WUWT editors’ note:
Watts Up With That? is committed to fostering open discourse on climate science and related topics. While we respect the authors’ perspective and their dedication to exploring climate dynamics, we find aspects of the CO₂ thermalization theory presented in this article to be inconsistent with well-established experimental and empirical evidence. As Richard Feynman famously stated, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Extensive laboratory spectroscopy and direct atmospheric observations confirm that CO₂ plays a role in radiative heat transfer, and while water vapor is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, the claim that CO₂’s effects are negligible does not align with measured data. That said, scientific inquiry thrives on scrutiny and debate, and we encourage readers to critically evaluate all perspectives in light of experimental validation and real-world measurements. Anthony has written primer on Carbon Dioxide Saturation in the Atmosphere also worth reading, as it describes how the logarithmic effect of CO₂ versus temperature will continue to lessen its impact even as atmospheric CO₂ concentrations increase.
By Andy May & Tom Shula
Fundamentally the entire man-made CO2 global warming concept, boils down to the interaction of energy and matter in Earth’s atmosphere. The only reason that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are special is that they absorb most of the radiation emitted by Earth’s surface. Water vapor absorbs across almost the entire emission spectrum and is, by far, the most significant absorber. The cloud-free atmosphere is mostly transparent to sunlight, so Earth’s surface absorbs most of the sunlight that makes it through the clouds. In response to this stimulation, it emits infrared radiation (IR).
Because the humid lower atmosphere is nearly opaque to most surface emitted radiation that is outside the atmospheric windows, surface emissions are absorbed by GHGs very close to the surface. According to Heinz Hug, at sea level, with a CO2 concentration of 357 PPM and 2.6% water vapor, 99.94% of all surface radiation in the main CO2 frequency band at about 15 μm is normally absorbed in the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere (Hug, 2012). Even at the edges of the deep CO2 frequency band (see figure 1, as well as figures 4 & 5 here) where any increase in the CO2 effect would be observed, 99.9% of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 690 meters (Hug, 2000).
Heinz Hug goes on to say that is why climate change caused by CO2 cannot be measured directly in the laboratory and can only be modeled. In our opinion, the effect of CO2 is so small it will likely never be measured. In a similar fashion, any “back radiation” that makes it to the surface, outside atmospheric windows, is from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere, the remaining emissions from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere are captured by other greenhouse gases, almost always water vapor molecules.
Surface emissions in the frequencies that cannot be absorbed or emitted by GHGs, those in the so-called “atmospheric windows” are not captured, these are the frequencies utilized by IR thermometers and scanners, typically 7.5 to 14 micrometers as shown in figure 1. Water vapor is often a very weak absorber and emitter in portions of these windows. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs and re-emits IR at two key frequencies: around 4.26 μm (microns) and 14.99 μm. The common vanadium oxide (VOx) based microbolometer long-wave infrared detectors cover wavelengths from 8-14 µm range. So, both CO2 absorption bands are outside the range of the common hand-held infrared thermometer/bolometer.
The radiation seen when IR thermometers and scanners are pointed at the sky is surface radiation scattered by atmospheric particles and clouds. The radiation seen by IR thermometers and scanners cannot be emitted by greenhouse gases or clouds because neither GHGs nor clouds emit in frequencies that can be detected by the devices. As noted in van Wijngaarden and Happer (2025) scattered longwave IR originates only in water droplets or ice or other particulates, there is negligible scattering of IR by molecules, especially in the atmospheric windows.
When GHG molecules absorb radiative emissions from the surface or other GHGs they become excited and rise above their molecular ground state and then either dissipate the excess energy among their neighbors as kinetic energy through collisions, or emit the energy according to their specific frequency of emission (Hug, 2000). In the lower atmosphere, dissipation is much more common than emission, but when emission takes place, the emitted energy is quickly captured by nearby GHGs and they dissipate it to their neighbors. Radiant energy from the surface or other GHGs that is captured by a greenhouse gas molecule is held for a relatively long time, around a half second, before it is re-emitted. In this half second, the molecule will have around three billion collisions with other molecules at sea level (Siddles et al). Siddles et al. also report that the excited molecule is 50,000 times as likely to dissipate excess energy as emit it as energy at sea level. Radiative return to the ground state is insignificant in the lower atmosphere (Hug, 2000).
Dissipating the excess energy via collisions warms the neighborhood around excited GHG molecules, and is called thermalization. Thermalization increases the gas’s sensible heat and stimulates convection, these processes increase both evaporation and conduction of heat from the surface. Conduction directly transfers sensible heat from the surface to the air and evaporation carries away latent heat.
Now we reach a point where it gets confusing. The surface has emitted most of its excess thermal energy and stored the rest. What happens now? Most descriptions of the greenhouse effect emphasize heat transfer through the atmosphere via radiation and either ignore heat transported by convection or fudge an adjustment in the tropospheric lapse rate to “correct” for convection. If a vertical atmospheric temperature profile is created using a radiative transfer model it does not match observations. Thus, to create a reasonable atmospheric radiative heat transfer model, one must assume a temperature profile that approximates reality. A typical assumed profile can be seen in Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) as part of their figure 1.
In Manabe and Wetherald (1967) and in Manabe and Strickler (1964) they simply force the lapse rate to be below 6.5°C to accommodate the effect of convection. Convection decreases the lapse rate to about 6.5°C/km on average from about 9.8°C/km in the pure radiative equilibrium case as shown in figure 2 from Manabe and Strickler. The reduction is due to extra heat being retained in the climate system by convective processes. Radiative heat transfer is faster than convective cooling and the oceans and atmosphere (collectively the “climate system”) have a considerable heat capacity and store thermal energy for varying lengths of time. The radiative heat transfer assumptions in the conventional “consensus” greenhouse gas model of climate change do not match the real world, so the vertical temperature profile must be assumed, it cannot be modeled.
Convection
When the Sun elevates the surface temperature, conduction and evaporation cause the lower air to become less dense, and it begins to rise. Convection starts spontaneously. Convection carries heat, both latent and sensible, higher into the atmosphere where it is colder. The water vapor condenses in the cooler upper air, releasing its latent heat, and the resulting drier and denser air descends to evaporate more water and continue the circulation.
The uppermost boundary of the circulation is the tropopause at the top of the troposphere. At the tropopause, the air pressure and density are lower, and water vapor is nearly gone. The tropopause is well above the so-called “emission layer” (about 5 km on average, with a temperature of about 255K) where water condenses, and on average, sends most of its latent heat to space as emitted radiation. The latent heat release warms GHGs (mostly water vapor molecules) in the neighborhood and stimulates them, which induces emissions. In this atmospheric region, between the emission layer and the tropopause, water vapor largely disappears, convection subsides, and most emissions of OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) to space occur. In this region, thermalization is harder to achieve due to lower atmospheric density and low humidity, and emitted radiation goes farther. At some altitude within the region, and below it for some frequencies, emitted radiation can escape to space.
Thermalization as described above, can work in reverse. Molecules warmed by latent heat that is released by condensing water vapor or upward convection of warm air can collide with GHGs and cause them to become excited and emit radiation. This is especially true of water vapor which is more easily excited by collisions than CO2. This is another reason why nearly all emissions to space are from water vapor.
Koll & Cronin
Koll & Cronin (2018) show that for typical terrestrial temperatures, the magnitude of total outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is a linear function of near surface temperature. This is consistent with Newton’s law of cooling.
Most of the energy lost to space comes from water vapor emissions, emissions by other GHGs are insignificant. Koll and Cronin go through a very tortured analysis of their data in order to continue calling water vapor a “feedback” to CO2, but their data shows that water vapor is in the driver’s seat and the other GHGs have little effect on Earth’s cooling rate. All GHGs can absorb energy emitted from the surface, but nearly all the energy (except in deserts and at the poles in winter) is absorbed by water vapor. There are a lot more water vapor molecules than molecules of the other GHGs in the troposphere, so water vapor both absorbs and emits nearly all the radiation.
In a radiative world, one might assume that OLR would be consistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (σT4, red line in figure 3), however Koll and Cronin’s data show this is not the case. The red line shows the outgoing IR radiation calculated assuming that Earth’s surface was cooling via radiation, as in Manabe’s CO2 hypothesis. Newton’s law of cooling predicts that surface temperature will be linear with OLR if the surface cools via convection. The only condition is that the fluid properties should not change much.
What Shula & Ott propose is that the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation observed from a satellite are decoupled from one another by the conversion of surface radiation to sensible heat by GHGs very near the surface. The added sensible heat is what drives the convection. Convection transports thermal energy upward, and in the critical region between around 2 and 7 km spontaneous radiation emissions, mostly from water vapor, are radiated to space. It is not surprising that the previously mentioned “emission layer,” at 5 km deduced from satellite OLR observations, with a temperature of about 255K (-17.5°C) lies in the middle of this region. Between 2 and 7 km is where upwardly convected water vapor condenses or freezes out of the air, releasing its latent heat, and forms clouds. The extra heat stimulates other water molecules (and a few other minor GHGs) causing them to emit radiation, much of which makes it to space. Hermann Harde modeled water vapor emissions as seen from 12.5 km and figure 4 shows the spectrum from his model (Harde 2013).
Water vapor dominates atmospheric OLR emissions because it can emit across nearly the entire IR spectrum. Water vapor is also more easily stimulated to emit radiation than other GHG molecules (Harde, 2013).
Discussion
The argument presented in most descriptions of the radiative greenhouse effect is one-dimensional and relies on average temperature profiles and solar irradiance. In order to use these one-dimensional models in a three-dimensional global climate model, modelers invoke a hypothetical local radiative equilibrium. Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) is a mathematical abstraction and tool used in climate models. It means that within an “air parcel” of arbitrary size all of the molecules are in thermodynamic equilibrium. The air parcels are not in thermodynamic equilibrium with one another. Air parcels move heat and mass between each other, but not internally. The size and definition of a parcel is determined by the computer modeler, and is usually too large to be realistic. Clearly, regionally, over large areas, near the surface, the atmosphere is never in equilibrium and convection is persistent. If a parcel is large enough to contain a tornado, it is obviously not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
In modern general circulation climate models (GCMs or ESMs, short for Earth System Models in AR6) the cells in the model (“air parcels”) are one degree latitude by one degree longitude or more than 10,000 square km at the equator. These cells can easily contain a large thunderstorm containing multiple tornados. Even higher resolution regional models are no better than 100 sq. km (AR6, WGI, page 1140). By way of comparison the average diameter of a thunderstorm is 24 km, this is an area of about 450 sq. km.
Earth, as a whole, is a dynamical system with diurnal and seasonal cycles and is never in equilibrium. Its radiative energy input and output never matches or is in equilibrium anywhere on Earth’s surface, except in very small volumes over very short periods of time. The whole greenhouse effect concept assumes that energy-in and energy-out approximately balance over the whole planet (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967) and anything left over, the “energy imbalance,” is what warms or cools the planet on average (Trenberth, et al. 2014).
If the planet had a constant input and radiative heat transfer were the actual cooling mechanism, this could be true. In that scenario, perturbing the model by increasing the CO2 concentration to create a “radiative forcing” would result in a different equilibrium temperature. However, even if the surface cooled with radiative emissions and the process were not short circuited by convection, the radiative forcing of CO2 is approximately logarithmic with its atmospheric concentration. This is due to the distribution of its absorption coefficients in the large CO2 15μm wavelength band (Romps, et al., 2022). Put another way, the radiative impact of going from 50 ppm to 100ppm is the same as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm.
However, the data we’ve shown suggests that radiative heat transfer only occurs at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, in between convection rules and convection is very complex with a lot of constantly changing associated heat, or more precisely thermal energy, storage capacity. Standard radiative models use simplifying assumptions to account for the average changes to the vertical temperature distribution caused by convection. These assumptions can work to make reasonable one-dimensional models, but do not work in our three-dimensional rotating real world. In reality, the vertical temperature profile, and the lapse rate, change constantly and from place to place.
Convection is not just a train that transports heat from the surface to the TOA at a constant rate everywhere. Its pathway and efficiency are constantly changing, which causes our weather. Plus, it has a very powerful energy storage cell at the bottom, the world ocean. As circulation changes, the amount of energy stored in the ocean changes. The amount is trivial to the ocean, with its immense heat capacity, so its temperature normally does not change significantly, except in the shallow mixed layer. But when atmospheric and ocean circulation changes, and become more or less efficient, the atmospheric temperature changes dramatically due to its smaller heat capacity and density. Everyone seems to ignore the considerable heat storage in the climate system and the storage time factor. Energy residence time makes a difference, and it does change with time. Earth’s surface contains more heat (aka thermal energy) than the surface of Venus, yet the surface temperature on Venus is 464°C, because Venus has no water or oceans.
The impact of energy storage in the climate system can be seen in long-term temperature records, such as the Vostok record compiled by Petit, et al. In figure 5 we can see that the entry into a warm interglacial climate state is very rapid as these are caused by increased insolation onto the critical northern continents. However, the descent into the next glacial is very slow since draining the heat stored in the oceans is a very slow process. All this needs to be incorporated into climate models for them to make more sense. On shorter time scales, the effect of changing ocean storage on our climate can be seen in the ENSO cycle (see figure 2.4 here), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, see figure 6 here), and in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see figure 4.8 here). Also see the discussion of the AMO and global average surface temperature around figure 2 of May & Crok 2024.
Reality is more complex than we can explain today, and we haven’t even touched on the impact of variations in cloudiness (van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025).
A bibliography for this post can be downloaded here.
Much of this post is a result of discussions with Markus Ott. Contributions to the post were also made by Will Happer and Anthony Watts.
A related paper by Tom and Markus can be downloaded here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This heading misses the most important component in Earth’s atmosphere as far as energy balance is concerned – ice.
