiant exitance while the later is a net radiant flux. A blackbody always has the same radiant exitance given a specific T regardless of what is happening with its surroundings. However, the reverse cannot be said about the net radiant flux of its surface which is dependent on what the surroundings.
Said another way radiant exitance and the SB law is a one-way concept that is only concerned with the radiant flux exiting a body. The net radiant flux and the heat transfer equation is a two-way concept that is concerned with the radiant flux both coming into a body and going out of the body.
Note that the radiant heat transfer equation is derived mathematically from the SB law and the 1LOT.
“Radiant exitance is a type of radiant flux distinguished by the fact that it is leaving a body”
Under what conditions do you think energy will “leave a body”? I have a pen on my desk. No energy is leaving it whatsoever, or entering it either. It is maintaining a constant temperature. There is no “flux” of any sort happening here.
” A blackbody always has the same radiant exitance [energy loss] given a specific T regardless of what is happening with its surroundings”
That’s obviously false, and it’s not how physics works. Who taught you that?
When T > 0. Remember the SB law says F = εσT^4 where F is the radiant exitance leaving a body. When T > 0 then F > 0.
False. Your pen is radiating toward its surroundings.
False. The surroundings are radiating toward the pen.
Which means the radiant exitance of the pen and the radiant flux of the surrounding toward the pen are equal such that Ein = Eout for the pen. Remember, the 1LOT says ΔE = Ein – Eout. Ein and Eout do not have to be zero for ΔE = 0. Under this condition we say that the pen is both in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings (Tp = Ts) and is also in a steady state (ΔTp = 0).
It is true and you can prove this out for yourself. Get an a radiometer and point it at a body under different environmental conditions. You will observe that the body emits radiation regardless of the environment you place it.
Note that handheld IR thermometers are cheap. They are a type of radiometer that is typically sensitive to the 8-14 um band and which automatically convert a body’s radiant exitance in W.m-2 to a meaningful temperature K via the SB law solved for T.
He’s not wrong. The SB law states F = P/A = εσT^4 where F is the radiant emittance in W.m-2, P is power in W and A is area in m^2. So yes the SB law does predict the radiant exitance in W.m-2 that a surface will radiate. And surfaces do radiate power. For example a 1 m^2 blackbody surface at 255 K radiates with a power of 240 W. Over the course of 1 hour that is 864 kj of energy.
He is wrong. See above. Also what do you think “power” means?
No he isn’t wrong. Power is the rate at which work is performed (or energy is transferred) and is expressed in units of watts (W) with SI units of joules (j) per second (s).
That is the correct definition of power, yes, but what is “work”? And how many “bodies” are involved? If energy is being transferred, where is it being transferred to?
“For example a 1 m^2 blackbody surface at 255 K radiates with a power of 240 W. Over the course of 1 hour that is 864 kj of energy.”
Oh, and where did those 864 kJ of energy go? Don’t forget to take the First Law into account in your answer, as well as the Second.
Somewhere else.
“Somewhere else”? He said there is no “second body” in the equation. Where is “somewhere else”? La-la-land? Is that where you got this idea from?
He’s correct, it goes somewhere else with no definition of where that is. If it is in space, it just goes out to the universe at the speed of light until it hits something that can absorb it. It gets back a teeny tiny bit of energy from the universe which radiates as 2.3K, and unless it has its own heating source, it will cool until it too is at 2.3K. If its in your living room, it goes out to all the surfaces in the living room that a straight line can be drawn to, and it gets energy radiated back at it from everything in the living room and unless it has an internal heating source, it will cool or warm as the case may be until it is at the same average temperature as the rest of the living room. If it is facing a blast furnace it will radiate the exact same amount at the blast furnace, but as the blast furnace is at 2000 Deg C, it will radiate farm more than the surface at 255K and will cause it to warm.
In all three examples, the amount of energy flux or watts/m2 or anything else you want to call it will be exactly the same at a give starting temperature. It does not matter if it is in space, your living room, or stapled to a blast furnace, it radiates from its starting temperature at the exact same rate. A second body is not required to calculate that rate.
If you want to calculate what equilibrium temperature a body will arrive at when in the presence of other bodies at given temperatures, you will need to calculate all net energy fluxes to figure that out. You can DERIVE that from SB Law provided that you actually know what all those fluxes are, but its a derivation of the law, not the law itself. The law itself doesn’t give a flying f*** what other bodies are or are not present, it gives you the energy flux of that surface at that temperature at that point in time.
It appears stevejk is well informed but still gets the concept wrong.
The average Joe is less scientifically literate and therefore swallows the dogma from the scientific “priesthood”, without understanding the principles.
“I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”
– Richard P. Feynman
What “concept” did I get wrong, David Pentland?
You wrote: “Surfaces do not radiate power, they radiate energy, based on their temperature.”
Energy is a measurement of the ability of something to do work, and it can be stored and measured in many forms. (Potential, chemical, …)
Power is the rate at which energy is transferred, and it’s typically measured in watts (W)
I never said anything different. The confusion that davidmhoffer and bdgwx seem to be having is that they think “EM radiation” is the same as “power”, but it’s actually “energy”.
“EM radiation” is… “energy”. Agreed.
I think this was the contested statement:” S-B law tells you how much power will be developed from one object to another, given the temperatures of both”
Why was that statement contested? It’s true. (When you include the cold object in the equation instead of assuming it has a temperature of 0 K, which is the short form that has no relevance in our actual universe)
I think there may be two misconceptions here.
The first is in regards to power. A blackbody radiates energy (j) then it must do so with power (W) and since it has a surface it will also have a radiant exitance (W.m-2).
The second is in regards to its radiant exitance. A blackbody has a radiant exitance defined by the SB law regardless of what is happening to that body’s surroundings.
For example, consider a body at 255 K surrounded by an environment that is also at 255 K. The body has a radiant exitance of sblaw(255 K) = 240 W.m-2. But the net radiant flux across its surface is given by the heat transfer equation of sblaw(255 K) – sblaw(255 K) = 0 W.m2. It is worth repeating…the body simultaneously has a radiant exitance of 240 W.m-2 and net radiant flux of 0 W.m-2.
“A blackbody radiates energy (j)”
Correct
“then it must do so with power (W)”
No, that’s not how energy and power are related. Try again…
“radiant power is the radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted, or received per unit time…The SI unit of radiant flux is the watt (W), one joule per second (J/s).”
Wikipedia
Sure, but the relevant question is: how does “energy emitted” get turned into power? They are not the same thing.
Yes it is. Energy and power related via the equation E = P*t where E is energy, P is power, and t is time.
Energy transferred (in total) = power * time, yes. But what conditions need to be met in order for energy (“the capability to do work”) to actually perform work and develop power in the first place? That doesn’t just happen willy-nilly, you know. There are strict rules, known as the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Feynman was a giant of an intellect. Since that quote, I think things have, sadly deteriorated. Its worse now than ever.
That’s true. The entire field of “climate science” and anyone who fell for their BS is a shining example.
“He’s correct, it goes somewhere else”
Ah, so now we’ve retreated from the position that an object can just “emit power”. It has to interact with “something else”. You really haven’t thought this through properly, have you?
“it gives you the energy flux of that surface”
That’s not what you just said. You said that energy has to go “somewhere else”, and the rate at which it does that depends on the temperature of the “somewhere else”, doesn’t it?
Who was your physics professor? I’d like to have a chat with him, because he did a terrible job of teaching you the fundamentals, and he needs to be fired. And you need to ask for your money back.
He didn’t say that. The rate at which the energy goes somewhere else depends only on the temperature of the body itself and not on the temperature of somewhere else.
This is a crucial distinction so read carefully. What is dependent on the temperature somewhere else is the heat transfer. Remember, heat is the net transfer of energy. I have boldened net to drive home this crucial point. A body’s heat transfer can be 0 W.m-2 simultaneous with it radiant exitance going somewhere else of say 240 W.m-2 if it is at 255 K.
Not dependent: “The rate at which the energy goes somewhere else”
Dependent: “heat transfer”
What do you think is the difference between “the rate of energy transfer” and “heat”?
” A body’s heat transfer can be 0 W.m-2 simultaneous with it radiant exitance going somewhere else of say 240 W.m-2 if it is at 255 K”
This is nonphysical rubbish. You can’t measure that 240 W/m^2. It doesn’t exist except in your head.
Who told you that “net transfer of energy” is a thing? It certainly wasn’t a physicist. That’s not how energy works.
In the context of the 1LOT ΔE = Ein – Eout:
Energy transfer is the Ein or Eout components.
Heat is the net transfer of energy. It is the ΔE or Ein – Eout.
A body can have both an Ein and Eout thus energy is transferring in and out, but still have not participate in a heat transfer.
People often erroneously conflate energy and heat. They are actually subtly different concepts.
Of course it is physical. People measure radiant exitance all of the time. I do it almost everyday with my Fluke 62 Max to measure the temperature of the surface I’m pointing it at. Conveniently it will do the SB law calculation and conversion to F or C for me. All I have to do is enter the emissivity ε.
The 1st law of thermodynamics.
“Ein – Eout”
How do you think energy can “come in” and “go out” at the same time? Entropy doesn’t work that way.
“Of course it is physical. People measure radiant exitance all of the time”
Now you are just lying. Or deluded. No one measures the “radiant exitance independent of surroundings” that you are trying to sell me. Your Fluke measures the power transferred from the surface to it, or vice versa. The Fluke is the surroundings, and its own temperature is absolutely critical to the reading it gets. Of course it adjusts the final measurement based on its own temperature, and apparently fools many non-physicists into thinking it is measuring “radiant exitance”. It is measuring radiant power. Not “net” power, not “gross” power, just “power”.
The microphysics is different for different materials and frequencies of radiation. For room temperatures and water based materials the H2O molecules vibrate by bending or stretching when they absorb photons. Simultaneously the H2O molecules will spontaneously emit photons relaxing their vibrational state. In this way they are constantly absorbing incoming energy and emitting outgoing energy.
I didn’t say that.