The most important factor regarding climate change is ice stored on land. Earth is on the cusp of the land in the northern hemisphere increasing ice extent. Already apparent on Greenland.
As the precession cycle shifts the peak solar energy northward, snowfall will eventually overtake snow melt on large expanses of land in the NH. We are already observing numerous new snowfall records and yet the NH oceans have only been getting more sunlight since 1583 and only warming for about 250 years. There is 9,000 years of increasing solar intensity to come. The boreal summer solstice sunlight at zenith will bee 80W/m^2 above the present level by then, Think how much more water vapour will be in the atmosphere ahead of the land cooling below 0C in winter and that water coming down as ice.
Water vapor is doing the exact same thing that the NG/Propane powered refrigerators used today have been doing for millennia. The heat transfer throughout the Globe is using the same principle. The water vapor is carrying energy around the globe in rivers of water vapor in the air carrying more water than the Amazon River. Adsorbing energy in one area and depositing energy in another area along with changing the locations of the high pressure areas and low pressure areas. These rivers of water are carrying quadrillions of BTUs of energy. Strange that Envirowhacos are not aware of and/or are ignoring this.
Back in the 50’s when I worked on the Railroad as a helper in the summers the caboose had a refrigerator that was powered by a “Smudge Pot” * the flame heated a reservoir filled with Ammonia. The vaporized gas would then pass through an orifice causing cooling in the fridge then pass through the coil on the back of the fridge, turn back into a liquid and repeat. No need for power to pump the refrigerant. That little flame froze water into ice and less than a quart of kerosene lasted all day.
Smudge Pot – Used through the 20’s through 60’s in place of the road flares used today. Search “Vintage Smudge Pot”
Smudge pots are also used to prevent frosts and freezes in citrus groves and vegetable fields. They form a cloud that prevents heat from rising from the fields and dissipating.
https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-smudgepots-in-orange-groves-prevent-fruit-from-freezing/150892/6
Re “… 9,000 years of increasing solar intensity to come. The boreal summer…”
Please help.
“Where are we in the Precession Cycle today?” yields this:
The current tilt is 23.44°, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8,700 BCE, which correlates with the beginning of the Holocene, the current geological epoch. It is now in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum around the year 11,800 CE.
The question supports my belief that few people actually understand Earth’s axial precession. When you mention axial tilt, you are referring to obliquity, not precession.
The last time that perihelion occurred before the austral summer solstice was 1582. Since then, perihelion has been occurring after the summer solstice. This year, orbital perihelion occurred on 4th January. So perihelion has moved 12 days closer to the boreal summer solstice since 1582. In 9,000 years, perihelion will align with the boreal summer solstice and the midday sun at northern latitudes will be some 80W/m^2 more intense than now.
Precession is by far the most significant factor in changes in Earth’s solar power input across latitudes outside the annual seasonal changes.
‘This heading misses the most important component in Earth’s atmosphere as far as energy balance is concerned – ice.’
Yes, ice is important on the millennial scales of the Milankovitch cycles of orbital mechnics, as are the much longer-term effects of tectonic movements. The problem is that the premise that human emissions of CO2 are ‘harmful’ has become ‘scientific’ consensus, and has become a weapon of the Left, in the here and now.
Ice is important on every time scale. It limits ocean surface temperature to a sustainable 30C. It is doing that every second of every day somewhere over every tropical ocean. Ice is the dominant factor in Earth’s energy balance; whether it is on land, on water or in the atmosphere.
Precssion cycle is what matters. eccentricity just modulates the precession cycle. Obliquity modules the precession cycle at higher latitudes.
Almost everyone dismisses the influence of the precession cycle without understanding its significance because it is cycle averaging around 23,000 years. But what few people appreciate is that it started increasing the peak solar intensity in the NH after 1583. It has already made a substantial contribution to loss of land ice in the NH and warmer ocean surface but it has only just started with peak solar up around 0.8W/m^2 on its way to increasing by 80W/m^2. Long before it gets there, the snowfall will overtake snow melt and the land north of 40N will be accumulation ice as currently observed Greenland.
It is quite possible that holes in the ice in the Eurasian part of the Arctic Sea play a role in the “Stadium Wave” described by Wyatt and Curry. These holes allow ocean heat to escape, and this has an effect on Northern Hemisphere weather. They are also partially responsible for the hot Arctic/cold continents effect.
Dear RickWill,
Are you saying that as insolation (peak solar energy) increases in the NH, snowfall and ice accumulation will also increase?
Seems counter intuitive.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
Seems so but it’s not
How could one possibly control water vapour?
More practically [in theory at least] how could one control CO2?
You’re fogetting CO2 is the control knob for all things baaad
Maybe I wasn’t clear? I thought I was.
no, no, you were clear, Strat, I was just reinforcing the point
We can’t, but that doesn’t stop the arrogant buffoons believing they can.
How long will it be before humans realize WE are controlled by nature, we’re not controlling anything ( including our own bodily functions).
In the 11th century, King Cnut demonstrated we can’t even control the sea; 1,000 years later, we still haven’t learned that lesson !!!
“We can’t, but that doesn’t stop the arrogant buffoons believing they can.”
On topic, has anyone heard if Gavin Schmidt is being replaced?
With an algorithm?
With a scientist?
Schmidt poorly understands science for his position (and or he is just another dishonest climate hack).
We will learn how well he can play DOGE ball.
We can’t control water, but we can hamstring economies via Carbon dioxide.
Global CO2 control by governments using Net-zero by 2050, would be the ultimate tyranny.
Almost all IR photons near the surface are thermalized by collision with hugely abundant dry air molecules The remaining fraction of IR photons near the surface is absorbed as follows:
CO2, a trace gas (0.042%), is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the remaining IR photons near the surface
Water vapor, much more abundant than CO2, is a strong absorber of a large fraction of the remaining IR photons near the surface
All IR photons near the surface are thermalized within about 10 m of the surface
That means heat is added to the atmosphere near the surface causing it to move upwards. Cold, dry, heavier air moves downwards
This process is visible in New England, when the rising sun evaporates dew, which rises as thin veils from meadows until the veils join clouds at 2000 meter later in the day.
This process is not visible for about 7 months of the year, due to insufficient solar energy, snow, etc.
At about 2000 m, water vapor begins to condense into clouds and WV ppm becomes significantly decreased. That water vapor, further up, freezes onto dry air and CO2 molecules, and any other particulates.
Huge masses of warm air and clouds, created in the tropics, 24/7/365, are transported by prevailing winds to northern latitudes in summer, much less so in winter.
El Niños significantly increase evaporation and cloud over in the tropics, which have the net effect of increasing the average world surface temperature by up to 0.7 C in about a year.
It would take CO2 about 100 years to accomplish that.
Here are four articles attesting to the small global warming role of CO2 in the atmosphere
.
Eight Taiwanese Engineers Determine Climate Sensitivity to a 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eight-taiwanese-engineers-determine-climate-sensitivity-to-a-300
.
The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at The Real Science
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
.
Achieving ‘Net Zero by 2050’ Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/achieving-net-zero-by-2050-reduces-temps-by-0-28-c-costing-tens
.
German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doubling-of-atmospheric-co2-causes-only-0-24-c
“How long will it be before humans realize WE are controlled by nature”
The older you get- the more you realize the truth of that statement.
Just getting up and standing takes more and more work.
Especially after having groin hernia surgery like I did back on February 11- though it’s much better now. 🙂
Sometimes movie lines contain great bits of wisdom.
”The arrogance of man is assuming man is in control of nature, and not the other way around.” – Ken Watanabe, Godzilla
It certainly seems as though the main cooling mechanism at the surface (the most important bit, obviously) is the hydrological cycle. The greenhouse effect at the surface is almost always entirely dominated by water vapour, and CO2 is a very minor player at roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. Methane is laughably irrelevant.
The 0.5% of these greenhouse gases allegedly added by us in the last 150 years can’t sensibly have a noticeable impact on the very poorly named greenhouse effect, let alone the overwhelming effects of the hydrological cycle itself.
the most important bit
Is the bit they omit.
Because the most important bit can’t give them control over •energy use,• through which control of EVERYTHING follows.
You could remove CO2 from the atmosphere and leave WV that dominates CO2 absorption range including the Pressure induced broadening. WV will dominate what CO2 has to consume as WV simple outnumbers CO2 by a minimum of 2 to 1 in the driest of regions and 50 to 1 on average in the moistest of regions. H2O overlaps CO2 and JUST totally dominates energy absorption from the surface. CO2 is not a control KNOB. It is a BACK UP KNOB that is rarely called upon. The troposphere is not radiative. It is a convective environment where radiative emissions from either CO2 or H2o are literally non existent,
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere would instantly end all flora and fauna on earth, the ultimate extinction
I agree with you and the authors
See my above comment
Sadly, fails to consider the process of conversion of KE to PE in rising air and the reverse in descending air.
Trenberth accounted for the first part but not the second and had to invent a thermal effect from back radiation to balance his figures.
Without that, no model or hypothesis will match reality.
Stephen, that understanding is central to May, Shula and Ott:
Nice point and illustration Ron, thanks.
Actual atmospheric measurements from 2004-2019 support the Shula/May point that radiation absorbed by incremental CO2 is thermalised and becomes part of the final H2O OLR band once convection has done its work.
We see in this diagram that yes, there is some increased absorption by the widening of the CO2 band (as shown in the opening disclaimer “direct atmospheric observations” link), ..
…. but there is a corresponding increase in radiance at a lower wave number
There is no energy being “trapped”.
It’s good to read and learn, so I appreciate this article and its editorial preamble. There is a lot of scientific material out there on radiative concepts.
But from another angle entirely, let’s consider this wisdom from 1938, when Guy Callendar proposed to attribute a reported warming trend to rising concentrations of CO2:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
More here, including a reference to the original printed article in which this quote appears.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/02/open-thread-52/#comment-3703255
In a nutshell, Professor David Brunt was referring to what happens dynamically with energy in the atmosphere’s general circulation. It’s a big deal. This is why the incremental static radiative effect of rising CO2 concentrations cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of a sensible heat gain result on land, in the oceans, or in the atmosphere itself. It is also why there is no good reason, after properly considering the dynamics, to expect a detectable gain in sensible heat down here to be driven by incremental CO2 or any of the non-condensing IR-active gases.
What concept must be understood? Energy conversion: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]. This is in the sense of the bulk energy of air, the working fluid of the circulation. Lorenz described it. The ERA5 reanalysis model computes it explicitly as the “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter. I composed a time-lapse video of plots to put this point across. There is a full explanation with references in the Readme description.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Sure, there is a spectrum of opinions, findings, measurements, etc. about the radiative coupling (my preferred term) between the surface and the lower atmosphere and clouds, and about the IR emission to space from the upper atmosphere and from clouds. But it is evident in any case from dynamic considerations that there has never been anything to be concerned about to begin with from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O and the like.
This is also why the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the question of a climate system response to incremental “greenhouse gases” has been circular all along, because it assumes an influence that the investigation is meant to discover.
Thank you for reading.
Excellent reply!
Thanks for saying so. The question of exactly how radiative transfer works from the surface up and down through the atmosphere and out the top doesn’t need a perfectly confirmed answer. I am satisfied that the dynamics takes care of the minor potential issue anyway.
Bingo! Couldnt agree more.
From the article: “The radiative heat transfer assumptions in the conventional “consensus” greenhouse gas model of climate change do not match the real world,”
This kind of stood out to me.
So a serious discussion of the greenhouse effect requires a disclaimer?
CO2’s effect on Earth’s temperatures can’t be much because it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today even though there was much less CO2 in the air in the Early Twentieth Century. So, even though there is more CO2 in the air today, it is no warmer than it was in the recent past. The amount of CO2 in the air has made no difference.
Weather/Temperature history shows CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. It is such a minor player that it is crazy to be wasting TRILLIONS of dollars trying to control it.
“It is such a minor player that it is crazy to be wasting TRILLIONS of dollars trying to control it.”
Who knew it was insane? China, India, and other nations with very smart scientists and engineers are building and planning hundreds of GW of coal-fired power plant capacity. The West, so far, has been mind-locked on CO2. Let’s hope the current administration here in the U.S. can bring us back to our senses.
W & H state CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, a 50% increase, caused only a small fraction of C increase in world surface temperature.
An El Niño event, which creates huge quantities of water vapor, does that in about one year.
See my above comment.
Yes, that disclaimer was very odd and unnecessary. It is like saying: you are wrong but go ahead with the article, free speech etc.
That is NOT the role of an editor or moderator. I find it disingenuous..
I found it a little surprising and perplexing as well. After 15 published submissions, without any editing or requested re-writing, I had a submission declined because of a reviewer. One of two complaints was unfounded, but I would have been willing to reword it if asked to. The only conclusion I can come to is that I drifted a little too far from the approved skeptic path. Therefore, I find this editorial prologue a little bizarre.
Well, i see that ‘disclaimer’ as a little dig without actually posing a full critique. It also displays self importance. It would be fine if it was a simple reply in a post. I wonder what Andy makes of it. My guess is that he is likely to find it annoying but not enough to make an issue of it..but im speculating, of course.
Anyway, ive never seen anything like it on the site..
+1. Reading the prologue, I thought the article was going to overreach somewhere. Well, I don’t think it did. JMHO.
I don’t think it did, either.
My thoughts as well. I was expecting to find clear anomalies and overstatements or obvious mistakes or misconceptions.
But, as most of Andy’s contributions, the article was an excellent. One might disagree but this preamble or ‘disclaimer’ from an editor was just about the..well, how shall i put it: …..( fill in the blanks) thing i have ever encountered here.
I do expect an apology or some form of commentary from the editor, even one solely put forward to Andy. We cannot let this slide. Not on this site!!
“from the approved skeptic path”
Good way to put it.
“It is like saying: you are wrong but go ahead with the article, free speech etc.”
Yes, that was my impression, too. I wonder who the disclaimer was aimed at?
Mr. Abbott: Won’t name names, but maybe the editors wanted to get ahead of certain commenters who are so keen to tell us the consensus of 97% (or is it 98%?).
That was my interpretation.
“If if is consensus, it isn’t science.”
Antarctica started freezing around 30 million years ago about the time that continent positioned itself over the geographic pole. This is a long time before the Arctic started freezing. The highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded have all been on continental land and not on oceans. There is an assumption that the presence of ice makes the surrounding colder, but surely it is the absence of heat that creates ice? Why is it not possible that the position of the various continents will cause the ice ages as various large warm ocean (or atmospheric) currents are blocked or redirected away from polar regions? We have mountains near the equator that have ice caps and there is no reason to believe that this was not the same prior to the current ice age, therefore ice will form either at altitude or where warm air has been directed away. In addition the Tibetan Plateau was pushed up long before the Arctic started freezing so there is no reason why that didn’t start gaining ice as it increased in altitude?
We know the Milankovitch Cycles have been running for millennia and while an asteroid could cause cooling I’m not sure that the presence of ice is self perpetuating because it is white – there is still no perpetual motion machine. Perhaps the ice forms when the continents move into certain positions disrupting the global distribution of warm air and oceans and the Milankovitch Cycles add the waxing and waning cycles on top?
“Why is it not possible that the position of the various continents will cause the ice ages as various large warm ocean (or atmospheric) currents are blocked or redirected away from polar regions?”
Good question!
Something that is often overlooked is that the elevation of land masses is neither uniform or constant with time. During orogenies, once the maximum elevation gets above the tree-line, I would expect at least Alpine Glaciation to kick in and grow as the mountain range(s) continues to increase. Therefore, both location and elevation of land masses will play a role.
“why climate change caused by CO2 cannot be measured directly in the laboratory and can only be modeled”
The uncertainty in any model due to epistemic uncertainties (in underlying physico-chemical mechanisms and models) and parameter uncertainties (parameters that are actually well characterised physically but whose values are uncertain) are so great they would simply drown out any perturbative terms associated with CO2 by several orders of magnitude
The only way I can imagine that the CO2 effect is shown to be significant is by devising a perturbative type model that either neglects or deliberately relegates many real processes into insignificance
This sort of model, with a small perturbative control variable, can never form the basis of trying to understand a system as vastly complex as the earth’s climate
Basic logic. No more analysis is required.
The problem with models is the output is dependent on the input. One can always torture a model until it confesses to anything! 🙂
A curious experiment:
1. Go to the MODTRAN U. Chicago calculator and pick a locality profile.
2. Zero out all GHG concentrations.
3. Observe what is seen looking up from the surface (nada).
4. Observe what is seen looking down from 10km (a SB profile for the surface
temperature).
5. Increase CO2 to 5ppm and repeat.
You will see well-resolved absorption and emission lines at 667 (1/cm). Note
the SB temperatures at the extrema of these lines. Experiment with how these
features change as you increase CO2 to 800ppm or decrease it to 1 ppm.
Except for what’s inside MODTRAN:
All those homogenous layers do not exist in our convective troposphere.
The crux of the analysis by May, Shula and Ott concerns the impossibility of radiative heat transfer within the troposphere. Key quote: “ In a rather hapless attempt to apply Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model, the same is done to the externally and unevenly heated surface of the Earth.” In so doing emissions equations are not applicable to the convective earth atmosphere.
A brief video by Markus Ott explains with transcript:
https://rclutz.com/2025/03/08/r-i-p-climate-back-radiation/
Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model applies to photon absorption/emissions in an atmosphere without convection.
ie NOT the planet Earth !
The sun follows a sine distribution and away from the sun’s perpendicular position the radiation follows a cosine function. Nighttime is an exponential function representing the cooling of a heat sink.
Nothing is in equilibrium and should use gradients, not averages.
Or you can make δh smaller. It is quite large in normal climate models, but it is 500 layers up to 80km, or 160m in Wijngaarden & Happer.
In response to the editor’s note, apply Feynman’s statement to the full-blown glaciation 450 Mya when atmospheric CO2 was ten times what it is now.
Where was CO2’s “climate driving power” then?!
Re: “Full-blown glaciation 450 Mya”
Did you mean 550 million years ago?
The Cambrian period – and the great explosion of complex life forms – began about 540 mya, after Snowball Earth had ended.
“As Richard Feynman famously stated, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.””
And I disagree with Feynman on this. Experiments are often wrong, poorly constructed, or based on false premises. If he had said “observation” instead of “experiment”, I would agree.
You are nitpicking
No he is not. It is an important distinction, obviously. Think!
I grew up in a rural part of Southern Indiana and went to a HS with approximately 120 kids. Physics was offered every other year, alternating with Chemistry.
Whenever we did a Physics experiment and wrote it up we had to say what we were doing, what we expected to see, what we actually found, and why we were wrong.
Part of the problem with climate science is that the scientists never explain why they are wrong.
When Feynman stated it as experiment, he assumed that all experimentation would be well constructed and have well defined premises – he was talking about NORMAL SCIENCE, not POST-NORMAL SCIENCE.
You really can’t make that assumption. Feynman should have known that, too. People make mistakes in “normal” science all the time.
I actually think he got the quote wrong. It is ‘observation’ as i recall.
No idea. I’ve always seen it presented as shown.
In Richard Feynman’s statement, “experiment” doesn’t mean any old crappy experiment. Think of it as replicable experiment.
But Feynman himself said something like science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Scientists are human (well, most are), and they are going to make mistakes. You can’t assume all scientists will craft perfect experiments.
It is the job of peer reviewers to reject work based on flawed experiments. However, how often do they do so?
“ Shula & Ott propose is that the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation observed from a satellite are decoupled from one another by the conversion of surface radiation to sensible heat by GHGs very near the surface.”
The question is decoupled by how much?
About 1/3 of the IR emitted by the surface is in the 8 to 14 micron band, the atmospheric window, where it just goes to outer space unless it is intercepted by Earth’s 65% cloud cover. That same cloud cover is muchly produced by upward convecting water vapor that was heated by IR “close” to the surface. Those clouds release IR to outer space at some lower rate due to their relatively colder cloud top temperatures. Meanwhile the existence of those clouds cause incoming sunlight to be reflected back to outer space, thus reducing the IR surface heating. The role of CO2 in this is going to be small compared to water vapor IR absorption and emission, and small compared to cloud reflectivity.
The parameterizations in UChicago Modtran, available to anyone over the internet, can be used to approximately see the effect of cloud cover. This effect is huge. Try it until you grok it, with a piece of paper to record the results of your runs and the changes you made. It is unfortunately a little easy to forget the parameters you changed 3 runs ago…Sure it’s not accurate enough to tell you whether Earth’s energy imbalance is .6 or .9 watts/M^2 but it can show you the big factors that make 3 watts from CO2 doubling just-oh-so-close to rounding error.
From post:” Try it until you grok it,”
I see what ou did there. Coupled Heinlein to AI. Very good. Salute.
With multiple mentions of the atmospheric window earlier in the post, we assumed it would be clear we are discussing the behavior of IR active gases outside of that. That being said, as is shown in Harde’s emission spectrum of water vapor the atmospheric window is not completely “clear.”
The surface radiation field in the “GHG” bands is completely absorbed (99.94%) within. 10 m of the surface. This was shown by Hug in 1998. You can read an English translation of his paper here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/02/10/the-climate-catastrophe-a-spectroscopic-artifact/?amp=1
The surface generated field outside the atmospheric window is radiatively independent of the overall atmospheric field which is generated by collisions. A complete explanation of this can be found in the following comments I made in Kevin Kilty’s post on Energy Balance, 24 FEB
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/24/earths-energy-imbalance-part-ii/#comment-4042059
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/24/earths-energy-imbalance-part-ii/#comment-4042060
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/24/earths-energy-imbalance-part-ii/#comment-4042964
CO2 spectrum is so weak.
It’s great to see this alternative to the radiative-centric Schwarzschild model finally get some play at WUWT, disclosure and all. Like any idea, we’ll have to see how it stands up to scrutiny. However, one thing we do know is that there is no isotopic evidence from the Cenozoic (carbonate rocks) or the Pleistocene (ice cores) that supports the premise that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of the Earth’s climate. This means that the consensus view of the role that IR active gas molecules play in the troposphere is at least partially incorrect.
From article:”Dissipating the excess energy via collisions warms the neighborhood around excited GHG molecules,…”
I see this stated but never really explained. It is Iike “here there be dragons”.
The idea seems to something like this. A vibrating CO2 bumps into a N2 and voila energy is transferred and it is always additive never negative.
It seems to me that a vibrating CO2 can have near infinite positions relative to some other rotating moving molecule.
The excess energy, which is hf, must cause a translation increase in the molecule for there to be temperature increase. I would think there is only a 50/50 chance of positive enhancement.
How does this idea square with the kinetic theory of gases?
The key is that in a convective atmosphere with the density ours has, the excited CO2 molecules shed the energy by collisions with non-IR active N2 and O2, which is irreversible. There is no radiative energy left to transfer in any direction.
But there is kinetic energy and rotational energy that is constantly being transferred by collisions. The loss of one molecule with the energy to emit a photon is statistically replaced by slightly more than 1 molecule with sufficient energy to emit a photon. The distrubution of molecular speeds depends on temperature.
Ron is correct in his comment, but if you want to see the details, the most respected source is Pierrehumbert, 2011 in Physics Today where he writes the attached. The idea that most GHG energy is dissipated via collisions in the lower atmosphere is not controversial. Radiative heat transfer plays almost no role below 2 km altitude.
As Ron has also mentioned here, much of the convective heat transfer is irreversible, this is simply because it goes into “work,” that is our weather.
Interesting, Andy. I note, however, that Pierrehumbert manages to invoke ‘LTE’ here, which is a precondition for the Schwarzschild equation to apply. Do you and Tom agree with this, or should we be pointing out that convection is a ‘problem’ for the consensus’ application of radiative transfer models?
LTE exists at very small scales, for example the flight of weather balloons, but not at larger scales. You can tell that from winds, storms, and currents, they wouldn’t exist if large parts of the atmosphere or ocean surfaces were in LTE.
Thanks, Andy. So in other words, invoking LTE to justify using Schwarzschild’s model in the lower troposphere is just special pleading.
True. However, convection operates at much lower speeds (usually only a few m/sec) than molecular collisions (several hundred m/sec in the lower atmosphere, or photons at the speed of light. It is of course required to square the circle of overall energy transfers. Radiative transfer is certainly attenuated sharply/effectively delayed in the lower atmosphere, which is what Happer/Wijngaarden calculations show. The total energy transfer through each layer is effectively defined by local pressure and temperature and atmospheric composition observations, including the effects of reflection/scattering etc. The issuse is how us the transfer partitioned..
In one of Pierrehumbert’s papers, amongst the waffle were the words “CO2 is just planetary insulation.” No GHE – just an atmosphere blocking about 35% or so of the Sun’s TOA radiation from even reaching the surface.
Result – lowered maxima, increased minima, compared with no atmosphere. The Moon is an example. After the same exposure time, the Moon’s surface temperature can reach around 127 C. Maximum on Earth – less than 100 C.
Simple observation.
You can find a complete explanation of the kinetics in this video which Markus Ott produced not quite two years ago.
https://youtu.be/RbNNhLqhWPg?si=iy-85E2wMLkrtYqw
Thanks.
In collisions momentum is conserved. A head on collision can result in the velocities both molecules being substantially reduced. However the kinetic theory of gases tells us that temperature is the parameter that defines the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocities to which an isothermal parcel of gas will gravitate via collisions. For a given temperature there is always a particular fraction of the molecules that have an energy above a given level. GHGs will thus maintain a local population fraction that is capable of spontaneous photon emission that depends only on temperature. It does not get depleted because energy from photon absorption is likely to be dissipated through collisions. In fact, photon absorption heats the gas which would increase the population of thermally emission capable molecules.
It is instructive to consider some of the molecular mechanics. A CO2 molecule has a mass of roughly 44×5/3 E-27 kg, and a mean bond length of 116pm. Given a speed of 400m/sec, that implies a collision flyby time of 232/400 E-12 seconds. However, the scissor vibration of the molecule corresponding to 15 micron absorption operates at 20THz (15μx20THz =3E8m/sec=c, the speed of light) so there will be a dozen vibrations in the time it takes for an encounter. These become like punches thrown by a flailing boxer. The 15μ photon has an energy of 20E12x6.6E-34 or about 1.32E-20J. Compare with the kinetic energy of the 400m/sec molecule of 0.5x44x5/3E-27x400x400=5.87E-21 J. Put differently, a CO2 molecule needs to be moving fast enough to have the energy to emit the photon, which will set a floor of about 600m/sec.
“CO2 molecule needs to be moving fast enough to have the energy to emit the photon, which will set a floor of about 600m/sec.” – unless it’s not moving at all – frozen , in fact, at -90 C, at which temperature it will be furiously emitting photons with a peak wavelength around 15 um. And of course, if it’s colder, the emitted photons are longer and less energetic.
No matter, GHE believers just invent their own physics as they go, complete with vague, meaningless jargon.
That isn’t how emissions work. At any temperature for a gas there is a distribution of molecular speeds and energies, with always some having sufficient energy to be capable of emission. Temperature parameterises the proportion of higher energy molecules. There are also quantified energy stares relating to rotations and vibrations in the molecule. Rotational quantum energy states are closely spaced compared to vibration energies, and so transitions between quantum rotational states emit less energetic photons,
This text gives the impression that the 9,8 C/km has anything to do with the temperature decrease vs altitude (environmental lapse rate). That would be nonsense.
The Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (~9,8 K/km) is the temperature decrease/increase vs altitude of air that is RISING or SINKING within an atmosphere that is in hydrostatic equlibrium vs gravity.