It measures the incoming radiant flux passing through the 8-14 um filter and lens hitting the thermopile. That incoming radiant flux at the instrument is none other than the radiant exitance of the surface within its view. It does not measure any outgoing radiant flux leaving the thermopile passing through the lends and 8-14 um filter as it exits the instrument.
This radiant flux is related to power such P = FA where P is power, F is radiant flux, and A is area. So yes the power being emitted off the surface is important, but it’s not strictly the power off the target surface that is being measured. It’s the flux.
It sure is.
Yes. Most quality handheld IR thermometers do have ambient temperature sensor to anchor its temperature conversion. The thermopile still generates a voltage based from the incoming radiant flux regardless.
and apparently fools many non-physicists into thinking it is measuring “radiant exitance”
That is what it is measuring. The higher the radiant exitance off the surface the higher the temperature.
It is measuring radiant power. Not “net” power, not “gross” power, just “power”.
Yes and no. It’s actually measuring radiant flux (W.m-2) which is radiant power (W) multiplied by area (m^2). LIke I said above the power being emitted off the surface is important, but it’s not strictly what is being measured.
The reason it isn’t strictly the power is because the instrument views larger areas (m^2) the further away the surface is. My Fluke 62 Max has a 12:1 distance to spot ratio. This means at a 1 m distance it is viewing an area of 0.005 m^2. At 10 m distance it viewing an area of 0.5 m^2. At 300 K the power coming 0.005 m^2 is 2.3 W, but off 0.5 m^2 it is 230 W yet the 2.3 W is from the same temperature as the 230 W. That’s why IR thermometers are not strictly using the power coming off the viewed surface.
You are correct that it is not the net power though. There is no way for my Fluke 62 Max or any radiometer to measure the incoming radiant flux going into the target surface from its remote vantage point. So it wouldn’t be possible to measure the net directly.
I can do it indirectly though. I could place my Fluke 62 Max up against the original surface and then point it toward that surface’s surroundings. It would then be measuring the incoming radiant flux entering that surface. I can then combine this with my earlier measurement looking at the surface to estimate the net radiant flux and thus net radiant power on the surface. I actually just did this for one of the walls in my family room and I got close to 0 W.m-2 which was what I was expecting considering the wall was act the same temperature as the surroundings.
“microphysics”
We’re talking about classical thermodynamics. It’s a macroscopic observable phenomenon. Try to stay on topic.
Me: “No one measures the “radiant exitance independent of surroundings” that you are trying to sell me.”
You: “I didn’t say that.”
Also you: “the body simultaneously has a radiant exitance of 240 W.m-2 and net radiant flux of 0 W.m-2.”
Remind me again what exactly it is that you’re trying to sell me? Because you sound very confused.
Me again: “fools [people] into thinking it is measuring “radiant exitance””
You again: “That is what it is measuring. The higher the radiant exitance off the surface the higher the temperature. ”
Does “radiant exitance” depend on the temperature of the surroundings, or not? Please try to keep your story straight. I have no idea what you’re talking about any more because you keep changing your definitions.
“Yes and no.”
There is no “yes and no” in physics. Keep trying, I’m sure you’ll get it eventually!
All blackbodies have a radiant exitance.
No. In the context of the SB law it depends only on the temperature of the body.
Don’t hear what isn’t being said. It is not being said that the surrounding has no influence on the body. The surrounding absolutely has an influence on the body. That’s where the heat transfer equation comes into play.
My explanations have firm the whole time. If you need me to repeat something or need clarification by all means speak up.
“All blackbodies have a radiant exitance”
You have no idea what that sentence means.
“No. In the context of the SB law it depends only on the temperature of the body”
You have no idea what the S-B law means either.
Since you invoked your Fluke instrument, let me explain to you how that works, since it isn’t measuring “radiant exitance” or anything of the sort.
The Fluke uses (almost certainly) a bolometer which is exposed via a radiant field to a target object. The exposed part of the bolometer gains or loses energy from the target, depending on whether the target is warmer or colder. This results in a local temperature differential, which you can measure yourself if you open it up. That is also measured automatically by the instrument, probably using a resistive thermometer, and it can then calculate the input or output power (gain or loss) based on the relevant thermal conductivities and temperature coefficients, and then, with some more assumptions, the target’s temperature too. At no point in this system is there any 240 W/m^2 being bandied about.
Like I keep saying it means F = εσT^4 where F is the radiant exitance.
Like I keep saying it means that the radiant exitance of a body is proportional to the 4th power of its temperature.
It uses a thermopile. A bolometer could be used; theoretically. The other type of radiation sensing instrument is the pyrometer which can be used as well; theoretically. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Bolometers and pyrometers and are not typically used in handheld IR thermometers for practical reasons.
It is. In fact that’s the only thing the body has to offer that can be measured remotely.
It depends on the temperature of the target body. If the target body is 255 K then it will emit at 240 W.m-2. If the temperature is 373 K it will emit at 1098 W.m-2. The bolometer, pyrometer, thermopile, etc. receives what the body is emitting; it’s radiant exitance which is εσT^4 per the SB law.
BTW…the difference between a bolometer and a thermopile is in the principal of operation. A bolometer exploits the change in resistance of the material based on the change in received radiant flux. A thermopile exploits the change in voltage generated based on the change in received radiant flux. They are both sensitive to incoming radiant flux which is none other than the radiant exitance of the target body though.
“Like I keep saying it means F = εσT^4 where F is the radiant exitance.”
Since you are measuring “exitance” in Watts (/m^2), that is obviously a hallucination, and not physics at all. (You can measure it in Joules without hallucinating, of course, but it’s a different formula. I’m still waiting for you to invent the new physics you mentioned that doesn’t have any Watts on the left side of this equation.) I’ll repeat what I asked ChatGPT for davidmhoffer below, in case you missed it:
Let me make sure I have this right so I’m not accused of misquoting you. Is it your considered opinion that F = εσT^4 (the SB law) is a hallucination that is not physics?
I’ve already told you how to eliminate watts on the left hand side and convert it to joules. We can walk through this together.
Let
F = radiant exitance (W.m-2)
A = area (m^2)
E = energy (j)
t = time (s)
Then
(1) F = εσT^4
(2) F * A = εσT^4 * A
(3) F * A * t = εσT^4 * A * t
(4) F * A * t = E
(5) E = εσT^4 * A * t
“Is it your considered opinion that F = εσT^4 (the SB law) is a hallucination that is not physics?”
It is a hallucination if you pretend that there is no cold body there, yes. (In this formulation the cold body would have a temperature of 0 K)
Do you see a cold body in the Stefan-Boltzmann law?
And eliminating the Watts by multiplying by time doesn’t excuse you from the fact that you need an energy differential in the first place in order to generate any Watts. That’s the part that you don’t seem to have any clue about yet. There’s more to physics than just plugging numbers into formulae that you found somewhere, and hoping for the best. That’s all you seem to have been doing here so far. It’s not a very intelligent way to approach any scientific field, and physics is one of the tougher ones, especially when you get into radiation physics.
Not according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. According to the SB law all we need is a body that is not at absolute zero.
It sounds an awful like you are saying that I shouldn’t use the Stefan-Boltzmann law and/or plug numbers into it to see what happens.
“They are both sensitive to incoming radiant flux which is none other than the radiant exitance of the target body though.”
Which depends on the temperature of the receiving (source) object.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. How can an object receive radiant flux and also be the source of that radiant flux?
I didn’t say that. But you’re starting to ask smarter questions, so that’s good. All objects emit radiant energy, and nearby objects are affected by it. (Actually every object in the universe is affected by it, but most are not affected very much.) “Flux” (transfer of energy) is only developed in one direction, though – from the hotter object to the colder one. I never said that an object can both receive and emit radiant flux (gain and lose energy) to the same other object at the same time and at the same frequency. That’s nonsense.
I was responding to your statement “Which depends on the temperature of the receiving (source) object.” The bolding is mine.
“the difference between a bolometer and a thermopile ”
I know that. I didn’t know that your Fluke uses a thermopile (like pyrgeometers), but that makes your experiment a lot easier. A thermopile will produce 0 V when faced with a power input/output of 0 Watts. So take the Fluke apart, point it at an object of the same temperature as itself, and measure the voltage across the thermopile. Report back here, please.
I’d prefer not to take my Fluke apart. It cost me $120.
The only way a thermopile is going to receive 0 W.m-2 and thus 0 W is if I point it at an object at near absolute zero.
To get the thermopile to generate 0 V you need to point the lens side at an object with a radiant exitance equal to the radiant flux of the non-lens side. If the instrument is at 295 K it will be bathing the non-lens side of the thermopile in 429 W.m-2 radiation which means the lens side would need to receive 429 W.m-2 meaning the target object would also have to be 295 K. Note that 429 W.m-2 – 429 W.m-2 = 0 W.m-2 net flux on the thermopile and thus a 0 V response.
“The only way a thermopile is going to receive 0 W.m-2 and thus 0 W is if I point it at an object at near absolute zero.”
That’s false. It’s also contradicted by what you wrote next. Let’s see if we can fix your description:
“To get the thermopile to generate 0 V you need to point the lens side at an object with a radiant
exitance”temperature
“equal to the radiant
flux”temperature
“of the non-lens side.”
Much better. Remember, “The output voltage from the thermopile, ΔV, is directly proportional to the temperature differential, ΔT”, from the Wikipedia description.
“0 W.m-2
netflux”“net” is a hallucination and totally unnecessary, it means nothing
“and thus a 0 V response”
Yep. But the target is not at absolute 0, is it? You just told us it’s at the same temperature as the non-lens side. (“the instrument is at 295 K” followed by “the target object would also have to be 295 K”) That’s different from what you wrote at the beginning, “0 W is if I point it at an object at near absolute zero”.
Nowhere in this scenario is any instrument showing 429 W/m^2, in either direction. You hallucinated that. The only thing the instrument is measuring is 0 W/m^2, i.e. 0 V.
It is absolutely correct. The SB law says so.
No it doesn’t.
No. That’s not better. Bodies send their radiant exitance (photons) to other bodies. They do not send their temperature.
Correct. A body at 295 K with a radiant exitance of sblaw(295 K) = 429 W.m-2 is different than a body at 0 K with radiant exitance of sblaw(0 K) = 0 W.m-2.
If target body is 295 K then it is emitting sblaw(295 K) = 429 W.m-2 which is entering the lens side of the thermopile.
No. If the target body is 0 K then it is emitting sblaw(0 K) = 0 W.m-2 which is entering the lens side of thermopile. That is definitely going to create a temperature differential and a non-zero voltage since the non-lens side of the thermopile is receiving > 0 W.m-2. A negative energy imbalance forms in the material on the lens side of the thermopile thus causing it to cool.
“It is absolutely correct. The SB law says so”
It doesn’t. You are hallucinating.
“No. If the target body is 0 K”
That’s not the scenario we’re discussing, though, is it? Here’s the scenario you wrote: “meaning the target object would also have to be 295 K.” in order to achieve this objective: “To get the thermopile to generate 0 V”
Point your Fluke at a room-temperature object, measure the voltage, and report back here, please. If you don’t want to take the expensive Fluke apart, buy a $6 thermopile from AliExpress and do the same thing.
There is nothing more irritating than to have someone quote your words verbatim, and then claim they mean something completely different from what they say.
I said, it goes somewhere else. It does. THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT’S WHY THE “SOMEWHERE ELSE” ISN’T IN THE SB EQUATION.
It has to “interact” with nothing. The rest of your tirade is in the same class of insults and sarcasm that Bnasty gets snipped for. Everything I said is exactly what I meant. Every contradiction you claim lives in your head and not in the words I said.
Stop, go away, you’re making a fool of yourself. You are conflating multiple issues and clearly understand none of them, nor plain english.
davidmhoffer,
Stevekj is more informed than the average person, but still having problems conceptualizing. I’ve struggled with this myself. Most people don’t struggle. They blindly accept the proffered opinion of “experts” that the sky is falling, with no comprehension of the complexities and uncertainties. This is how the climate craziness perpetuates; through ignorance and dogma.
But I’m baffled how the misleading analogy of a greenhouse persists on government websites, when it is so scientifically false. This should be the Achilles heel of the whole narrative, yet its never challenged.
How am I having problems “conceptualizing”, David Pentland? My “conceptualizing” matches all of the measurements and theory that constitutes standard physics. It does not match “climate fizix”, of course, because that branch of “science” is full of baloney, and therefore of course it does not match measurements.
“It has to “interact” with nothing.”
Who told you that? It certainly wasn’t a physicist. It was a liar, or a deluded idiot. Or a “climate scientist”, but I repeat myself…
No, I’m not going away until the three of you stop making nonsensical claims about objects emitting power. That’s not what power means. And your contradictions are not “in my head”, you wrote them in black and white. Not me.
I showed you where the “somewhere else” is in the equation. If it has a temperature of 0 K, it looks like it has vanished to anyone who has no idea how physics works – but it hasn’t.
You showed us an equation that is not the SB equation and claimed that it was.
They do emit power. Hence the “P” in the equation in units of watts per meter squared. You can call it anything you wish, it will be watts per meter squared, or if you wish to be pedantic, joules per second per meter squared. Energy flux, photons each carrying a quanta of energy, call it what ever you want. There is still no second body in the SB equation.
As for who told me that, it came from studying physics. It came from reading text books, it came from answering questions on exams posed by PhD professors of physics and engineering and getting the answers right.
“Somewhere else”
You really haven’t thought this through, have you?
Yes. I have thought this through. That’s the answer according to the SB law. The SB law doesn’t say anything about what happens to the radiant exitance after leaves the body.
It doesn’t say what happens to it specifically, but the radiant heat transfer law tells us that it has to go somewhere (or in your terms “somewhere else”). It doesn’t just leave at a rate that is independent of the condition of its surroundings, or of the rest of the universe in general.
Yes it is independent.
Put two table lamps together. Switch on one light. Now switch on the second light.
The first light is “independent of the condition of its surroundings.”
The fact that it is receiving energy does not affect the emitted energy unless there is a change in temperature.
No, David, the energy gained or lost by the first light (or any other object) is not independent of its surroundings. That’s not how the universe works. At least, not the one I live in.
Sigh. But it does. That’s exactly what it does. It leaves at a rate completely independent of its surroundings, that WHY the calculation of what that rate is has no terms in it for any of the surroundings.
If you want to know what the equilibrium temperature of a body is going to be in any given surroundings, then you need to sum all the fluxes in and out from the body to determine that. But the flux out as determined by temperature T has zero to do with the surroundings. Only how the temperature T of the body changes is related to the net of the fluxes in and out of the body.
You make the same mistake over and over again, conflating what drives a change in T with what P is radiated at a given T. Equilibrium T can be derived from a sum of all the fluxes in and out of a surface. But the flux out remains locked to the T at any given point in time.
I myself have made stevejk’s “mistake, conflating what drives a change in T with what P is radiated at a given T”, by trying to fit my mental image into the common misunderstanding of the pseudo scientific narrative, which goes something like this:
The sun shines on the earth and the earth starts radiating. This warms the atmosphere which then starts radiating back, warming the earth.
Giving the impression that flux out is dependent of the condition of its surroundings.
Magical thinking for sure, but in my experience very common.
My lamp analogy above is what made it click for me. Light bulb A is independent of light bulb B. Cranking up the wattage of one doesn’t affect the other.
“Giving the impression that flux out is dependent of the condition of its surroundings”
What do you mean, “impression”? That is how physics works. You can measure it.
By “impression” I mean your “mental image” your “conception”.
My “impression” matches the physics textbooks and the measured observations. Yours doesn’t.
Your lamp analogy (thought experiment? Actual experiment?) seems to have been designed explicitly to hide the effect you were looking for, which was extremely dumb of you. You didn’t run that idea past a physicist, first, did you? What was the magnitude of the effect you were looking for, and what instruments did you use to detect that effect? Because my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the answers are “tiny” and “your eyeballs”. So you designed a stupid experiment, carried it out wrong, misinterpreted the result, and used that misinterpretation to cement your faulty knowledge with an audible “click”. Great job.
If you want to do a correct experiment to confirm that the rate of radiant energy gain or loss depends on the surroundings, it would look like this:
Pour a cup of hot tea (maybe 60 C) into a Thermos (Dewar). Immerse it into a pot of boiling water and keep the pot boiling for an hour or so. Measure the temperature of the tea. It will have gone up due to gaining radiant energy from its higher-temperature surroundings. The Thermos prevents other forms of energy transfer (more or less well, which you can take into account in various ways and with more sophisticated equipment if you want to be really careful).
Now move the Thermos into a freezer. Let it sit there for an hour and measure the temperature again. The temperature of the tea will have decreased, due to losing energy via radiation to its lower-temperature surroundings. If you take multiple readings, you can correlate the rate of energy gain or loss with the varying temperature differential, as well, and you should get a nice logarithmic curve if you are doing it right. Conclusion: the direction and rate of radiant energy gain or loss (radiant power) depends critically on the object you are looking at and its surroundings, contrary to what the other two non-physicist chuckleheads in this conversation (and the entire field of “climate science”) are trying to brainwash you with. More fool them, but you don’t have to be if you don’t want to be.
Your light bulb analogy is a poor one, because the temperature of the two bulbs is only going to be slightly affected by the other – since they occupy such a small fraction of each other’s environment, and are both much hotter than that environment. The difference is hard to detect except with very sensitive instruments, which you obviously didn’t use. Try this instead: take a cup of hot water and set it on the counter. Put a thermometer in it and watch its temperature go down. Now set it in a sink full of hot water, and watch the reverse happen. Which part didn’t you understand? This is not rocket science, but it is physics, which obviously none of the three of you have studied in any detail whatsoever. All three of you are just making this up as you go along and hoping for the best. That results in contradictions and obvious baloney galore, as we can see.
You can sigh all you like, but this “It leaves at a rate completely independent of its surroundings” is completely wrong. What universe are you living in? Because mine doesn’t behave that way. Never has.
I shared our discussion with ChatGPT which provided the following answer. Unfortunately, some of the formatting doesn’t come through well, but the last paragraph sums it up. Further, I’ve provided a link to the Wikipedia and Britannica articles which go into quite a bit more detail but arrives at the same conclusion.
The Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the power radiated per unit area by a black body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature:
P=σT4P = \sigma T^4P=σT4
where PPP is the power radiated per unit area, σ\sigmaσ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, and TTT is the absolute temperature in kelvins.
This law describes the radiation emitted by an idealized black body, which is an object that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation and re-emits energy solely based on its own temperature. The presence of other bodies at different temperatures does not affect the radiation emitted by the black body itself. However, in practical scenarios involving multiple bodies, the net heat transfer between them depends on their respective temperatures and properties. For instance, the net radiative heat transfer between two surfaces can be expressed as:
Q˙1→2=σA1F1→2(T14−T24)\dot{Q}_{1 \rightarrow 2} = \sigma A_1 F_{1 \rightarrow 2} \left( T_1^4 – T_2^4 \right)Q˙1→2=σA1F1→2(T14−T24)
where Q˙1→2\dot{Q}_{1 \rightarrow 2}Q˙1→2 is the heat transfer rate from surface 1 to surface 2, A1A_1A1 is the area of surface 1, F1→2F_{1 \rightarrow 2}F1→2 is the view factor from surface 1 to surface 2, and T1T_1T1 and T2T_2T2 are the absolute temperatures of surfaces 1 and 2, respectively.
Therefore, while the Stefan–Boltzmann law itself pertains to the radiation emitted by a single black body independent of other bodies, the net radiative exchange between multiple bodies involves additional factors such as their relative temperatures, areas, and orientations.