When rising air passes the condensation level the release of latent heat decreases the lapse rate to the Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate. The assumption is that during these processes no exchange of energy with the surrounding air takes place.
The Hydrostatic Equilibrium vs gravity the atmosphere is in decides for a large part the temperature profile of the atmosphere, certainly in the troposphere.
https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~snesbitt/ATMS505/stuff/09%20Convective%20forecasting.pdf
The example from Manabe’s work was shown to demonstrate the “radiative/convective adjustment” in his model, a “cheat” by which he forced his model to follow the wet adiabetic lapse rate in order for his model to produce a result that was not too hot.
If you read the rest of the paper, in the “Koll & Cronin” section we describe condensation and the lapse rate in the real world.
“What Shula & Ott propose is that the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation observed from a satellite are decoupled from one another by the conversion of surface radiation to sensible heat by GHGs very near the surface. The added sensible heat is what drives the convection.
Convection transports thermal energy upward, and in the critical region between around 2 and 7 km spontaneous radiation emissions, mostly from water vapor, are radiated to space. It is not surprising that the previously mentioned “emission layer,” at 5 km deduced from satellite OLR observations, with a temperature of about 255K (-17.5°C) lies in the middle of this region. Between 2 and 7 km is where upwardly convected water vapor condenses or freezes out of the air, releasing its latent heat, and forms clouds. The extra heat stimulates other water molecules (and a few other minor GHGs) causing them to emit radiation, much of which makes it to space.”
Roy Clarke totally destroys Manabe and Webster..
Roy Clark: A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors | Tom Nelson Pod #271
Thanks for your reply Tom.
In your text I see no reference to the Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity the atmosphere is in.
IN the section “Convection” several things are wrong imo.
Small scale convection (thermals) is mostly due to uneven heating of the surface by the sun. Most extreme example an island in a large(r) body of water.
The air starts rising once its density is low enough, relative to the surrounding air.
WV condenses because the rising air expands and cools due to the decreasing pressure vs altitude. The air continues to rise as long as its density is lower than that of the surrounding air. Once the two are equal the rising stops and the parcel stays at that altitude.
If a parcel leaves the ground, it departure will be compensated by inflow from the surroundings.
Section “Koll & Cronin”
At the altitudes mentioned hardly any WV will be present due to the low temperatures.
All clouds there are made up of (frozen) water, and large quantities at that.
A small cumulus cloud of eg 1 km^3 may contain some 250.000 kg water droplets.
All the discussion about GHE, radiation etc. originates in the misconception that the atmosphere somehow warms (increase the temperature of) the surface.
Suns warms the surface and the atmosphere ONLY reduces the energy loss to space.
Talking averages that would be from ~400 W/m^2 to 240 W/m^2, just an isolation effect.
So yes, without atmosphere the surface temperatures would be lower, but the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface.
Ben,
I am in n agreement with most of your comments.
The depth of our exposition in the article was limited by a few things. We chose to keep it relatively short and introduce a limited number of concepts in order to make it more accessible/understandable. There are certain more controversial aspects of this topic that would not have been acceptable to the WUWT editorial staff. As two scientists discussing a controversial topic, Andy and I are not in full
agreement on all aspects of this topic. On those we continue to discuss but presented only those concepts on which we are in full agreement. The conversations continue.
The purpose of the article was to start an open discussion on atmospheric dynamics outside of the radiative transport model.
You made some comments regarding water vapor and clouds. In order for the emissions from water vapor to escape to space, the concentration of water vapor needs to be quite low. This is because at higher concentrations any emission would be re-absorbed by another water vapor molecule. There is always water vapor present in the neighborhood of condensed water droplets. The altitude at which a specific water vapor transition radiates will depend on its absorption cross section and its mean radiative lifetime. There are tens of thousands of these peaks spread across the entire IR emission spectrum, even in the “atmospheric window.” This is why in the spectrum from Harde (2013) the water vapor emission spectrum appears ”noisy.” The numerous water vapor transitions are emitting at different altitudes.
in the case of clouds, which are collections of water droplets and/or ice crystals, there will always be elevated levels of water vapor in their neighborhood relative to clear skies. The ops of clouds, especially dense clouds and storm cells, are surrounded by lots of free water vapor that is excited by collisions and then radiates to space. This is how excess energy in the global circulation (which is not apparent from the clear sky radiation spectra) leaves the Earth and escapes to space.
Tom,
in the upper halve of the troposphere not much WV can be present given the temperatures there. (see graph)
On average about 2/3 of Earths surface has a cloud cover.
Especially the rain producing clouds contain lots of water (droplets)
I expect the radiation of the clouds to dwarf the radiation of the little WV that is left in the higher troposphere.
What do you mean with “excess energy in the global circulation”?
You wrote: “The radiation seen when IR thermometers and scanners are pointed at the sky is surface radiation scattered by atmospheric particles and clouds. The radiation seen by IR thermometers and scanners cannot be emitted by greenhouse gases or clouds because neither GHGs nor clouds emit in frequencies that can be detected by the devices.”
Then please explain how an IR thermometer pointed at the zenith can measure total column water vapor as described in great detail in my paper:
Measuring Total Column Water Vapor by Pointing an Infrared Thermometer at the Sky in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 92 Issue 10 (2011)
My paper was why a NASA team conducted its own study, and their findings validated mine.
Forrest M. Mims III
The answer is obvious. The radiation detected by the IR thermometer is almost exclusively due to scattering by water vapor in the atmosphere, thus it is not surprising that you can estimate the total volume of water vapor with such a device. Nearly all scattering in the IR band near the surface is by condensed water vapor or water droplets, there is a tiny influence from dust and aerosols, but virtually all of it is by condensed water vapor. Your findings and the quote from our post do not conflict in any way.
With respect, your “obvious” response to your own writing is wrong. Not only did I discover and publish that an IR thermometer can measure the total water vapor column, since 4 Feb 1990 (35 years ago) I have measured the total water vapor column using an LED sun photometer, the first of its kind. For 50+ years, meteorologists have measured humidity from sounding balloons up to around 32 km, which is far higher than your “near the surface” contention. When I began using twilight photometry for a NASA assignment to measure the presence of aerosol layers vapor from the historic Hunga Tonga underwater eruption, I soon found evidence of water vapor up to 50 km. Water vapor is indeed an important component of the atmosphere well above “near the surface.”
Forrest M. Mims III
Would that water vapor not be frozen?
If not, why not?
Good question.
I thought 2km to 7km was where water vapor turned to ice.
WV is a gas not a liquid.
It can condense if the air is saturated, and it needs to have condensation nuclei on which to do it.
This can happen even at the surface where freezing fog will not form even if the air is 100% saturated, and the wet bulb thermometer will actually read higher than the dry.
Which I have personally observed.
When hoar frost forms on freezing surfaces, it is because the surface has cooled the air in contact to below it’s freezing point and thereby increased it’s RH to 100%.
Forrest, Your IR thermometer did not measure the total water vapor column. It measured an IR temperature in the atmospheric window that successfully correlated to actual TPW measurements.
Of course, water vapor exists very high in the atmosphere, but your IR thermometer cannot see that high. In terms of volumes of water in the atmosphere, nearly all of it is below 10 km. Your thermometer will see up to a couple of km or so and I have no doubt that most of the signal it sees is scattered radiation from condensed water droplets in the sky which are more prevalent the higher the humidity is. Your thermometer is measuring a function of the droplets in the lower atmosphere and it works because the drop in water vapor with height (under clear skies) is fairly predictable. There is a reason why the technique does not work under cloudy skies, then the water vapor versus height function is abnormal.
I should correct my previous comment. The scattered surface radiation detected by the IR thermometer in the atmospheric window (7.5 to 14 micrometers) is not from gaseous water vapor, but condensed water droplets in the air, often associated with small dust particles. As noted in van Wijngaarden & Happer (2025), “Scattered long wave infrared radiation comes only from particulates …”
I concur with Andy’s corrected explanation.
The typical IR thermometer/bolometer only detects radiation in the range of 8-14 μm, in the atmospheric window. When pointed at the clear sky, it is detecting backscattered atmospheric window radiation from aerosols and particulates.
You can confirm this by pointing at a lower elevation which increases the path length through the lower portion of the atmosphere. You will see the “apparent temperature” increase, as there are more scattering centers in the lower part of the atmosphere.
If you point it at a cloud, there will be a large increase in “apparent temperature” because the cloud is a dense collection of these scattering centers.
+100
So if CO2 absorbs IR then through collision it transfers that energy what happens when that CO2 gets collided with from other molecules that are already in a higher energy state? Does it not absorb that energy than emit it as IR? So it cools the atmosphere? Yet there is a hole in the spectrum at the absorption spectrum of CO2? So why doesn’t the IR from CO2 emitted show up on the emission spectrum at the TOA?
You are correct in that CO2 molecules can get excited by collisions. Being a non-condensing gas, CO2 is well mixed throughout the entire atmosphere. As such, CO2 will continue to absorb and re-emit at altitudes where water vapor ceases to exist. The temperature of the atmosphere where it becomes transparent to CO2 IR emissions is much lower than the earth’s surface so there is a low flux to space.
One effect of increasing CO2 is raising the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes transparent to CO2 IR emissions – something that Rud Istvan jhas pointed out several times.
But it does emit at a higher elevation it just theoretically takes longer to get there, doesn’t explain why it absent from the sensors.
Erik is correct, but I should add that CO2 doesn’t really become a significant emitter to space until about 80 km. Below that altitude it continues to absorb in its frequencies, but its emissions don’t make it all the way to space, they thermalize other GHGs (mainly water vapor) or are absorbed by other CO2 molecules or GHGs.
Andy, but how does a molecule that is being raised to its emission state by collisions with other molecules also absorb IR. I don’t see a mechanism where the CO2 molecule isn’t always at it emission state.
This is answered in the post:
It is all a matter of statistics. A molecule is much more likely to thermalize its excited state than cause an emission. Emissions are rare.
That’s the point, it’s also 50,000 times more like to be excited by collisions with other molecules. The IR component is either just as likely to cool as warm.
We can estimate the rate of emissions. Take 1m^3 of air weighing 1.225kg at ~29g/mol with 0.042%mol CO2 we have ~1.1E22 CO2 molecules per m^3. At 300K, about 9.5% of molecules will be thermally capable, call it 1E21. With a half second average life, emissions well be 2E21 per second per m^3.
“ I don’t see a mechanism where the CO2 molecule isn’t always at it emission state.”
There isn’t one. All matter above absolute zero emits IR – continuously. It cannot be stopped.
Andy doesn’t know what he is talking about at times. He quotes “Radiant energy from the surface or other GHGs that is captured by a greenhouse gas molecule is held for a relatively long time, around a half second, before it is re-emitted.”
There is precisely no reproducible experimental support for this – because it is not true.
Incorrect Michael. This statement is not true:
“All matter above absolute zero emits IR”
The correct statement is: All matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. But not all thermal radiation is in the IR spectrum. Further all molecules have characteristic absorption and emission frequencies and these frequencies are often not in the IR spectrum, simple examples are nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
As for the time that a GHG molecule holds absorbed radiation, that was computed by Einstein in 1913 and has been experimentally verified many times since. It is sometimes called the Einstein “A” coefficient, see attached quote from Pierrehumbert, Physics Today, 2011.
Any other examples of something I don’t know that I can refute?
From the post:” All matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation.”
This is at odds with my heat transfer book. Thermal radiation is based on temperature and gases do not emit based on temperature.
Quote from book:” When they absorb and emit radiation, they usually do so only in certain narrow wavelength bands.”
From “Heat Transfer” seventh edition J.P.Holman.
Andy, you wrote –
“Further all molecules have characteristic absorption and emission frequencies and these frequencies are often not in the IR spectrum, simple examples are nitrogen and oxygen molecules.”
IR comprise the infinite frequencies of light below those of visible red. Infra – below red – red. Infrared.
You are confusing spectroscopy and spectrometry with radiation due to temperature. You say oxygen and nitrogen do not emit in the infrared. Well yes, they do. You may measure air temperature by using a thermometer of some type which actually performs its miracle by means of photons being absorbed or emitted by electrons – whether you believe it or not.
All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation. If it gets “hot” enough, it may emit visible or ultraviolet radiation in addition, or if excited (atom or molecule), will emit specific frequencies.
All beside the point, I suppose. Adding H2O or CO2 to the atmosphere merely increases the degree to which surface maxima are lowered, and nighttime minima are raised.
However, it is a matter of observation that the surface cools at night. Slower cooling is cooling, much to the chagrin of GHE proselytisers.
Don’t be fooled by the Planck shown on most graphs. Those are for a black body only.
Gas of a homogeneous molecule N2 or O2 is not a black body. The molecules radiate at certain frequencies only. Some are in the IR range but others may not be. That is one reason the earth is considered a grey body, lots of lines, but not a continuous function (no gaps between lines) like a black body.
Dear Andy,
Let him/her go to bed. It is a conservation of energy issue, not a molecular one.
Avoid the mud by staying out of the trenches.
Cheers,
Bill
.
This assumes that there are no collisions. The remainder of the statement qualifies that assumption.
The use of dissipate means through collisions.
Jim, I hope you don’t mind if I pick a nit or two.
This “half second storage” is a fairytale unless confirmed by reproducible experiment.
The other nit is that molecules don’t actually “collide”. But even if they do, gases continuously emit IR. Withdrawal external heat, gases keep radiating losing energy and cooling. Some people might think that gases like oxygen and nitrogen are cooled to liquid state by “cold rays” or “collisions” or something, but it’s simply matter radiating energy, and becoming colder.
Adding GHGs to the atmosphere doesn’t make it hotter.
Molecules do collide. Energy can be transfered by the collision. That is part of the kinetic energy theory of gasses. It has been proven numerous times.