WIKIPEDIA – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
ENYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA https://www.britannica.com/science/Plancks-radiation-law
You continue to conflate determining how much energy a black body radiates at a given temperature with what temperature the body will arrive it when subject to energy fluxes coming toward it. The first is determine by SB Law. The second is determined by adding the fluxes going toward the surface together, and then subtracting from them the amount of flux coming from the body, in order to determine the net flux which in turn defines the equilibrium temperature T that the body will warm or cool to as the case may be. It is in THAT context that the formulas you are spouting are relevant.
If it a specific point in time a black body is at a specific temperature T, then the P in w/m2 will be determined by SB Law. It could be in outer space at near absolute zero, or it could be facing a blast furnace at thousands of degrees, it will emit exactly the same P.
Will it cool off in outers pace? Of course. Will it warm up next to a blast furnace? Of course. Can you calculate what temperature it will get to and how long it will take? If you have the other fluxes, mass of the body, and other details, yes.
But at a given point in time, regardless of where the body is, what other fluxes are being absorbed by it, if at that point in time it is a temperature T, then the w/m2 being emitted by it are:
P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
ChatGPT isn’t a physicist. It provides probabilistic output based on its training data, which was obviously faulty, just like your own. It is well known for simply inventing things out of whole cloth, like Engineers do.
Let’s see, first you made a claim that managed to violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics at the same time. That was brilliant, actually, if I’m being totally honest, but not in a good way. See if you can make a claim that also manages to violate the Third. I’ll eagerly await that one.
Then, when I pointed out how stupid that claim was, you contradicted yourself, lied that you didn’t, and then made a second claim that “only” violated the Second Law. An improvement, you might say, if you were being generous.
When I pointed out that you had contradicted yourself and were still violating an important Law of Thermodynamics, you gratuitously and psychopathically insulted me, claiming that I was failing to understand both English and physics, while that was actually you doing that. Not a good look, and quite hypocritical.
You are pretending to know physics, when you clearly haven’t studied the theory of the subject in any formal way for even a moment. You have no idea what any of the fundamentals mean, or how they are related to each other, but you are trying to sell us the idea that you do. This makes you a classic charlatan.
So if we put all that together, we are looking at a lying, hypocritical, psychopathic charlatan. Are you in fact an Engineer, by any chance? I can guess the answer from your curriculum details above, but feel free to clarify if I’m wrong. You certainly think like one, what with the lies, contradictions, and hallucinations. But none of that matters to you!
“They do emit power”
No physicist ever said that, and it’s not in any physics textbook either. That’s obvious nonsense, because “power” is defined as the “Rate of doing work”, and objects cannot “emit” a “rate of doing work”. That’s the actual butchering of both English and physics, right there.
Can you hook me up with some contact details for one of your physics professors? I’d like to have a chat with him, because he has done you a grave disservice. Did you only take “dumbed-down physics for engineers” courses? And now somehow you think you are a physicist? No, it’s going to take more effort than that. And you’ll have to start really really young if you really want to get a solid and intuitive handle on the concepts. I fear it might be too late by now, but you can probably do it if you apply yourself. Not as an Engineer, mind you, because they take a lot of “liberties” with the theory (who has time for theory when you’re trying to learn all that complicated Engineering, amirite?) – but instead as an actual Theoretical Physicist. Ready… set… go!
A very considerate explication of the settled science of Beer Lambert.
Thanks for the respectful discussion.
My bad, Stefan–Boltzmann.
“sum all the fluxes”
Those are all hallucinations. They don’t exist. You are literally “seeing” things that aren’t there.
If there are no other fluxes then you’ve just attested to my explanation without realizing it.
Dropping this thread, have a nice life.
Actually I’m going to come back because I just realized what part of this discussion you don’t understand.
For starters, in addition to ChatGPT’s answers, I gave you the source of those answers, which if you bother to read them, are in agreement with what I said. Further, while ChatGPT does in fact hallucinate, on matters that have been settled science for a century, it is a quick and accurate resource, as are the sources I also linked to.
But let’s examine your oft repeated claim that there is no energy flux because that would require work to be done.
Well work IS done.
The photons emitted from a surface at a given temperature T are measured in watts per meter squared. If you wish to argue that watts per meter squared is not a measure of energy flux, please feel free to make as big a fool of yourself as you wish.
As to the work that is done, that’s simple. The photons, each with their parcel of energy, fly off at the speed of light until they hit something that absorbs them. At that point, their energy is transferred to whatever absorbed them. Whatever absorbed them then enters a higher energy state by that amount of energy. In other words, work is done and the absorbing body gets warmer.
Since we do not know in advance how far the photon must travel to hit another surface, nor what it is, we can only calculate the energy flux P a body emits at a given temperature T. Work in fact IS done, but we don’t know where in advance, so SB Law ONLY has the emitting energy flux in it. It does not, and cannot, have a second body in it since at time of emission the fate of the photon is unknown other than when it encounters something that can absorb it, work will be done at time of absorption.
Take your snark about my education and my professors and shove it. Apologize when you are able to absorb this (what to you is a) reality shattering moment.
Your apology is accepted.
And none of the above violates either the first or second laws.
Which you should know if you were half as informed as you pretend.
Lastly you self absorbed malcontent, I am not an engineer. But since you pissed all over engineers I will dish out a life lesson for you right now.
No one, and I mean NO ONE gets the physics right more often than engineers. If a theoretical physicist gets something wrong, at worst a paper must be retracted.
If an engineer gets something wrong, people die. Bridges fall down, buildings collapse, chemical plants explode. Every minute of every day your life depends on millions of engineers who get the physics right. It isn’t enough for one, or many, or even most of them to be right. They have to be near perfect. If they weren’t, one of the thousands and thousands of things you come in contact with that they designed would kill you, each and every day. Every_single_day.
So bury your snark about engineers. You’re alive because they get it right.
“NO ONE gets the physics right more often than engineers”
All the engineers I’ve talked to on WUWT have gotten this topic wrong. They all think the S-B law allows you to convert temperature directly into power. That is false. Even ChatGPT knows that.
You may not be an engineer yourself, but if you learned your physics from engineering courses, that explains why you don’t understand the subject at all.
No, I’m not talking about the structural strength of bridges. Engineers usually get that right. I’m talking about your (and every other engineer’s) complete failure to understand what “work”, “power”, “energy”, and “radiation” mean, and how they are related to each other. Mostly the “radiation” part, but quite often the other basic concepts too.
You can and that is exactly what the SB law says. The warmer a body is the more intensely it emits. If you want it to emit at a higher power then increase its temperature. This power can be used to do useful work depending on the configuration of the system.
Again…all blackbodies emit radiation. This radiation is called radiant exitance. The radiant exitance is a transport of energy in the form of radiation carried by photons. That means their is an associated power with this radiation.
“Lastly you self absorbed malcontent”
You are a psychopath, as I said. I’m not the one who’s making false physics claims and then insulting people who try to teach me how to do it correctly, am I?
“Well work IS done.”
No it isn’t. If you prefer to learn your physics from ChatGPT, we can arrange that. Here you go:
So ALL the engineers are wrong and you are right. Congrats on finding a specific narrow question that ChatGPT would have no choice but to answer no to, while ignoring ALL the other sources I have provided. But most of all, thanks for calling me a narcissist. Like Bnasty, your just an anonymous troll sitting in his mother’s basement taking his anger and frustration with the world out on whoever passes by through insults sarcasm and other assorted invective, all from the protection of an anonymous pseudonym.
“specific narrow question that ChatGPT would have no choice but to answer no to”
“Specific narrow question”? You make it sound like I tricked it somehow. No, this is a fundamental physics concept, and you have gotten it totally wrong. Every physicist in the world will tell you that, and just as fast as ChatGPT did (i.e. in a matter of milliseconds). By all means, don’t take my word for it, or ChatGPT’s. Find all the physicists you can, and ask them all the same question.
“No choice”? That’s because ChatGPT knows physics a lot better than you do.
That “specific narrow question” was indeed the entire point of this physics lesson. It directly contradicts the claim you started this thread with, which is what I’ve been trying to teach you the whole time – without any measurable success. Not that I really expected any. As they say, I can teach this stuff to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Indeed, yes, all the engineers (that I’ve talked to around here, for the past 15 years or so) are wrong. All the lawyers, fishermen, and biologists, too, of course, just so you don’t think I’m unfairly picking on engineers. It’s just that there are a lot more engineers represented here than any of those other professions, and your background seems to be a lot closer to engineering than any of the others, so that’s why I’m highlighting engineers. But when it comes down to it, the engineers are not really any more ignorant of radiation physics than any other non-physicist – so, there’s that.
And now, we have ChatGPT helpfully pointing out that you, specifically, are wrong as well. But you are here to defend yourself, and all those other wrong people aren’t. Are you going to try to contradict its answer, or not? If so, how, precisely? By misinterpreting the S-B law again?
Here’s what I think happened in your brain, from what you’ve said so far, and let me know if I’m wrong. Because this is what engineers’ brains are trained to do (yes, I took engineering courses too): You saw an equation that had Temperature on the right hand side, and Power on the left hand side, so you said to yourself “Aha! Now I know how to convert temperature directly into power! I’m a genius!” But you’re not a genius. You’re an uninformed unintelligent idiot. It’s a fine line sometimes, but you’re definitely on the wrong side of it. And quite a long way from the line itself, too.
(As an aside, bdgwx above thought that this extremely simplistic interpretation seemed kind of hokey, and rightly so. Therefore it seems to me from the alarm bells going off in his mind that he knows his physics slightly better than you do, and so he isn’t entirely comfortable with the bastardized “engineering fizix”, or, as we sometimes call it, “climate fizix”. But instead of just buckling down and learning actual standard physics, which doesn’t have the problem he thinks it does, he wants to invent a whole new branch of physics. I can hardly wait!)
And no, I’m not hiding behind an “anonymous pseudonym”. I can’t get WordPress to show my full name for some reason, but it is Steve Keppel-Jones. Can I assume that yours is David M. Hoffer? Can you not get WordPress to show that, either? (it seems to be quite stubborn about this, at least for some people, but not for everyone for some reason, and I’m not the only one to have noticed this minor issue either)
The claim in this thread was that the SB law predicts the amount W.m-2 that a surface will emit.