It isn’t a fairytale. However it is the mean of a probability distribution. That means it could emit almost immediately or it could be delayed far beyond 1/2 second.
The probability of a collision does far outweigh the possibility of emission. This would tend to make CO2/N2 a heat sink that transfers energy back to CO2 at some point. To me, that would keep CO2 from absorbing IR. Trying to analyze all this with averages is not possible.
Picture CO2 as a basket ball dwarf next to numerous 7 ft water vapor players.
Do you think the dwarf has much of a chance to get the ball/absorb a photon? No
Almost all not-yet-collided photons are absorbed by water vapor near the surface, where all life is.
In the tropics, that air and water vapor is warmed 24/7/365, and rises, and at about 2000 m, the water vapor condenses to release more heat, which puffs up the cloud to cumulus heights.
From the tropics, huge quantities of warm air and warm cumulus clouds are transported by prevailing winds to northern latitudes
Partially.
The processes are quite different however. Emissions don’t average over the globe, but max out across the near tropics (within +/- 15 degrees of the Equator), or at most between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (say 23 degrees N and S).
The process of moving latent heat from tropical ocean warm pools and its re-radiation from the troposphere to space via cumulonimbus towers, is driven by the Monsoon (see the series by Richard Willoughby commencing with https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/ocean-surface-temperature-limit-part-1/).
As frequently explained by RickWill, the process limits tropical sea surface temperature (SST) to an upper limit of between about 28 to 30 degC. Furthermore, transect data from along the Great Barrier Reef shows SST cools toward the Equator, north of about 13.5 degS I.e., the relationship describing SST with Latitude is neither linear or asymptotic, but is quadratic – after reaching a max at ~13.5 degS, it shows a turning point that lasts from early December to March, before retreating in a linear fashion until August.
This is genuine feedback – the higher the insolation, the greater is the convective response that serves to eject excess heat back to space.
As a (poor) analogy, boiling a billy for longer, or with more fire, cannot increase the temperature of the water above 100 degC.
Cheers,
Bill
“From the tropics, huge quantities of warm air and warm cumulus clouds are transported by prevailing winds to northern latitudes.”
Unlikely. At night the air cools, convection tends to die down, and the warm air radiates its heat to space.
Warm cumulus clouds? Again, unlikely. Water droplets above the freezing level very quickly become very cold – below freezing. Transporting these to northern latitudes won’t warm much at all.
Interesting, but of limited practical use. The atmosphere is chaotic, and therefore the most expert predictions are guesses at best. I’m a bit of a genius forecaster myself – I look outside, and if it looks like rain, I take an umbrella.
Lash out or make a wanking machine:
https://alan-dedman-artist.co.uk/wordpress/the-wanking-machine-by-alan-dedman/
b
Bob, you ask:
“So why doesn’t the IR from CO2 emitted show up on the emission spectrum at the TOA?”
But it does! Look at Figure 1 in this post. The “bite” out of the emission curve shows CO2 emitting at about half of the power flux density of surface radiation. This indicates that these emissions detected by a satellite above TOA come from a colder temperature, so higher in the atmosphere.
Good point, the CO2 emission to space at around 80 km altitude shows up in the middle of the 15 micrometer divot. The big CO2 ditch. See figure 1 here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/09/20/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/
not Buying it totally, not sure I am buying into the no ghg curve. If that curve is lower then the answer is the power is being redistributed up and down the curve. Just doesn’t feel right to me.
“It means that within an “air parcel” of arbitrary size all of the molecules are in thermodynamic equilibrium. The air parcels are not in thermodynamic equilibrium with one another.”
Have the authors studied the work by Soon, Connolly and Connolly that concludes that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium? It is based on lots of balloon data. It would be interesting for May and Shula to review this work and see if it effects their conclusions discussed in the current article.
From previous post here:
The key problem with the conventional idea of IR-active gases, like carbon dioxide, influencing atmospheric temperatures is the concept that the atmosphere is only in local thermodynamic equilibrium. The weather balloon data strongly suggest that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium, meaning IR-active gases have little to no influence on atmospheric temperatures. For this to be true a very fast energy transfer mechanism must be at work. Connolly and Connolly suggest that this transfer mechanism is mechanical in nature. Using thermodynamic terminology, the mechanism is “work.”
See the diagram earlier showing a parcel of air in a convective atmosphere.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/22/review-and-summary-of-three-important-atmospheric-physics-papers/
Ron’s comment is correct, and I would only add, the work that Soon, Connolly and Conolly have done in this area is excellent, but their work is only of weather balloons which cover a small area and a curved pattern upward. The area of their “thermal equilibrium” is only a few square meters. I certainly agree that in an area that small the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium. Scale matters.
Except it applies for all balloon data, so covers far more than a few square meters.
The balloon flights do not share thermal equilibrium between them. In isolation each flight is in thermal equilibrium, the number of flights is irrelevant.
“Extensive laboratory spectroscopy and direct atmospheric observations confirm that CO₂ plays a role in radiative heat transfer,…”
CO2 radiance measured by satellite at 700 km altitude do not provide evidence of radiative transfer of gases within the troposphere.
At 1 atm and 220 K, the rate of collisional decay of CO2 is ~29,000 times faster than the rate of radiative decay.
The graphic shows the ratio of (radiative decay)/(collisional decay) with increasing height (green), and the [(1/e attenuation length)/height] ratio (blue).
In the simple calculation here, the (radiative decay)/(collisional decay) ratio becomes unity at 38 km, meaning that half the vibrationally excited CO2* will live long enough to decay by emitting a 15u photon. Below 38 km altitude, collisional decay would increasingly dominate. The corrected height for the unity ratio is 74 km.
At 425 ppm CO2, the 1/e attenuation length for 15u IR is 9.3m. After 10 lengths, the residual 15u radiation is (0.37)^10 = 4.8E-5, meaning 15u surface IR intensity is negligible after 100 m height.
The Boltzmann population of CO2* at 288 K will also favor collisional decay by the same ratio as 15u-excied CO2.
The conclusion can only be that radiative heat (K.E.) transfer by CO2* emission of 15u radiation is negligible in the entire Troposphere..
i Think you are right on target here
“The conclusion can only be that radiative heat (K.E.) transfer by CO2* emission of 15u radiation is negligible in the entire Troposphere..”
That ought to set someone’s hair on fire! 🙂
I wondered if someone would pick up on that, thanks Frank, you are correct in my opinion. There are no spectroscopic data or any direct atmospheric observations that show that varying CO2 concentrations have any influence on climate. CO2 is a very active absorber of IR for sure, the large divot in the satellite spectrum shows that, but we don’t see any evidence of CO2 emissions until very high in the atmosphere, more than 74 km as you write.
CO2 absorption near the surface is thermalized to sensible heat then carried away by the wind or as latent heat in water vapor. As Ron Clutz notes elsewhere in this discussion, sensible heat drives convection (thermodynamic work) that is lost forever and is unrecoverable. Atmospheric emissions are from high in the atmosphere and separated from the surface. The effect of varying CO2 concentration is lost in the noise. It undoubtably is there, just not noticeable.
Wait that’s the point I was making above.
Dear Andy May & Tom Shula,
In my view this post fails to present a coherent overview of Energy, Water Vapor, and Convection in Earth’s Atmosphere, and so it is confusing and difficult to understand. There is no stated objective for example, no concise summary, and due to its structure, on first reading the impression is gained that that it is more of a yarn than a serious essay.
I also read the two references referred to in the Editor’s note. The first points to a database of papers that would take months or years to review. The second (/doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-924), is a paper about satellite data (Longwave Spectral Radiances) and an alleged connection with CO2. The paper does not show any CO2 data, but discusses the “Unique Role of High Spectral Resolution Measurements”. It concludes with the backslapper that “As far as the authors are aware, this is the first time that the spectral signature of the increase of CO2 (isolated from temperature and water vapor changes) has been directly observed from space”. However, the Authors draw no conclusions as to the relative contribution of CO2 and water vapour to the total response.
Clearly, if the effects of something, say CO2, represents 0.1 of the total response, and the effect of something else, say water vapour, contributes 0.8 of the total response, irrespective of anything else, one would be hard pressed to claim that 0.1 is significant (or even measurable) relative to 0.8 (or whatever the partial contributions were).
It would also be helpful to frame arguments put forward in the post, in terms of long-accepted surface energy balance principles, processes and flux-units. In particular, the distinction between advection of sensible heat between the surface and air in immediate contact with the ground, conduction between molecules within the fluid-atmosphere, convection, which removes advected heat, and latent heat transfer, which by definition, does not involve a change in temperature, and therefore cannot drive convection.
It is also almost impossible to encapsulate advection, latent heat transfer, and convection components of surface energy balance without reference to concepts enumerated by Ira Sprague Bowen. For a review see JM Lewis: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/76/12/1520-0477_1995_076_2433_tsbtbr_2_0_co_2.xml) or his 1926, 13-page PhD thesis: https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/4615/1/Bowen_is_1926.pdf.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill, if latent heat transfer refers to evaporation of water to produce water vapor, does the fact that water vapor has less mass/molar volume than dry atmospheric gases produce a less dense atmosphere and therefore drive a convective updraft?
Thanks Pat,
I suppose that if in fact “water vapor has less mass/molar volume than dry atmospheric gases” it could conceptually “drive a convective updraft”. Equally conceptual is the notion of “dry atmospheric gases” in the presence of a free water surface from which evaporation could/is happening. The two ideas are contradictory.
However, it is generally accepted that convention in a fluid is dominantly a thermodynamic response.
By way of illustration, one could take a beaker of water at room temperature, drop in a crystal of permanganate of potash (Condy’s crystal) and watch what happens (primary grade science 1.01.01). The dye spreads out from the crystal, forms a layer on the bottom of the beaker but there is no evidence of convection.
However, apply some heat and hey presto, convection.
Evaporation removes latent heat at the rate of 2.45(MJ) times the mass of water (kg) evaporated.
As 1mm of rainfall equals 1 kg per m^2; presuming no runoff or deep drainage, latent heat loss can be calculated as 2.45*rainfall, with units of MJ/m^2. It is this latent heat that is removed by convection, with convection being powered by sensible heat transfer to the local atmosphere.
Hence my comment, to think about this in the context of Bowen ratio, which partitions between latent and sensible heat transfer.
I am certainly open to discussing this further.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
Hi Bill – a water solution of dissolved permanganate ion is more dense than water alone. So, the thought experiment is opposite of the correct sort.
Evaporation of water vapor into a layer of moist air over a water surface will nevertheless lower the density of the overlayer.
Perhaps the effect to too feeble to cause an updraft. I was merely curious.
Dear Pat,
It was an actual demonstration of a process that happened in a classroom. Besides, a crystal or two of permanganate in a few hundred mls of water could hardly change the solution’s density.
That aside, air is rarely ever absolutely still. Therefore from my perspective as an agronomist/climatologist, I cannot see how one would partition between less-dense air rising (if it does), and true convection (local, or resulting from landscape-wide processes).
Evaporation does not happen without a source of energy, which could be net radiation, or the result of distant synoptic conditions. It also won’t happen under conditions of 100 RH at the boundary layer. Evaporation can also be negative – dewfall and ground-mist for example, that result from nocturnal radiative cooling, under clear skies, high humidity and low wind speed.
All I can say is that although theory might suggest that due its lower density and independently of energy inputs, higher-humidity air should rise, air density would need to be much lower at standard temperature and pressure for humidity to be used as an atmospheric lifting mechanism.
Finally, with all the research that was done in the 1940s to 1970s in atmospheric physics, and on evaporation (which was central to advances in food production), had passive evaporation been a factor in convection it would now be part of our overall understanding of the processes involved.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
Also Pat,
Show me some data that supports your hypothesis.
I don’t mean a bunch of graphs from some other source, but some data you know of that we can analyse and debate.
All the best,
Bill
Hi Bill — it was a question, not a hypothesis. Your comments definitely shed light on it.
About the permanganate test, the dissolved crystals produce a more dense solution localized at the bottom of the beaker. I’ve observed this sort of thing many times in the lab.
Thanks Pat,
I’ve observed the same phenomenon doing the met, particularly in winter. Under conditions of very low wind, cool air settles resulting in a differential between reset temperatures for terrestrial minimum thermometers held just above the grass, and dry bulb temperatures 1.2m above ground in the Stevenson screen. I have no data now, but it was standard practice to eyeball resets as a check on calibrations.
It is not until the surface warms (or the air column expands) that convection starts to stir the surface layer, and it is not until that happens that evaporation kicks into gear. I refer you back to those papers about Bowen ratio.
You posed an interesting question. However, looking through some (old) texts, I can find no information that would support that, in the absence of an energy source, evaporation (which also requires an energy source) would stir convection. Also, the situation is so dynamic and complex, one would have to digest whole books again, and still possibly not arrive at an answer!
All the best,
Bill
Water vapor has another important property: it absorbs a significant portion of sunlight. Other gas molecules hardly do this. 78 W/m2 of sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere, a gigantic amount, and water vapor plays an important role in this absorption, warming the local air column and reducing its density.
Convection is caused by contrasts in density. These contrasts are caused to a large extent when the sun starts to shine in the early morning. Absorption of sunlight warms the atmosphere in the more humid places and starts a process of updraft. As a result, drier and colder air sinks in the vicinity. Whether or not sunlight is absorbed strengthens the contrasts between moist and drier air columns and at some point the release of latent heat begins to strengthen the process of updraft.