You challenged that. You are wrong. That’s is exactly what the SB law does.
You also said that the radiant heat transfer equation is the only one that applies in the real universe. You are wrong. The SB law also applies.
You also said that no energy is leaving or entering the pen on your desk. You are wrong. The pen is constantly emitting and absorbing radiant energy.
You also said that it is false that a blackbody always emits the same radiant exitance given its T. You are wrong. The SB law says in no uncertain terms that this is true.
You also said that energy and power are not related in the context of a radiant exitance in W.m-2. You are wrong. They are. Given the SB law F = εσT^4 the power radiated is P = F*A and the energy radiated is E = P*t.
Maybe not. And for the record I’m not an expert. I’m not sure I’d even call myself an amateur.
“The claim in this thread was that the SB law predicts the amount W.m-2 that a surface will emit.”
Correct.
“You challenged that.”
Correct.
“You are wrong”
No I’m not.
“That’s is exactly what the SB law does.”
No it doesn’t.
” I’m not sure I’d even call myself an amateur. ”
You definitely shouldn’t call yourself a physicist.
But as I said, the reason I estimated that you know your physics slightly better than davidmhoffer is you said that the Watts on the left side of that S-B equation give you the heebie-jeebies, as they should. I can’t find that exact statement of yours earlier in this thread right now (it’s a long thread) but I can repeat it here if you need me to look it up. It was when you said that the units should actually be something different to prevent confusion.
I just want to be clear so I’m not accused of misquoting you. Do you reject the fact that the units of εσT^4 are W.m-2?
Nope, those are the correct units. You are the one who wanted to change them, I’m just pointing that out. (when you said earlier “BTW…I’m not a fan of using P on the left hand side since P is often used for power in units of watts (W)”) (and if instead you are only concerned about the presence or absence of the “per square meter”, not the “Watts”, that part is irrelevant to the 2nd Law, which is the whole point of this lesson)
What’s missing is the cold body in the equation, of course. Since as we all know very well, it is illegal to attempt to convert temperature directly into power (or indeed power per unit area, which isn’t any less illegal just by dividing by the area)
I’ve said the units are W.m-2 the whole time.
Like I said P is often used for power (W). F makes more sense to me since the left hand side is a flux (W.m-2). You can certainly make the left hand side P if you multiple the right hand side by the area A, but that’s not the canonical Stefan-Boltzmann form.
The 2LOT has nothing to do with this. It’s the Stefan-Boltzmann law being discussed.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a cold body in the equation.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law says it is legal. If you want the body to emit at a higher power then make the body hotter.
“I’ve said the units are W.m-2 the whole time.”
Pardon me, that was my misinterpretation, you had no issue with the units, only the letter itself. Please disregard anything I said about this particular point, it is of no consequence. Also I take back my guess that you know your physics slightly better than davidmhoffer, because you don’t.
(You are right that “power” is not the same as “power per unit area”, but for the purposes of this physics lesson, that’s irrelevant. Imagine we’re dealing with a body with a surface area of 1 square meter and then just leave out all the “/m^2” for simplicity. Might as well make it a perfect blackbody while we’re at it, since there’s nothing to stop us)
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a cold body in the equation.”
It does. The fact that you can’t see it in the equation (because it has a value of 0 K, and has been omitted for simplicity) doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It just means you’re blind. I suppose that’s a form of “reverse hallucination”, so I’ll adjust my description. You’re blind to the cold body, and hallucinating the power you think the equation is giving you directly from a single body’s temperature. (You can tell that that power is a hallucination because you can’t measure it, as I described above. Of course it’s harder to convince you that a cold body you can’t see in the equation is actually there, nevertheless that is how this particular physics works. It’s not even weird dark matter we’re talking about, just regular matter at absolute 0 K)
Here’s another way to say the same thing. This experiment won’t even cost you $6:
Take the “radiant heat transfer equation”, which gives you the power developed between two bodies at different temperatures, as you said. (Power from the hot one to the cold one, naturally) Now set the cold body temperature to 0 K. Now tell me what equation you have.
And if you can’t even be bothered to do that, let’s ask ChatGPT whether it makes any sense in physics to convert temperature directly into power, as you are claiming the SB law allows you to do:
The only thing in this post that is true is CO2 can absorb IR at a specific frequency, 15 micro.
Huh?
All blackbodies radiate at 15 um regardless of temperature. See Planck’s Law. You can use this calculator to see just how much 15 um radiation is emitted by blackbodies at any temperature.
At the most fundamental level it is a combination of the 1st law of thermodynamics ΔE = Ein – Eout and heat capacity ΔT = ΔE/(m*c). CO2 impedes the transmission of energy going out of the climate system, but does not impede an equal amount of energy coming into it. As a result the internal energy of the climate system increases such that ΔE > 0. And because ΔE > 0 then ΔT > 0. The details how this energy gets dispatched into the atmosphere involves several physical processes involving all 3 mechanisms of heat transport: conduction, convection, and radiation.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say cancel out. But you are correct that it is ultimately the Sun that heats the atmosphere. It’s just that the Sun is more effective at heating the atmosphere when there is a energy barrier that is impeding the egress of energy out of the climate system.
This is not unlike the door on your kitchen oven. It’s the burner that heats the inside. But that burner is more effective at heating the oven when the oven door is closed. The door is a barrier to the egress of energy such that ΔEout < 0 resulting in ΔE > 0 and ultimately ΔT > 0.
‘All blackbodies radiate at 15 um regardless of temperature.’
+1 – credit where credit is due.
“‘All blackbodies radiate at 15 um regardless of temperature.’”
This is why the pyrgeometer graph shown further up is so interesting.
It appears that atmospheric CO2 is actually reducing the black-body radiation reaching the instrument in the 15μm band.
Having worked in IR electro-optic sensors, it is a simple answer.
CO2 absorbs 15 um (14.77 um) EM energy and re-emits it. The outgoing quantum (aka photon) does not always travel on the save vector as the incident wavefront. This a sphere. The “photon” can emit (quantum probabilities at play) in any direction off of the surface of the sphere. In EOIR this is called scattering. Put a whole bunch of CO2 molecules in the path of the EM wave front and you will have photons emitted in every possible direction, including a few on the original vector.
Now, the extent the EM wavefront is disturbed absolutely has to do with the number of absorbing/re-emitting molecules it encounters. For the most part, the EM wave passes undisturbed due to the large gaps around small molecules. The thicker the atmosphere, the more molecules. The more CO2 molecules, the more scattering.
Sorry. It’s not rocket science, but it is.
He deserves no credit for that statement. Gases are NOT black bodies and do not necessarily radiate at 15 um.
Quote from Heat Transfer book about gases:” When they absorb and emit radiation, they do so only in certain narrow wavelength bands.”
Again, GASES are not black bodies.
From the post:”…there is a energy barrier that is impeding the egress of energy out of the climate system.”
Are not nitrogen and oxygen “barriers” impeding egress of energy?
Are you disagreeing with the statement that blackbodies emit at 15 um regardless of temperature? Do you reject Planck’s Law in general as well?
No. At least not in any influential amount near the peak of the terrestrial radiation band.
Did you read the quote from the Heat Transfer book? Gases are not black bodies and do not necessarily radiate at 15 um.
Gases do not radiate over a black body spectrum.
The fact that gases are not black bodies (which no one disagrees with) is irrelevant. Let me word it this way. A gas does not have to be a black body for Planck’s Law to be true.
‘Gases are NOT black bodies…’
I agree with that – only solids and liquid surfaces (condensed matter) can emit thermal radiation as black bodies. But to be clear, radiatively active gases can and do absorb / emit photons at specific frequencies under certain conditions.
My agreement with bdgwx, who I often disagree with on a lot of stuff, was that a block of dry ice, i.e., a solid, can emit thermal radiation at 15 microns.
“Planck’s Law can be generalized as such: Every object emits radiation at all times and at all wavelengths.”
Penn State Meteorology and Atmospheric Science department
https://learningweather.psu.edu/node/18#:~:text=The%20mathematics%20behind%20Plank's%20Law,time%20and%20at%20all%20wavelengths
From AI:”No, gases generally do not emit true blackbody radiation; instead, they emit discrete line or band spectra due to the specific energy levels of their molecules, unlike a perfect blackbody which emits a continuous spectrum across all wavelengths depending only on its temperature.”
That does not mean that a body has to be at -80 C (dry ice) for it to emit 15 um radiation which is what Steve Case claimed. I believe the confusion here is the conflation of Wein’s Displacement Law with Planck’s Law. The WDL does say that a body at -80 C will have its peak emission frequency at around 15 um. However, it does not say that bodies at other temperatures cannot also emit at 15 um. They can. They just do so such that 15 um isn’t the peak emission frequency.
Indeed, and what’s more a body radiating at a higher temp yields a greater power of that 15 micron LWIR …
Furthering the door analogy…
How much more effective is the burner at heating the interior of your oven if you double the insulation value of the door (and the door only)? How much electricity do you save when you cook your roast?
(and should Biden quickly mandate better oven doors before he leaves office?)
“All blackbodies radiate at 15 um regardless of temperature.”
Exactly.
The temperature is the surface adjustment (T^4) needed to reach equilibrium (Kirchhoff’s Law) of inputting energy to outputting energy.
It is not a question of whether a black body emits 15 um, it is a question of the magnitude of the power density (w/m^2). In fact, the black body theory states that a black body emits all wavelengths.
It is not the sun that heats the atmosphere. It is the oceans and land masses. The atmosphere affects the transfer of energy, and in the point of discussion, the rate energy that ultimately leaves the earth energy system.
You mighty be right. I dunno, and will not research further. Covered clouds in climate models essay ‘Cloudy Clouds’ in ebook Blowing Smoke, a decade ago.
There is simply too much observational uncertainty, since cloud warming/cooling effect depends on at least three cloudy parameters: percent cloud cover, type of cloud cover, and cloud type optical density.
Too much uncertainty for my climate conclusions taste.
Rud,
When you were researching for your book, did you find an actual data set that collects (and publishes) the three cloudy parameters you listed above?