Sunlight and absorption of sunlight by water vapor play a very important role in starting the process of convection. Thanks to water vapor, this process is started at relatively low surface temperatures. The effect is visible in monthly temperature series, for example in that of Goa, on the west coast of India, 15 degrees north latitude. As soon as the first rain has fallen, the amount of water vapor rises, high convection starts and maximum temperatures fall while the sun is still rising in height. https://www.buienradar.nl/weer/goa/in/1271156/klimaat
Hi Bill,
Sorry you found the essay confusing. It was meant to be a concise summary of a lot of work, and I adopted a conversational style to make it more readable, if not academically precise. The essay was intended to make the following points:
As for your comments on the editor’s note, I agree. This essay covers points that have been discussed a lot over the past 20 years or more but often ignored because they do not fit consensus views of CO2 and climate change. My goal in this series of posts, this is one of several already published on my site, is to separate the wheat from the chaff in the persistent alternative explanations of CO2 and climate change.
The most important points: energy storage on Earth’s surface is huge and varies, water in all its states is in the driver’s seat, and convection matters.
Andy,
I find the ideas in this article, as well as all the related articles and videos, make a very compelling case against the application of radiative transfer models to lower tropospheric heat transfer.
Fyi, the Wikipedia article on Schwarzschild’s equation may be worth a quick look because it certainly toes the consensus line on this subject.
The first item of interest is that they admit:
‘Schwarzschild’s equation can not be used without first specifying the temperature, pressure, and composition of the medium through which radiation is traveling. When these parameters are first measured with a radiosonde, the observed spectrum of the downward flux of thermal infrared (DLR) agrees closely with calculations and varies dramatically with location.’
The circularity of this statement seems very important to me given the tendency even of ‘luke warmers’ to claim such models must be correct since they match the radiosonde data.
The second item I would point out is that in the section on ‘Saturation’, they affirm that thermalization occurs near the Earth’s surface, but then go on to dismiss its importance in their subsequent discussion of the so-called ‘surface budget fallacy’:
‘This has led some to falsely believe that Schwarzschild’s equation predicts no radiative forcing at wavelengths where absorption is “saturated”. However, such reasoning reflects what some refer to as the surface budget fallacy. This fallacy involves reaching erroneous conclusions by focusing on energy exchange near the planetary surface rather than at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). At wavelengths where absorption is saturated, increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas does not change thermal radiation levels at low altitudes, but there are still important differences at high altitudes where the air is thinner.’
Sounds like special pleading to me, but maybe worth a response from you or Tom?
Thanks.
Here’s the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild's_equation_for_radiative_transfer
Hi Frank,
This is a “hot potato” topic, which may explain why your comment currently has a “-2” rating. As they say, “If they’re shooting at you, you must be getting close to the target.” Your initial statement is on point, and your comments and questions pertinent. I’ll try to address this without getting into trouble.
The Wikipedia article is a reasonably good explanation of Schwarzschild’s equation. They did leave out that Schwarzschild developed his equation of “radiative equilibrium” in order to study the atmosphere of the sun. The sun’s atmosphere is much less dense, the radiative environment is very different, and the processes in and on the surface of the sun are spherically symmetric in both space and time. In this case the approximation of a one-dimensional plane parallel model is reasonable.
The Wikipedia article also did not mention that in his 1906 paper he also modeled the sun’s atmosphere as adiabatic (convective) for comparison.
In his 1906 paper, Schwarzschild expressed,“Radiation equilibrium will occur in a strongly radiating and absorbing atmosphere, in which the mixing effect of ascending and descending currents [convection] is insignificant compared to heat exchange by radiation.” He understood that the Earth’s atmosphere is strongly convecting.
The popular line-by-line equilibrium climate models (EQMs) mirror the Schwarzschild equation in a much more sophisticated fashion. They perform the task well and effectively reproduce an observed spectrum with the proper choice of initial and boundary conditions. Even Schwarzschild, before he calculated the “radiative equilibrium” he used the two stream radiative transfer equation of Schuster to calculate a temperature profile of the solar atmosphere to use as a boundary condition in his model.
it should be noted that Schwarzschild’s contribution was not to create the radiative transfer equation per se, but to develop the methodology of calculating a “radiative equilibrium.” His methodology required a highly structured atmosphere with a continuous temperature profile and no convection. These conditions are necessary in order for Kirchhoff’s law to apply to the differential slabs of “spectral radiance” in the model. This is explained in detail in this video:
https://youtu.be/nvakBfl4pNU?si=cOweMimKlMK0hqOJ
These same conditions apply to the various algorithms used in the ECMs that are used to create the simulated satellite spectra. The Earth is flat, it is illuminated by a constant “average” solar irradiance, the surface is at a constant temperature and has zero heat capacity, and there is no conduction or convection.
In Manabe’s early models, which did not take the temperature profile of the atmosphere into account, he found that it predicted an equilibrium surface temperature that was impossibly high. His so-called “radiative convective equilibrium” placed a constraint on the model so that if the temperature exceeded the diabetic profile it would correct to limit it to the actual measured temperature.
The programs that create these simulated spectra are basically very sophisticated calculators. They do require input of atmospheric temperature and composition profiles. Then they produce a spectrum based on the input boundary conditions. While the ability of these models to reproduce a satellite spectrum is sometimes touted to validate their validity, they hide the underlying atmospheric processes at work and create an illusion of “radiative transfer” that does not exist in the Earth’s atmosphere. I have explained this in detail in comments elsewhere on this site.
Research that concentrates on the front end of these complex heating and cooling dynamics is largely immaterial.
It is generally accepted that clouds are a major player in what happens to front end heat. It is a generalisation that, compared to a no cloud sky, more low cloud cover will cool the earth in daytime and make it less cool in nighttime.
What determines how much cloud there is? How does daytime cloud know to stop forming if it is heading for too low a global temperature compared to the day before?
Think of the classical steam engine with those rotating globes on the governor that feed back to the throttle, to provide a constant revolution per minute. The operator can turn a screw to set the governor to produce a desired rate of revolution. In logical early engineering talk, this is named the “set point”.
What is the set point for the daily global temperature Tmax and Tmin? How are cloud properties ever-changing in the course of every day and night, able to produce a remarkably constant outcome? I do not know if set point theory is relevant to global warming attenuation by clouds, but I have not read of it being dismissed.
Cloud variation within customary ranges has a far larger effect on final daily high and low temperatures than CO2 variation does, so why so much emphasis on it and why invent the “control knob” for reasons other than mass propaganda.
We often read that the earth is warming because it is coming out of a little ice age. Who knows what the mechanism for alleged global warming is? I try to work it out, but I conclude that nobody knows. Time for more study of set points?
Geoff S
“but I conclude that nobody knows.”
You’ve summarized the whole CO2 emissions/AGW kettle of fish, Geoff. 🙂
On point as usual.
Hi Pat,
I was in my early 30s when by good fortune, I met and worked with four experienced, successful scientists who educated me about the differences between shonky science and hard science. Not a mention of this was taught at the 4 universities I attended on my rocky, unconventional path to a Science degree.
5 decades later. a part of me excuses those who are earnest in endeavour while still not knowing that better science standards exist. One can hope they will learn, eventually. Meanwhile, too many of them seem to be able to influence national policy matters. In an ideal world, that avenue would not exist. Geoff S
“We often read that the earth is warming because it is coming out of a little ice age.”
I believe Arrhenius looked for a reason as well. His speculation was that CO2 was responsible.
But seriously, the Earth seems to be losing energy at the rate of 44 TW. All the heat of the day is lost during the night, according to Fourier, plus the above mentioned 44 TW.
This equates to a cooling of about one to four millionths of a Kelvin per year.
Of course, anthropogenic heat increases since the Industrial Revolution are reflected by air temperature readings as increased “global temperature”. Ephemeral, of course, exterminate humans, reduce the heat input, and the “global temperature” will no doubt drop. Nobody to measure it, of course.
Only joking. No GHE.
What is this?
Without any supporting data Michael Flynn claims “the Earth seems to be losing energy at the rate of 44 TW”. What … per day, per year per century? And how does Michael know, and with what confidence does he know that? Does he have a measuring stick graduated in TW?
What if I argued that “the Earth seems to be losing energy at the rate of 153 TW” who would know if the number was right; or if it was late and I was half-pissed and just wanted to say something?
I frankly think that for those who are serious and knowledgeable, this kind of unsupported discussion is an insult.
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill, from Harvard University – “Earth’s Global Heat Loss of 44 Terrawatts Reconfirmed”. Reconfirmed. You can look up previous relevant papers if you wish. The figure is an estimate, of course, but generally accepted by real scientists.
It doesn’t really matter what the exact figure is, does it? The Earth has cooled, faster at first, slower now – Newton’s Law of Cooling doesn’t apply precisely, because of the non linear decrease in radioactive internal heat.
And of continues to cool, being warmer than its environment.
Per day? You don’t seem to realise that a Watt is a joule per second. That’s why I said a “rate”, not a quantity.
You wrote –
“I frankly think that for those who are serious and knowledgeable, this kind of unsupported discussion is an insult.”
You may “frankly think” what you like. You are obviously ignorant, not knowing the difference between a rate and a quantity, and if you want to insult geologists and geophysicists who actually measure rates of terrestrial heat loss, be my guest.
Or you can just appeal to your own authority as a PhD holder, just like the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael,Mann.
Do you have particular reasons for disagreeing with something I wrote? Surely you don’t believe in this silly idea that adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere causes some indefinable “global warming”.
That kind of unsupported assertion might make you appear to be a fantasist.
Dear Michael,
Sorry if I offended, but you made a bland unsupported statement just like that. As it turns out the source is an abstract not a paper, and it makes more sense to quote the reference, and opening gambit, which reads:
“The Earth is losing heat at a rate of 44.2 x 1012 W with about 70% occurring through the ocean lithosphere“. No methods, data or graphics. And yes, I realise W is a rate, but I was highlighting that a timeframe provides context.
You then provided context and cancelled the relevance of your earlier statement by saying “This [44 TW] equates to a cooling of about one to four millionths of a Kelvin per year”. Really, is that true, or is it just some numbers taken at face value and rubbed together.
You say “The Earth has cooled, faster at first, slower now …” The time-frame is geological – they say “[t]he advective heat flow for the entire oceanic ridge system is about 1013 W, with about two-thirds of the heat loss occurring in sea floor younger than 8 Ma”.
Having analysed some 300 of Australia’s medium and long term maximum temperature datasets and reported on many at http://www.bomwatch.com.au, and https://www.joannenova.com.au/, I can find no trend attributable to CO2 coalmining, electricity generation or anything else.
Likewise, no trend is evident the longest sea surface temperature dataset I could find (from the Charles Darwin Research Station in Puerto Ayora, Ecuador, 46 years). Australian Institute of Marine Science datasets, and those from the Bureau of Meteorology, National Tide Centre (ABSLMP) of 20 to 30 years duration also show no trend. So where does all this trend due to CO2 reside.
Further, before rudely flying off the deep-end, and accusing me of things that are not true, where is there any data that you have personally studied?
Finally, what relevance is it to this discussion for you to state, without a reference, as if it is your own work, that “[t]he Earth is losing heat at a rate of 44.2 x 1012 W”, when (if your numbers are correct), it equates to “four millionths of a Kelvin per year”?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Rong.
The SST record for Puerto Ayora is 60 years.
No trend in SST data measured at the same site over 60-years from 1/1/65 to 27/2/2025.
So why doesn’t alleged geo-cooling show up in data – mainly because if it is real, it is part of the background and irrelevant in terms of surface energy balance dominated by SW radiation and LW emissions.
I think the issue of direct radiation from cumulonimbus towers in the tropics (the Monsoon) is under-appreciated.
Cheers,
b.
Bill,
“So why doesn’t alleged geo-cooling show up in data . . .”
Well, it does. Both Baron Fourier and Lord Kelvin (amongst many others) measured the rate of heat loss, and used the measured cooling rate to estimate the age of the Earth.
Maybe you’re smarter and more knowledgeable than Fourier and Lord Kelvin, but I haven’t seen much evidence of that so far.
You give me no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about. Others will no doubt form their own conclusions.
Bill, if you dispute the rate of the Earth’s energy loss, you might at least provide a fact or two to justify your disagreement. You won’t, of course.
You wrote –
“And yes, I realise W is a rate, but I was highlighting that a timeframe provides context.” Nice try. I suppose you are going to say that working out the loss over a day, a year, or a century is relevant. Context? What context – you’re just trying to weasel out of showing your ignorance.
As to “Really, is that true, or is it just some numbers taken at face value and rubbed together?” Once again, show some facts if you don’t believe my figures. You can’t, of course.
You don’t dispute my statement that the Earth cooled faster at first, slower now – but then ramble on about air temperatures, sea surface temperatures, finishing up with “So where does all this trend due to CO2 reside.” What trend due to CO2? Maybe you are confused?
I don’t take offence, so your sorrow is wasted.
When you write –
“Further, before rudely flying off the deep-end, and accusing me of things that are not true, where is there any data that you have personally studied?”
I don’t believe I have accused you of anything – but I will ask you again – surely you don’t believe in this silly idea that adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere causes some indefinable “global warming”?
Dear Michael,
Well I have, actually. Where is your analysis of observed data?
As I pointed out, by your own admission the time-frame is pertinent, thus, you factually contradicted yourself.
If there is no trend in multiple observed datasets, where is all the cooling/warming?
While you may be in for the squabble, it seems you do not know.
You have not presented any data in support of what you claim, and not read the paper that you did not reference. While you spurt contradictory nonsense, you are probably not an expert.
I suspect you have dragged in a few numbers out of an abstract of a paper you have not studied, and reasoned from that, a case that you struggle to defend.
Essentially how does “[t]he Earth [i.e., the lithosphere] lose heat at a rate of 44.2 x 1012 W”, which (if your numbers are correct) equates to “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” turn up in an energy balance?
Your attitude to those who you disagree with, is boorish in the extreme.
All the best to you,
Bill
Bill,
You wrote –
“Well I have, actually. Where is your analysis of observed data?”