No. Actually two ‘sort of’’ pretended. The problem is that neither ‘official’ includes all three parameters. Details were given in the essay footnotes. The one useful cloud data set I did find using LIDAR probes is US only.
Thanks.
The CO2 greenhouse warming theory and predictions best match the actual warming characteristics since 1975.
Changes in cloud coverage, whose measurements are NOT very accurate. do NOT explain most of the warming:
Mainly warming of colder states and nations
Mainly warming in the six coldest months of the year
Mainly warming of TMIN, with almost no sunshine, rather than TMAX with maximum sunshine
No warming of Antarctica
Warming predicted, mainly from CO2, and based on an average of models (confuser games) in the 1979 Charney Report:
+3 degrees per CO2 x 2
Actual warming rate per CO2 x 2
since 1979
+2.4 degrees C for CO2 x 2 usinng surface temperatures
+1.8 degrees C. for CO2 x 2 for satellite temperatures
There are no accurate data for the amount of solar energy blocked by clouds. There are rough estimates of the average percentage of cloud coverage, with margins or error likely to be at least +/- 10%. Which means the claimed -7% cloud coverage reduction in the past two decades is statistically insignificant.
The climate effects of clouds requires unavailable global average data over many decades on types of clouds, height of clouds and timing of clouds. The cloud coverage percentage is merely a rough proxy for the cloud data that are needed.
A further complication is that the reduction of manmade SO2 emissions since 1980 increases absorbed solar radiation too.
There is some increase of daytime temperatures since 1979 but it is impossible to determine what percentage of that warming was caused by decreasing SO2 emissions versus decreasing cloud coverage.
This article’s theory fails to refute the data that supports CO2 warming and lacks reliable data to estimate the climate effects of cloudiness changes. It is a lot of speculation. A theory with little numerical evidence
The unknown effect of cloudiness changes, and absolute humidity changes as the atmosphere warms, prevents us from knowing the exact effect of manade CO2 emissions in the long run.
When the science adds up to “we do not know”, that opens the door for data free speculation and the most common extreme opinions:
CO2 Does Everything
CO2 Does Nothing
The important question gets ignored: Has the past 50 years of global warming been pleasant or unpleasant?
Has the past 50 years of global warming been pleasant or unpleasant?…..
Personally, I haven’t noticed much difference weather-wise. I’ve lived long enough to go through a number of dry and wet cycles, cold spells and hot spells, fire and flood events. Would never buy on a floodplain or crave for a home among the gum trees but love camping in these environments.
I have noticed that the vege patch is going gangbusters – incredible growth rates – CO2+H2O + Sun is a winner.
I vote for pleasant.
“Personally, I haven’t noticed much difference weather-wise.”
That’s me, too. I’ve seen it all before.
If a person were not paying attention, they wouldn’t know if they were at the top of the cyclical temperature profile, or the bottom. There were still hot summers at the bottom of the temperature cycle and still cold winters at the top of the temperature cycle.
Nothing new to see here.
If a person were not paying attention…
Definition of someone with a short weather attention span – less than 30 years old!
[snip. harrssment]
This rings a bell. Lol.
Surface measurements are too tainted by urban and agenda adjustments to get any meaningful CO2 warming value from.
Satellite data doesn’t show any warming apart from El Nino events.
There are “global” measurements of CO2 concentration that probably obtain a fairly accurate number for the average. Are there any similar large scale measurements of atmospheric SO2 or is it just an assumption based on reduced production in some places in the western cultures that ignores all the amounts that must be produced in southeast Asia and other developing areas?
“The CO2 greenhouse warming theory and predictions best match the actual warming characteristics since 1975.”
But it doesn’t match if you go back to the 1930’s. In the 1930’s, the temperatures were as warm as they are today, and CO2 was increasing during and after that time, yet the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s.
Increasing CO2 levels did not increase temperatures from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, and for that matter, increasing CO2 levels have not increased temperatures today, either, because the temperatures today are no warmer than in the past, even though CO2 levels are higher today than in the past.
Nope, your CO2 theory doesn’t hold up if you include a little more information and a longer timeline.
1975 was chosen because it is within the 30 year climate “definition” commonly used and allows for satellite measurements.
“But it doesn’t match if you go back to the 1930’s. In the 1930’s, the temperatures were as warm as they are today, and CO2 was increasing during and after that time, yet the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s.”
Tom: You keep saying this stuff – and it just isn’t true (the 30’s being as warm as today – even in the US). Plus you look at warming as if there is only one driver (bar the Sun). There are others, chiefly as regards the cooling post WW2 – it was aerosols wot (mostly – there was help with SST’s, see below) done it !
It was only when rising GHGs outpaced aerosols post ~ 1970 as they steadied under clean air acts that warming gathered pace.
The warm bump in the 30’s was due to the simultaneity of the PDO and AMO being in their +ve, warm phase together. For ~ 15 yrs prior to that both cycles were cool.
Also in the 70’s the PDO and AMO where both in their -ve cooler phase at the same time.
Note, they were the only times that they were both mutually in the same phase.
Those natural variations in the climate (major ocean SST’s) drove GMST changes before CO2 had enough forcing to take over.
The CO2 greenhouse warming theory and predictions best match the actual warming characteristics since 1975.
Hypothesis, not theory. And the matches the models make during hindcasting are merely cure fitting.
Other than those minor nits, a well presented piece.
Stupid typos…. curve fitting.
No, there is causation science to back up the correlation ….
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
AbstractWe use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.
Of course you need to be motivated to read this and other science that shows that causation, and I suspect you’re not, as are most other peeps on here.
So *you* remain intentionally ignorant and in denial.
“Twenty years of CERES data analyzed by Dübal et al (15)and Loeb et al (16) show SW out decreasing and LW out radiation increasing over the 20 years, contrary to RF theory”
And:
“In the lower atmosphere CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs long wave, LW, radiation and heats the atmosphere. The Beer-Lamber law says that this absorption is a function of distance and concentration (of CO2). At 400 ppm, CO2 is saturated in the lover atmosphere. Saturation means that more CO2 will not change the LW absorption in the lower atmosphere”.
Absorption in the lower atmosphere is not what is causing the warming (reduction in cooling).
It is the height of the effective emission layer (EEL).
This lies at the height of the Earth’s BB temp of 255k (the temperature of Earth as seen from space).
As the concentration of CO2 increases this level rises – to a colder temp, and so by SB radiates LW At a lower intensity.
Additionally the path-length increases.
“The IPCC’s current theory (radiative forcing, RF) is that in the upper atmosphere CO2 via Planck’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Law will absorb long wave radiation and reflect heat back to the lower atmosphere. To prove this theory NASA put the CERES satellite up to measure the radiation related to this theory. RF theory should show relatively constant short wave, SW, radiation out and decreasing long wave, LW, radiation out with time See Figure 1. Twenty years of CERES data analyzed by Dübal et al (15)and Loeb et al (16) show SW out decreasing and LW out radiation increasing over the 20 years, contrary to RF theory, see Figure 2. Their papers also indicated there may be some evidence of RF but clouds were the main source of SW and LW change over the 20 years. “
No, it’s not contrary:
From this paper:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
“Abstract
In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.”
“high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate “
Oh goodie ! 😉
___
“greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR”
Which is why OLR continues to increase.. 😉
___
“the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.”
Yes !!
Perhaps these pretty graphics will cut through the reflexive bollocks of yours …
(But they wont I mean).
With a pulse of OLR reduction (pulse as in geoogical time-scale), ASR increases (it has to to get the LWIR out to space via SB. In the case of a sudden 4xCO2 it’s 20 years.
Then after some time OLR catches up and then it “predominently” (read from then on) is increased until Ein= Eout at some time in the future at a new, higher equilibrium.
CHIMPS.
Special pleading. The point is the ‘canonical’ narrative for climate alarmism is contradicted by observation, hence a mad scramble to bury the disparity by insisting that the ‘real’ physics behind climate alarmism has only been recently revealed by the GCMs.
Here’s Donohoe et al (PNAS, 2014) [1]:
‘The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.’
And here is Trenberth and Fasullo (GRL, 2009) [2]:
‘Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top-of-atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.’
Or as Donohoe et al put it :
‘Trenberth and Fasullo considered global energy accumulation within the ensemble of coupled general circulation models (GCMs) participating in phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison (CMIP3). They report that, under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios A1B emissions scenario, wherein increasing radiative forcing is driven principally by increasing GHG concentrations, OLR changes little over the 21st century and global energy accumulation is caused nearly entirely by enhanced ASR – seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space.’
In summary, the mechanism of AGW revealed by the GCMs were not just ‘paradoxical’, but were also ‘not in ways commonly assumed’ and ‘seemingly at odds with the canonical view or global warming.’ Which brings up some questions, such as when did the mechanism discovered by the modelers officially become the standard CAGW narrative and why is the canonical mechanism still being touted in academia, the media, etc.? To put it bluntly, why are we reading about this revelation in the comments at WUWT, as opposed to, say, reading about it in the wake of a slew of Nobel prizes awarded to the climate modelers for (finally) proving the existence of CAGW?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037527
Thanks for this post and the references. I did not realise this was the case.
With their admission around the fact the main driving forces are actually linked ASR and Albedo changes, this makes the whole CO2 is the control knob redundant as there are so many other influences on albedo/ASR.
I would also suspect it is not pushed in the mainstream as they still have a very poor understanding how to model clouds.
Thanks. Here’s a relatively recent report from NASA (Loeb 2023) that goes into the CERES findings. CO2 is NOT mentioned as a driver.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2023-05/15_Loeb_Contributed_Science_Presentation_2023.pdf
Except Loeb says CO2 is the dominant driver and the cause of the increase in both the ASR and OLR. See [Hansen et al. 2023] for Loeb’s joint commentary and unequivocal position on the matter. Note that Loeb (along with the other authors) believe so strongly in their position that CO2 is the dominant driver that they actually indict the IPCC of reticence and gradualism.
CO2 is not mentioned in the report I cited. Very unusual given the quasi-religious requirement to invoke the ol’ control-knob in almost every publication cleared by the alarmosphere, no?
Hansen? Really?
‘Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2±0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C±1.2°C for doubled CO2. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era — including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases — supports this sensitivity and implies that CO2was 300-350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models.’
‘Improved knowledge’ in the first sentence of the abstract should be interpreted as ‘special pleading’ to maintain the alarmist narrative. We’ve already covered that.
As for the second sentence, the next time you speak with these guys, you should point out that the ‘full’ Cenozoic (current geological era) extends for over 65 million years, most of which was ice free, and, based on analyses of forams obtained from extensive deep sea coring programs, provides absolutely no evidence that CO2 has ever driven the Earth’s temperature.
First, not every publication needs to mention CO2. Second, [Loeb et al. 2021] and [Loeb et al. 2024] do mention GHGs (which CO2 is included) as being the cause.
Yes. Notice that Loeb is an author of [Hansen et al. 2024]. Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, L. Simons, L.S. Nazarenko, I. Sangha, P. Kharecha, J.C. Zachos, K. von Schuckmann, N.G. Loeb, M.B. Osman, Q. Jin, G. Tselioudis, E. Jeong, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, J. Cao, and J. Li
Loeb is “these guys”. Do you accept Loeb’s work or not?
They didn’t say that. What they said is that the increase in ASR and OLR shown in models is a result of the shortwave feedback caused by a pulse of CO2.
And this hypothesis was first proposed by Manabe & Wetherald in 1967 long before it was observed by CERES.
It was worth repeating in no uncertain terms. The hypothesis that OLR will only decrease as a result of GHG forcing is part of the contrarian theory. The hypothesis that OLR could increase as a result of GHG forcing is part of the scientific theory. CERES falsifies the contrarian theory and supports the scientific theory.
You manage to use the very paper that explains to you why ASR increases and OLR decrease after a *pulse* of GHG enters the atmosphere, to imagine that they are saying there is no GHE !
“Trenberth and Fasullo (GRL, 2009)”
This is their abstract …
“Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top-of-atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned”
SO the paper does not go against anthro GHG warming – it investigates the nature of that warming (increased ASR) and of feedbacks.
Similarly Donohoe et al say the same thing, and if you would read and comprehend (I posted it above) it explains why ASR increases first and OLR drops, with aboth going +ve after a time before coming to equilibrium at a higher temp….
“Significance
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
Again:
Actually, it was the Donohoe [2014] paper, cited by your very own AlanJ, that first raised awareness that something was up in the alarmosphere to tailor the ‘narrative’ to fit in with actual (CERES) observations. That lead me to look for confirmations in the literature, but all I could come uo with was a prior paper by Trenberth and Fasullo [2009] that also pointed out there were issues with the base narrative.
Anyway, you can read about it here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/18/when-satellites-refute-the-climate-crisis-narratives-trust-the-science/#comment-3898961
It goes back much further than 2009. The origination of the hypothesis that the cloud feedback could be positive was in [Manabe & Wetherald 1967]. This was explored in more detail in [Wetherald & Manabe 1988] in which they showed it was likely to be positive.
If water vapor and clouds are positive feedbacks to warming, why haven’t we experienced runaway GHE?
At the end of the day, there’s no physical evidence from the Earth’s geological record that widely varying concentrations of CO2 have had any impact on surface temperatures. This means that all modeling, from 1967 to today, has mistakenly assumed that radiative heat transfer, rather than the near-surface thermalization of surface IR radiation and convection, dominate energy transfer in the lower troposphere.
This has always been something I have been curious about. With all these proposed positive feedbacks, we should have seen runaway conditions a long time ago, yet that situation has failed to eventuate.
There are obviously significant negative feedbacks in place and I wonder how these have been quantified and included in the current models.
A positive feedback does not means that it is inexhaustible and runs away. It may be limited by other factors and/or clamps out after it is exhausted.
‘It may be limited by other factors…’
Like what, melting ice and permafrost, methane hydrates or any other of the bad stuff the alarmists say will happen?
Here-in lies a fundamental problem. You said “it may be limited by other factors”. The truth is, it MUST be limited by other factors, just by us being here in our current low temp/low CO2 environment confirms this.
Even your statement that it may “clamp out” is only half the story. Not only does it “clamp out” it also reduces, indicating negative feedback.
Your statement would also seem to confirm that we don’t have these obvious unknowns incorporated into the current climate models.
Yes, a contributed quite a few posts to that thread.
Nope, your EEL is fixed for well mixed GHGs due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. Whenever absorption increases you get an equal increase in emission. This particular pseudoscience cannot cause any warming and since it is built into models, that is a big reason for their failure.
This fact was pointed out long ago in Miskolczi 2010.
“Nope, your EEL is fixed for well mixed GHGs due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation”
Wrong- and I think I have told you this before.
.
Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation states that the power radiated by an object in thermal equilibrium is equal to the power it absorbs.
The EEL layer is most certainly not under thermal equilibrium, as there are warmer molecules below emitting greater thermodynamic energy to that layer than the colder molecules above.
Post says:”As the concentration of CO2 increases this level rises…”
Do you have any graphs that show the measurements of this EEL over say a 30 year span? If so please post.
You will have to look at archived upper-air soundings to determine that.
The EEL lies at the level of the 255K (-18C) isotherm.
2 problems – I know of no archive that has them and the -18C isotherm is dependent on the airmass – which move across the Earth’s surface due to global long-wave action (Rossby waves).
I suspect a complicated integration would need to be done with a supercomputer.
For reduction in cloud cover, there should be reduction in cloud condensing nuclei (CCN). See Wikipedia for extensive discussion of CCN.
What has caused a reduction in CCN? Since the 1970’s, there has been a reduction in air pollution in many countries. Another possibility are jet planes with their large engines, which are flying vacuum cleaners. Not only do the engines the remove CCN, they also remove methane. Most of the airplane flights occur in northern hemisphere.
I live Burnaby BC, which is east of and contagious with Vancouver. I far is I can tell by watching weather reports on the TV for about 60 years, there has been no decrease in clouds coming out of the Pacific oceans.
I also live east of Vancouver but it must be a different Burnaby because mine is contiguous, not contagious.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself, I make more spelling mistakes than I care to admit but reading that Vancouver was contagious left me wondering for a very brief moment what new disease was being foisted on us now 🙂
At least you know HP isn’t an AI bot!
“For reduction in cloud cover, there should be reduction in cloud condensing nuclei (CCN). See Wikipedia for extensive discussion of CCN.”
Yes, given that WV concentration remains the same.
There has been a reduction in CCN over the oceans, due the reduction of sulphates in shipping fuel.
“far is I can tell by watching weather reports on the TV for about 60 years, there has been no decrease in clouds coming out of the Pacific oceans.”
You wouldn’t notice by eye. But satellites see it …. and so does the Moon.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/climate/impacts/earthshine-is-dimming-and-climate-change-may-be-to-blame
“This graph shows two decades worth of Earthshine data (black points), alongside data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments in orbit (blue points). Both reveal that Earth’s albedo is decreasing. CERES detected a significant drop in albedo in 2019. Credit: Goode et al. (2021), Geophysical Research Letters”
What is missing is the variable solar radiation affecting the earth energy system.
No, it is averaged out if you mean the diurnal range and variation over the Earth’s surface. The TSI varies 0.1% over the solar cycle would be undetectable.
It is more than 0.1%.
“Earth tends to be in an equilibrium state by adjusting its temperature so that its thermal radiation balances the solar energy absorbed by the planet. On this basis, an increase or a decrease in the TSI is expected to result in a proportional increase or decrease in the average temperature of Earth. For example, the TSI changes with an amplitude of nearly 0.1 percent over an 11-year cycle in step with the cycle of sunspots. The small temperature changes (perhaps with an amplitude of about 0.01°C) due to this variation can be detected, albeit with considerable imprecision, in the climate records. “
https://sunclimate.gsfc.nasa.gov/science
Enhanced solar input to the surface is a perfectly good explanation for a portion of the observed warming. I have no idea if land use change is quite the impact that the author, here, alleges. Keep in mind that a large impact of land use change is irrigation which probably offsets many of the drying mechanisms listed here. Mining has got to be a negligible player for example.
There are many factors that could lead to less cloud cover. And the rising absolute humidity simultaneously with falling relative humidity might be better explained with the fact that humidity on Earth does not scale as Clausius-Clapeyron as so many people suppose. The reason is that much of the water vapor content of the atmosphere depends on transport from sources to sinks — transport process probably only scale linearly not exponentially like C-C. See for instance (Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming, ISAAC M. HELD, BRIAN J. SODEN, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 19, p 5686)
The heat advection processes are shifting due to changes in peak sunlight as the peak solar intensity shifts northward. Loss of permanent ice cover in the northern latitudes resulting in higher summer temperature on land is causing a reduction in summer advection from ocean to land.
Global land runoff has declined this century indicating reduced latent heat advection from ocean to land. However the runoff in May has increased due to increasing snowfall. May is the only month with increasing runoff.
?ssl=1
The May runoff has significant contribution from tropical land and the high northern latitudes that receive significant snowfall.
The conclusion is that there is less heat transfer from ocean to land in summer but more in winter. On average the heat advection from ocean to land in the NH is declining on average. This is consistent with the changing peak solar intensity due to the precession cycle.
Yikes, where to start?
At 400 ppm, CO2 is saturated in the lover atmosphere. Saturation means that more CO2 will not change the LW absorption in the lower atmosphere. The IPCC agrees. . See (1) and (2) for more information.
Aside from the obvious intent to write “lower atmosphere” rather than “lover atmosphere”:
There is a lot of food for thought in your article, but you are making patently false claims about what CO2 does and what the IPCC says. In fact, why do you bring these things up in your article at all? You’re making the case that a certain effect exists and can be quantified, why bring what the IPCC says (or most certainly does not say) into the discussion? Present your data, present your findings, stick to that.