What are you talking about? You also wrote –
“As I pointed out, by your own admission the time-frame is pertinent, thus, you factually contradicted yourself.” Don’t be silly – you’re dreaming.
Your attitude to those who you disagree with, is boorish in the extreme – you write “While you spurt contradictory nonsense, . . .”, whilst you can’t actually say what the “nonsense” is, and the contradictions exist only in your mind. When you wrote ” . . . not read the paper that you did not reference.”, did you know what you were writing? So what paper that I didn’t reference are you claiming I didn’t read? You say some odd things.
I accept that the Earth’s surface was initially molten (no, I wasn’t there at the time), and it is not so now. It has cooled. Feel free to disagree. That is up to you. Or you can keep dreaming that adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere creates some sort of “global warming”, which you can’t quite define.
No GHE. The Earth is mostly glowing hot, and has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. It will presumably continue to so until it becomes isothermal beyond the influence of the Sun.
You are going-on like some confused, petty, angry undergrad with a chip (rock?) on their shoulder. I have never once claimed adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere creates some sort of “global warming”,
Do you think you will be around when “[the earth] will presumably continue to [cool] until it becomes isothermal beyond the influence of the Sun”?
b
I think your abuse was misplaced. (You ballsed-up).
In the absence of detail, it seems what the good’ol boys from Harvard are saying is that the lithosphere (the core) is loosing (conducting) immeasurable heat to what ever lies above – the sea, air etc. If that were the case, and the alleged heat was real sensible heat, wouldn’t it cause warming of the sea, air etc. from below?
Where does your cooling hypothesis come from, or are you just having your own smoke-blowing ceremony?
Cheers,
Bill
“If that were the case, and the alleged heat was real sensible heat, wouldn’t it cause warming of the sea, air etc. from below?”
Of course it does – the sea floor and ocean is heated from below, creating convection currents. The thermal profile of the crust is around 25 C per km, so at 10 km, temperature might be 250 C.
The ocean at that depth will be just above freezing, as will the crust it is sitting on. The ocean is keeping the crust cool at that point by absorbing heat, and converting it away. Basic physics.
Maybe you don’t know that there are an unknown number of hydrothermal vents injecting water at up to 400 C into the ocean depths. Mid-ocean ridges, where glowing molten magma is oozing directly through the crust in direct contact with the ocean, might surprise you. You probably think photos of such are faked, so I won’t tell you that such can be found on University inter sites.
You sound like you don’t believe that the Earth, being hotter than its surrounding environment, is cooling!
Even AI (intelligence?) has “According to current research, the Earth’s mantle is cooling at a rate of approximately 0.000046 degrees Celsius per year.”
I suppose you will say that the surface isn’t the mantle, but the heat from the mantle goes to space via the mantle – thermal gradient and all that.
Others have a choice – what to believe? Your word salad, or my checkable statements.
Dear Michael Flynn,
Just to conclude, you are ill-mannered as well as boorish.
There is no measurable cooling because sensible heat is conducted through the mantle, where its warming effect is so immaterial, it cannot be measured. How did these dudes estimate “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” against a background where temperatures naturally vary by some 1 to 20degC/day?
The learning for you is not to take other people’s work and spruik it as though it was yours (your knowledge, your data) by not referencing your source (which beyond the title you may not have read!). The second problem is that your “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” is not even your calculation – you depended on AI.
Your own intelligence inside your head, would surely alert you that (a), “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” cannot be measured using any current temperature sensing device; and (b), provided your AI slave is correct, the huge number of 44.2 x 1012 W is actually meaningless when considered in that context.
I suspect that you do not have a scientific background and that you have not worked with data. Using someone else’s work without attribution is called plagiarism, and failing to grasp that “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” is not measurable, shows a remarkable lack of common sense and reasoning.
By the way, I don’t dispute your numbers, except they are not yours, I just don’t think they are relevant to the global warming debate. You also seem to have your heat transfer concepts arse-about – your cooling of “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” is actually warming the mantle.
As your low-brow personal attack on me is just you blowing smoke, it deserves to be ignored.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill, my use of AI was a joke, of course. If you can’t be bothered finding facts to dispute my figures, that’s fine by me.
You wrote –
“By the way, I don’t dispute your numbers, except they are not yours, I just don’t think they are relevant to the global warming debate. You also seem to have your heat transfer concepts arse-about – your cooling of “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” is actually warming the mantle.”
Ah, the GHE mantra “cooling is actually warming.” No, cooling is actually cooling – decreasing temperatures.
If you don’t believe that the Earth has cooled since the surface was molten, fine. I won’t try to convince you otherwise.
I notice you refuse to say whether you believe that adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere leads to “global warming”. I don’t blame you.
Oh well, anybody who writes “As your low-brow personal attack on me is just you blowing smoke, it deserves to be ignored.” could follow their own advice, and look less foolish than you do so far.
Your choice.
Bullshit – the ocean is near freezing at depth. I did undergrad geology too and I’ve been down a number of deep mines. If I want expert opinion, instead of getting it from Mr Angry on WUWT, I could ring my nephew who is a widely experienced mining engineer.
b
Bill, you wrote –
“Bullshit – the ocean is near freezing at depth.”
As I said, except I didn’t say “Bullshit”.That’s your province.
Here is what I said –
“The ocean at that depth will be just above freezing, as will the crust it is sitting on.”
Maybe you could say “Bullshit” again, while demonstrating that you cannot comprehend plain English.
If you are keen on getting “expert” opinion, maybe you disagree with Richard Feynman who said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”.
“Bullshit” again – just for you!
I don’t need expert opinion on something that is simply irrelevant, especially from someone who pretends to be an expert by not referencing their sources and who uses AI to dream that “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” causes ocean convection!
You are all over the shop with your incomprehensible, bombastic reasoning and ad hominem attacks.
As I pointed out, I have never claimed that the addition of CO2, methane or anything else to the atmosphere is likely to cause measurable warming, and I have data and analyses to support that view.
Likewise, there is no measurable cooling in any datasets that I have examined.
Kind regards,
Bill
p.s. Don’t expect any further responses.
Bill,
You wrote –
“uses AI to dream that “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” causes ocean convection!” Well, no, you’re just making stuff up again.
I said the globe is cooling at a rate of about four millionths of a Kelvin per annum (or thereabouts). Now the thermal gradient of the globe proceeds from maybe 5500 K, to the limits of the atmosphere, or say 4 K.
The ocean convection is due to it sitting on a crust which is hotter than the water above it, which is just above freezing (maximum density) for well known physical reasons.
You can say “bullshit” or “arse” all you like. It won’t change the fact that you have provided precisely no facts to contradict anything I have said, have you?
You wrote “I have never claimed that the addition of CO2, methane or anything else to the atmosphere is likely to cause measurable warming,”
Thank you. That’s all I have been saying. I’d go a little further, and say that the maximum temperatures at places like Death Valley occur when GHGs are least. As Tyndall pointed out, the atmosphere (including H2O and CO2) reduces maximum temperatures and increases minima. No measurable warming – in fact no warming at all!
No GHE. Rather the opposite, supported by observation and experiment.
Whether you respond or not is up to you. You might well decide to quit while you’re behind.
Its getting late, just a reminder that you probably need to take some pills and warm your hot water bottle so you can toddle off. Look out for boogies under the bed. We can talk later.
b
Hang on there Bill, when you wrote “Don’t expect any further responses.”, I didn’t believe you meant what you said.
Looks like I was right – again.
Now you write “We can talk later.” Unless I don’t want to, of course.
What would you like to talk about?
Bill
You obviously are not aware to whom you are conversing.
To my knowledge the most prolific Troll this last 15 years (at least), on forums such as this, Roy Spencers ( there going by Swenson”), Climate etc and prob others.
No one, repeat no one, ever gets anywhere other with he/she than you just have.
Dear Anthony,
Do I get a prize?
Karin from Hell – loud, self-opinionated, incapable of civil discourse …
Round and round in circles, feeding out bits of useless stuff, mostly asides. No data skills, in fact no data at all. Abusive, makes accusations that are not true, steals other’s ideas by not referencing them – probably did not know the paper he referred to was an abstract, and if it had been a real paper, he/she may not have been able to comprehend the methods/results without his/her faithful AI servant.
Accuses ME of supporting AGW! Watta gander/goose (maybe baby gosling)! W@nker comes to mind, but I’m too polite to say it.
All the best,
Dr Bill
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Yep … all that and more.
Been there (along with many others until the penny drops)
and got the T-shirt … but maybe a decade ago.
I wonder if Roy has banned him?
Maybe why he’s turned up here.
Coldest ocean water is indeed around 270K.
According GH theory the average surface temperature on Earth without atmosphere would be ~255K. Actual average surface temperature on a “planet” without atmosphere at our distance from the sun is ~197K.
How do you explain the high temperatures of our deep oceans if not for the same reason as those deep mines are so hot?
Dear Ben,
I don’t know frankly, probably because I don’t do GH theory. Anyway, do you think you can just switch-off Earth’s atmosphere? Can anyone replicate the “experiments” that come up with these numbers?
When correctly adjusted for local inhomogeneties and rainfall, maximum temperature data for some of Australia’s longest weather station datasets (>100 years) show no trend attributable to another factor such as CO2, colamining, electricity generation or anything else.
In all cases that I have examined (many published at http://www.bomwatch.com.au), data consist of non-trending segments interrupted by step-changes that are due to site changes (watering in post office yards, moving Stevenson screens to a different exposure, changes in the vicinity such as roads and buildings, shade, changes in instruments etc.).
So why is there no detectable warming or cooling, if all this other stuff has happened according to “GH theory”?
Sixty years of single-site sea surface temperature (SST) data from the Charles Darwin Research Center also shows no trend.
So how come there is trend in, say, the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (HadISST) dataset? Did they homogenise it in for example.
How come Bureau of Meteorology SST “measured” by satellites along the Great Barrier Reef shows “unprecedented warming”, when longer-term data (25 to 30 years) available from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and from the BoM’s Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) shows nothing of the kind.
Perhaps GH theory is BS.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill, you may be foulmouthed, but when you wrote “Perhaps GH theory is BS.”, I would agree with the thrust of your comment. I would say that there is no GH theory – wrong or otherwise.
There is no GH effect at all. If thermometers show temperature increases, this is due to additional heat, unless someone can show that thermometers respond to something else.
You may be a Carl Sagan follower, and imply that the Sun heated the Earth to its present temperature. Unfortunately, if you accept that the interior of the Earth is glowing hot, and the surrounding environment is colder (in the physical sense), then you have to propose alternatives to present understanding of physical laws, if you refuse to believe that the Earth is cooling.
The GHE does not even have a consistent description, which explains why nobody has managed to propose a falsifiable hypothesis, let alone a theory!
If you do not believe that a greenhouse effect exists, why the animosity? Why waste effort on an insignificant nobody like myself? It seems odd to me.
Dear Michael Flynn,
In simple terms, the surface energy balance of earth is overwhelmingly the net of incoming short-wave radiation R(S) less outgoing long-wave radiation R(L).
As there is only one incoming source, an imbalance, if there is one, can only be due to R(S) being more than R(L) – indicating heat is being ‘stored’ (not released) by the system. The piddling little bit of energy that you allege represents core-cooling, fades into immeasurable insignificance, if as your AI helper claims, heat outgoing from the core is equivalent to “four millionths of a Kelvin per year”.
What I find misleading is when this four-fifths of virtually nothing is expressed as 44.2 x 1012 W if that is what the original Authors of that abstract, mean. Obviously, they never measured it, and you did not question it – you just spruiked the number as if it was your number, just like that.
From a heat budget perspective, I would view your core-cooling of “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” as an energy input to processes occurring above the mantle (i.e., within the ‘system’-space including the biosphere). In other words, within the heat/energy budget ((RS-RL) = RN = H + LE + G = 0) it would be accommodated by the G term – sign preserved exchange of heat with the surroundings. Of course, in a global context, H (sensible heat) and LE (2.45 MJ times kg of water evaporated) cannot exchange outside of the ‘system’ boundary, except via conversion to radiant energy (R(L)).
It is there – the processes surrounding conversion of H and LE to R(L), that things appear to run off-course with many people having different theories and ideas.
I am not an atmospheric physicist and there are probably not too many contributing expert opinions here. However, I have known several physicists and on one occasion I spent a day discussing seeming contradictions between weather station data and “the science” with an esteemed ex-senior atmospheric physicist. According to him a major problem in climate models was resolving turbulent (convective) heat transfer mechanisms, which is incredibly complex and impossible to measure in real time.
I am of the view that resolving all this into some sort of coherent story won’t happen by tossing bits of stuff around like seen here. It is the subject of reams of papers, books, millions of research dollars that has translated itself into international agreements. treaties, protocols and ultimately, policy adopted by governments all over the world, but notably not in the countries that matter (China et al.).
Australia has actually been at the forefront of this from the start, with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics being the lead Australian agency, with the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) as the pull-along toy. Further, much of the so-called ‘proof’ is the result of data homogenization, using dodgy comparative methods based essentially on a 1998 consensus paper by Petersen et al (Homogeneity adjustments of in situ atmospheric climate data: a review, Int. J. Climatol., 18, 1493-1517 which you could learn about. There have been a stack of papers since.
So back to where I started from, do you know it to be true, Michael, as your AI helper claims, that heat outgoing from the core is equivalent to “four millionths of a Kelvin per year”. And if it is, given all the noise in the environment and the dominance and scale of R(S) and R(L), regardless of by how many factors you multiply it up, how can any sensible person possibly imagine such a trivial number to be in any way significant, which is your core argument?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
P.s. I think you are a pain in the ass!
Bill, more of your politeness, is it? “I think you are a pain in the ass!”.
Am I supposed to value your opinion for some reason? All your opinions, plus $5 cash, would buy a $5 cup of coffee.
But I digress.