UHI most certainly affects temperature data, as does land use change. That’s nothing new. The exact mechanisms, well let’s just say I find your paper interesting from that perspective, but certainly no definitive. Not the least of your problems is that there are no analogous “plumes” over the oceans because we don’t build cities or farms on the surface of the ocean, and ocean surface dominates land surface.
Amusingly, I recall reading one report on cloud change contribution to warming and it was a number like 0.317 w/m2 +/- 19.0 which would have had more credibility had they just said we don’t f’n know.
A bit like one of those Trenberth-like 1D atmospheric energy balance charts I saw somewhere..
… they had ranges of +/- 10 or more W/m² on some values..
and gave the balance as + 0.6 W/m².
Quite funny !
I really wish you would discontinue responding to my posts. I’ve no interest in hearing your comments even when you agree with me.
See surface temperatures control low cloud cover, and the largest signal is the AMO, which reduces low cloud cover when in its warm phase. Exceptions are parts of the tropics and over the Arctic Ocean, where warmer SST’s increase cloud cover. Given that the AMO is normally warmer during centennial solar minima, it’s a self amplified negative feedback.
Dear Charles,
My understanding is that the earth DOES NOT radiate short-wave radiation out – only long-wave. Some may be reflected by cirrus ice clouds, but not radiated per se.
Also ET is a passive process driven by potential evaporation (as measured using say an A-pan, or calculated using a range of methods from meteorological data) and the availability of water to be evaporated.
If there is no water, ET = 0 even if PET is factors higher. Under such conditions, sensible heat transfer (advection) to the near-surface atmosphere is the dominant process, with LW radiation coming second. Thus, dry years are warm and the drier it is, the warmer it gets (see for example https://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Marble-Bar-back-story-with-line-Nos.pdf)..
It is easily shown using met-station data, that cloudiness suppresses LW-radiation at the surface. Also, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) uses satellite data to estimate daily solar exposure (MJ/m^2/day, or kWh/m^2) from 1990 for all Australian weather stations. SE can be related to rainfall, maximum temperature, and if one has the data, the performance of solar arrays, on a daily basis.
Leaving aside ENSO, I don’t see a general downward trend in rainfall that would be consistent with a downward trend in cloudiness in Australian data. Also, I have investigated a number of uncontrolled stream discharge datasets within six river basins draining the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon and several datasets for the Bega Valley (NSW) and found ex-ENSO, no trend per se. that would suggest steady decline.
Furthermore, the Australian Institute of Marine Science operates a number of automatic weather stations that report sea surface temperature and the temperature of the air above. For each of the six or so that I looked at temperatures remain in close lock-step, no trend no nothing to be alarmed about for periods up to three decades.
Aside from being a somewhat difficult post to assimilate, where does all this theory come from? Where is some data that shows these things are happening?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Cloud cover also varies with the waviness of the jet stream tracks.
More waviness involves longer lines of air mass mixing with the production of more clouds.
The cooling period of the mid 20th century involved more waviness and the more recent warming spell less waviness.
Most likely due to solar variations in the stratosphere affecting the balance of ozone destruction/ creation.
The features noted by Charles are likely secondary to that and involve aspects of the weather system adjusting via convection to maintain overall equilibrium.
Dynamic, non-linear, coupled, chaotic systems.
We must blame global warming on a butterfly in Hong Kong.
/humor
Note: I agree fully.
So does that mean that CAGW is correct all along but just that the mechanism is land use changes rather than increases in CO2? Or perhaps we should actually be twice as worried since now there is an additional source of warming in addition to rising CO2 levels.
It is also nice to know that models done in excel are ok but ones written in Fortran are always wrong and should never be used as evidence. And speaking of which why has nobody claimed that there is no empirical evidence for any connection between land use changes and increased temperatures?
The trouble with the old FORTRAN climate models is that they are based on junk science from the ground up..
Yes, we know urban warming exists.. and, combined with wonky homogenisation routines…
… is what causes a large proportion of the surface stations fabricated warming.
CO2 is not a source of warming at all….. never has been and never will be.
So it is not my old friend FORTRAN that is at fault.
Good to know it is the humas and the keyboard that are the villains.
“Or perhaps we should actually be twice as worried since now there is an additional source of warming in addition to rising CO2 levels.”
It’s a feed-back from GHG warming Izaak.
As my above posted graphs an paper from which they come shows.
The greatest contribution of human activities to any measurable effects in the atmosphere are (in no particular order):
land use (farming, forests, etc.)
thermal energy released in energy generation and industrial/commercial/personal energy consumption.
population growth (8 billion people release more thermal energy, CO2, and methane that 1.5 billion), requiring more food, shelter, energy, transportation, technology, and other stuff.
The mechanism is interesting and deserves further investigation, but it is by no means definitive. There are many processes that we do not fully understand. Land use change is just as much a human driven cause as is CO2 increases. So end of day, what’s the total?
Dunno, but so far I see no cause for alarm.
Just a thought, but is it not possible that at least a portion of the reduced specific humidity from the SP could the effect of increased CO2 levels reducing the amount of transpiration from the entire plant community. With higher CO2 levels the stomata don’t need to remain open as long for the plant to acquire the molecules of CO2 necessary for the photosynthetic needs of the individual plant. If plants are currently exhibiting photosynthetic rates 20% higher than in 1960, they also not releasing as much water vapor for the same unit of growth. On a global basis this could amount to a substantial reduction in specific humidity. The increased over all productivity of the plant community would offset some of this effect, but it does seem plausible.
It seems that would be fairly small compared to 70% of the globe that isn’t going to be effected.
“a portion of the reduced specific humidity from the SP could the effect of increased CO2 levels reducing the amount of transpiration”
SH Specific humidity hasn’t reduced – it has increased.
What has decreased is RH relative humidity.
That is there is more WV in the air, just not all that could be given airmass temp.
When we are presented with a total global energy imbalance of 0.6%, then yes. It should be included.
When we are presented with numbers going to 6 decimal places, definitely that kind of detail needs inclusion.
The devil is in the details. Hand waving that such and such has no meaningful effect then making the claims to such unrealistic numerical resolutions is oxymoronic.
Lunar gravity is never included, but look at the effects, the tides?
The list of what is not included is quite long.
Any theory on processes that control earth’s energy balance need to be able to explain why cloud cover has reduced at all latitudes apart from a few degrees over Antarctica and a few degrees north of the equator:
?ssl=1
And the only place that shows a significant deficit in atmospheric water is in the pacific to the west of South America:
?ssl=1
The majority of the globe has increasing atmospheric water.
The gradual and sustained shift in peak solar intensity primarily due to the precession cycle explains the observed trends. It is this shift that will eventually terminate the present interglacial. The signs are already there with Greenland gaining in elevation and permanent ice extent.
Every year, there are numerous new snowfall records being set – no climate model predicted this. It is only a matter of a couple of hundred years and the snowfall will overtake the snow melt again beyond Greenland with permafrost advancing down the northern slopes near the Arctic ocean before advancing south. There is still ice above 5000m in the tropics proving how hard it is to melt ice once the snow fall overtakes the snow melt through an annual cycle.
The theory also needs to explain why the southern ocean has a sustained cooling trend.
WOW. Seems like a plausible hypothesis.
But…could someone translate to a “Readers Digest” format that us near-laymen can follow.
Thank you.
Readers Digest version: If you don’t put water into the atmosphere will have less clouds and it will get hotter. Likewise, if you put more water into the atmosphere to make clouds it will get cooler.
From the article: “The atmosphere fingerprint supports the CRGW theory: Since 1970 temperatures, specific humidity, enthalpy, and VPD have been rising while relative humidity and cloud cover have been declining.”
In order for me to believe in your theory, it would have to explain the cyclical warming and cooling of the past:
Hansen 1999:
As you can see, the temperatures from the 1910’s to the 1930’s increased at the same magnitude as the temperatures from the 1980’s to the present, and reached the same level of warming, so this theory should be applicable to the 1930’s warming, and also be applicable to the cooling that took place afterwards which amounted to about 2.0C of cooling from the 1930’s to the 1970’s (the Ice Age Cometh?!).
What is described is a self-regulating thermal control system. Latencies of the different forms of energy transfer affect the constant rebalancing of the equilibrium point.
There is no “runaway greenhouse effect” or “runaway climate change” or tipping points.
\
This basically supports a heat sink model. The ocean exchanges thermal energy with the atmosphere. Air when warmer injects energy into the water. Water injects energy into a cooler atmosphere.
That’s the contrarian strawman theory. The IPCC’s RF theory is that both ASR and OLR will increase due to the shortwave feedback. This effect was first hypothesized in [Manabe & Wetherald 1967].
Yeah. They are confirming the M&W and IPCC hypothesis.
Loeb is also unequivocal that this is due to the expected cloud feedback caused by GHGs. See [Hansen et al. 2024] for details.
The prevailing theory explains this well already. See [Donohoe et al. 2014] for an intuitive explanation.
Thanks for the link to the M&L paper which discusses a convection model that this paper agrees with but also switches from convection to radiation via Stefan-Boltzman with no comments on the magnitude of the of the radiation change. Since the upper atmosphere is cold and not very dense this radiation should be very small and a very small contribution to the earths EEI. This paper did not show (but can be calculated) that the increase in specific humidity and ocean temperature can account for most of the earth’s EEI in the Loeb paper. The radiation needed to this had to come for an increase in incoming SW radiation not small amounts of radiation from the upper atmosphere.
As for Loeb’s theory on Cloud feed back, with the data presented it was a logical conclusion. But, he did not have the increasing VPD data for the 20 years of the study which showed there must have been cloud reduction that was not indicated in the cloud data. Not saying there was no GHG but it is smaller than the increase in incoming SW ration. The theory presented in M&L is valid but not a major contributor to GW.
From 2000 to 2019 about 4.6 million people died from cold-related causes and about 490,000 people died from heat-related causes.
‘Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2821%2900081-4
Cold causes the blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat and this raises blood pressure causing more strokes and heart attacks in the colder months.
“Urbanization alters atmospheric dryness through land evapotranspiration” #9 cit.
I wonder if this was a contributing factor in the California wildfires?