The AI reference was a joke, obviously. Totally innumerate and contradictory, wouldn’t you agree? The geophysical studies I have seen indicate between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum, based on heat loss measurements.
I don’t care whether you believe it or not.
It makes no difference really, does it?
You say “. . . how can any sensible person possibly imagine such a trivial number to be in any way significant . . . “
Let me put it this way – cooling is cooling. Even it is one millionth of a Kelvin per annum! You say it’s a trivial number – but it’s still cooling, not warming. Yes, the Sun’s input is prodigious by comparison, but after four and a half billion years of sunshine, the globe has demonstrably cooled. The surface is no longer molten, but you don’t have to believe that either!
As Fourier said (pardon my repetition and paraphrasing) “During the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a portion of that peculiar to itself.” Fourier was a pretty intelligent guy, but you don’t have to believe him, or Fourier’s Law relating to heat.
You write “I would view your core-cooling of “four millionths of a Kelvin per year” as an energy input to processes occurring above the mantle . . .”. You can view anything any way you like, of course.
I’m not “arguing” about anything. If you disagree with anything I say, you might care to provide some verifiable facts to support your view.
You also wrote “In simple terms, the surface energy balance of earth is overwhelmingly the net of incoming short-wave radiation R(S) less outgoing long-wave radiation R(L).”
Might I tactfully point out that any supposed “energy balance” must include all energy, and that there is absolutely no instrumentation capable of measuring either the total energy entering the Earth system, nor the total leaving it.
Talk of “storing” or “accumulating” heat is just fantasy, in any practical sense, particularly in nature. Things heat up, then promptly cool down, if their environment is cooler.
The operators of the Ivanpah solar power plant learned about the difficulty of storing heat – at a cost of a couple of billion dollars.
Feel free to use more bad language if it makes you feel better.
That experiment has been up for the last 3-4 billion years or so 😉
It’s our moon. No atmosphere, same distance from the sun and since 2009 it’s surface temperatures have been measured:
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
According GH theory Earth without atmosphere would be at ~255K Average Surface Temperature. Same calculation for the moon results in ~270K, actual measured value ~197K. So the very base of the GH theory is (totally) wrong.
We need to explain why the AST on Earth is presently > 90K higher than the AST of our moon, and also why in the distant past the difference was > 100K and more.
The answer imo lies in the > 70% ocean coverage on Earth and their high temperatures (deep oceans). Solar only has to increase the temp. of the surface layer a bit.
Reason for the high deep ocean temperatures can be found in the > 99% of the Earth that consists of molten stone and metal.
Other differences between Earth and moon are ao their rotation speeds and the Earths atmosphere.
Dear Ben,
Unless we are arguing at cross purposes, which is an artform perfected by “Karen” Michael Flynn, you can no more “put an atmosphere & water on the moon as remove it from Earth” and thereby check the estimates, by way of a controlled experiment.
As far as I know, all these numbers are derived via modelling, and the process is probably opaque.
While it may be interesting to know earth “without atmosphere would be at ~255K Average Surface Temperature… ” I don’t see the number as particularly relevant. Mainly because here we are with an atmosphere that keeps us and everything else alive, and if it gets too cold we can go to where it is warmer, put on some clothes or light the heater (and vice versa). That is my pragmatic view.
So the numbers are interesting, you might be asked about them in an exam, but they are not necessarily accurate or important.
My only point is that I have examined a large number of publicly available Australian weather station datasets and can find no evidence of warming, at least over the past 100 years or so. Also, as far as I know, laws of thermodynamics, on which most of the theory depends, have yet to be shown to be wrong.
Further, there is evidence that under the guise of data homogenisation, Bureau of Meteorology scientists alter long-term data to derive trends that actually do not exist.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
(I have other things to do now.)
Bill, you miss the point I try to make.
We have two planets at the same distance of our sun and thus receiving the same TSI.
On both planets the surface temperatures have been extensively measured, and the result is that the AST on Earth is > 90K higher than the AST on the moon.
To understand our climate we must be able to explain this enormous difference.
GHE theory claims the AST on Earth without atmosphere (Effective temperature) would be ~255K. Same calculation for the moon gives ~270K, while the measured AST is ~197K.
So something is seriously wrong with this calculation, which is very relevant for the GHE theory.
Ben, the “calculation” presumably gives the same result when the surface was molten, when the first liquid water appeared, and now.
What a silly “calculation”! Nothing to do with reality – some people believe that they can “calculate” the temperature of a body of unknown temperature, composition, and absorptivity, by guessing the amount of radiation emitted towards it.
Notwithstanding that observation, similarly inclined people believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes it hotter!
Some peoples’ attachment to reality is tenuous at best.
Correct, it does not take into account any existing local energy content.
It just uses the albedo to reduce the TSI, and then spreads the incoming radiation around the entire planet and calculates the radiative balance temperature for the resulting radiation.
Nothing about the fact that only one halve of a planet is receiving solar at any given time, nothing about the specific heat capacity of the surface or the rotational speed of the planet.
Dear Ben,.
I looked at the website: however I am not an astrophysicist, I am also not an atmospheric physicist. I am also in no position to verify the numbers.
My expertise relates to what I do, which for the moment is to carefully examine weather observations, compare properties of data with claims made about the same data, then attempt to explain the difference. (I use sources independent of those homogenising or otherwise promoting aspects of the same data.)
At the moment I am looking at maximum temperature data for Rabbit Flat in the Northern Territory, with the view to determining if homogenisation corrections applied by BoM scientists, are in direct proportion to step-changes in the data in 1986 and 2013. If not, why not.
Rabbit Flat is important because data are used to homogenise Halls Creek and Tennant Creek, both of which I have investigated. My next project is Alice Springs …
Unfortunately, there is not much information about Rabbit Flat, Although there is one more place to look, I’ve thus-far turned up no aerial photographs from the 1960s.
While your question is interesting, if it were me, I would shoot-off an email to those that calculate these numbers and ask them why the discrepancy. Otherwise approach an astrophysicist or seek understanding in the literature, using Google Scholar, for instance.
Yours sincerely,
Bill
“but I conclude that nobody knows”
That’s my conclusion, too.
Nice!
Remember that a set point is actually “setting” a negative feedback that begins at a “point”. Your observation is very poignant when applied to the atmosphere.
From what I can determine, climate science totally ignores control theory in their pursuit of feedbacks. Engine rpm control is just one example of control theory. Control theory in systems is extremely complicated. Simple examples are the PERT chart used in project management and rocket control ( very complicated).
“the claim that CO₂’s effects are negligible does not align with measured data.”
As Tyndall’s experiments and mountaineering experience showed, the presence of H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere decreases daytime maxima, and decrease the rate of cooling at night. He explains in some detail why this is so.
Adding CO2 to air does not in make it hotter, nor does removing CO2 from air result in cooling.
I would be interested in seeing experimental data which contradicts Tyndall’s observations and experimental data. Mind you, people refuse to accept that all matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation, or that the radiation from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a warmer, making it even hotter!
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
Thermometers respond to heat, whether anthropogenic or otherwise.
No GHE – there is not even a consistent description of the mythical beast.
I see this misconception all the time:
“Mind you, people refuse to accept that all matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation”
All matter emits thermal radiation, not just IR! The preferential frequencies of most molecular emitted thermal radiation are not in the infrared range! Just look at the solar spectrum to see this.
Andy,
Thermal is more of a “range of radiation” that we feel. It is still EM radiation. It is no different than gamma rays or radio waves. EM can be absorbed and excite atoms/molecules.
In this sense “thermal radiation” simply means the radiation emitted by matter due to its temperature. Another way to look at it is the radiation emitted due to the motion of molecules; the motion is more rapid the higher the temperature.
It is not restricted to the range of frequencies that we can feel, depending upon the material and its temperature the emission frequency band can be anywhere on the EM spectrum.
“All matter emits thermal radiation, not just IR!”
No, matter at natural temperatures on Earth, matter emits only infrared. Using an antiquated term like “thermalisation radiation”, common though it is, is just confusing. Yes, matter can also emit visible and ultraviolet light including X-rays, gamma rays etc. But always infrared.
Infrared means “below red”. In other words, all those frequencies longer than visible red. Radio waves, microwaves, millimeter radar, ice – all infrared.
It doesn’t really matter. Some deluded people believe all sorts of things – that adding CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere causes “global warming” or predictable “climate change”!
Composing scientific sounding word salad saying nothing useful, but implying much, is characteristic of these fantasists.
Dear Michael,
Without showing any data you say ““the claim that CO₂’s effects are negligible does not align with measured data.”
You are full of it Michael.
No data that I have examined show trends that could be attributed to CO2. coal mining, electricity generation or anything else, including Karens who were born or transitioned to stupid.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill, I was quoting the author of the article.That’s why I used quotation marks. Why are you attributing the statement to me? I disagreed with this statement, and gave my reasons.
You wrote –
“You are full of it Michael.
No data that I have examined show trends that could be attributed to CO2. coal mining, electricity generation or anything else”
I am not sure what you think I am full of, but I am sure you will respond with something nonsensical like “bullshit”. If you are attempting to give offence, I must respectfully decline to take it.
I don’t believe that I mentioned “trends” at all, so your sentence seems diversionary at best, delusional at worst.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, removing CO2 from air does not make it colder, and I’m not sure if you think it does. Maybe you could let me know.
From the article –
“The only reason that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are special is that they absorb most of the radiation emitted by Earth’s surface.”
Most? Any absorbed radiation is promptly re-emitted, in any case.
However, infrared images are routinely recorded from space, at different wavelengths, so this energy is not absorbed by GHGs. Visible light penetrates the atmosphere quite nicely, as do the majority of wavelengths longer than red (infrared).
So I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not even sure that you know what you mean.
Now, at night, the surface still cools – even when a low level inversion makes the atmosphere warmer than the surface.
There doesn’t seem to be any conclusion to the article, although it does contain bizarre statements like “However, the descent into the next glacial is very slow since draining the heat stored in the oceans is a very slow process.”. The oceans are heated by heat from the 5500 K core being lost to the depths of space, passing through the mantle, crust, and oceans as they go.
Still no GHE, and the Earth continues to cool – as it must.
“Most? Any absorbed radiation is promptly re-emitted, in any case.”
Very little absorbed radiation is re-emitted, by a ratio of roughly 50,000 to 1, it is usually thermalized.
“However, infrared images are routinely recorded from space”
Yes and except in the atmospheric windows, these emissions come from high in the atmosphere. One of the points I’m trying to make in this essay is the emissions to space are separated from Earth’s surface via convection. Convection takes water vapor to an altitude where it condenses and emits radiation to space. On the way, it causes our weather.
“There doesn’t seem to be any conclusion to the article”
The conclusion is stated many times in different ways. With regard to climate change, water vapor rules, CO2 is a minor player, Earth has a huge and varying store of energy on its surface, and radiative transfer models are inadequate.
It was intended to be a concise summary of alternative thinking on climate change and its drivers. I may have been too concise, but if I went longer people would complain it is too long. Hard to strike the right balance.
“Very little absorbed radiation is re-emitted, by a ratio of roughly 50,000 to 1, it is usually thermalized.”
What do you mean by “thermalized”? If you are using “thermalization” in the sense of reaching thermal equilibrium, in the atmosphere this never occurs, so I’m.not sure what you intended.
Maybe you mean that energy absorbed is converted into motion – say increasing molecular velocity, observed as increased temperature. However, the portion of energy not converted, is promptly emitted by the electron. The molecule in question is constantly emitting IR. I apologise for not being clearer, but if you were referring to thermal equilibrium, obviously any absorbed energy must immediately be re-emitted, otherwise the temperature would rise – which maybe you meant to say, and I misunderstood your use of “thermalisation”.
Has your figure of 50,000 to 1 experimental support?
You write “One of the points I’m trying to make in this essay is the emissions to space are separated from Earth’s surface via convection.” Well, no, that not right. Everything emits IR. Unless a photon emitted by the Earth system interacts with matter along the way, it leaves the system, and is lost to outer space. All energy emitted by the Earth eventually escapes to space.
Even the very small amount absorbed by the atmosphere is quickly re-emitted at longer wavelengths. No storing. No accumulating.
“With regard to climate change, water vapor rules.” Climate is the statistics of weather observations. If you are trying to imply that water vapour added to air makes it hotter, why not just say so? Is it because you realise that such a statement is insupportable?
Chaos rules. The weather, and hence the climate, are unpredictable with any better skill level than a naive forecast.
No offence intended.
“The cloud-free atmosphere is mostly transparent to sunlight”
Not so, about 49% of the total solar heating effect is in the near infrared, water vapour absorbs about a third of that, or around 16% of the total.
Water vapour essentially provides a night time greenhouse effect, the daytime surface gets hotter where there is less water vapour, like in the Horse Latitudes.
Like the oceans, water vapour is a thermal reservoir, so it moderates temperature extremes, unlike CO2 which has less heat capacity than dry air.
Ulric, do you doubt that most of the sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the Earth? That was the point. Over 50% is “most.”
That is rather generous, I would say that 94% is “most”, that is after 6% lost by Rayleigh scattering.
The Collins dictionary:
“You use most to refer to the majority of a group of things or people or the largest part of something.”
That 16% matters a lot, it reduces the potential maximum daytime surface temperatures.
Andy said “Over 50% is “most.””, and I agree.
But over 50% of what? According to both John Tyndall and NASA, at least 20% of solar radiation doesn’t even reach the surface. Of that which does, an unknown and unknowable amount is reflected, observable as visible light photographs from space, and images of IR reflected from the Sun.
All rather meaningless without further clarification.
Surface temperatures range from about -85 C to about 60 C (90 C if you include passive solar ponds) – due to unconcentrated sunlight.
Depending on your perspective, that may be either too little, or too much.
Nothing to do with any mythical GHE. Just physics in action.