Richard Lindzen
Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
William Happer
Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University
PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING,
EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM
More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food.
Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and
Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.
June 7, 2025
SUMMARY
At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).
As to food and oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth by creating food and oxygen by photosynthesis. Further, it creates more food as its level in the atmosphere increases. For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.
As to carbon dioxide as a GHG, the United States and countries worldwide are vigorously pursuing rules and subsidies under the Net Zero Theory that carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions must be reduced to Net Zero and the use of fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather. A key premise stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” where “main driver means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”[1]
The Biden Administration adopted over 100 rules and Congress has provided enormous subsidies promoting alternatives to fossil fuel premised on the Net Zero Theory. The EPA Endangerment Finding, for example, asserts “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”[2]
On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued a “Memorandum on Directing Repeal of Unlawful Rules” and Fact Sheet stating “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any [unlawful] regulation” under Supreme Court precedents, inter alia, where “the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong,” or “where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”[3] We understand the Supreme Court has also ruled in the leading case State Farm[4] that an agency regulation is arbitrary, capricious and thus invalid where, inter alia:
- “the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
- “the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”
We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,” and violate these two State Farm mandates.
First, Scientific Evidence Ignored. All the agency rules, publications and studies we have seen supporting the Endangerment Finding and other Biden Net Zero Theory rules ignored, as if it does not exist, the robust and reliable scientific evidence that:
- carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather, detailed in Part III.
- there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs are reduced to Net Zero and fossil fuels eliminated that will endanger public health and welfare, detailed in Part IV.
Second, Unscientific Evidence at the Foundation. Unscientific evidence is all we have seen underlying the Endangerment Finding and all the other Biden Net Zero rules, detailed in Part V.
Further, Pres. Trump’s Memorandum Fact Sheet stated that agencies “must repeal any regulation where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”[5] This is a separate and an additional reason all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs, detailed in Parts III-V.
Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated below[6] support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.
Further, for the same reasons, Congress should repeal all Net Zero theory subsidies, all laws that require GHG emissions be reduced and all laws that restrict fossil fuel development and infrastructure.
Finally, Peter Drucker warned, as every Net Zero Theory rule and subsidy demonstrates, that science in government is often based on “value judgments” that are “incompatible with any criteria one could possibly call scientific.”[7]
Therefore, we suggest the President issue an Executive Order requiring all government agencies taking action based on scientific knowledge only rely on scientific knowledge derived by the scientific method and never base their action on unscientific evidence and sources.
We also suggest the Executive Order clarify that the scientific method is, simply and profoundly, to validate theoretical predictions with observations, and further, that scientific knowledge is never determined by the opinions of government, consensus, 97% of scientists, peer review, or is based on models that do not work, or cherry-picked, fabricated, falsified or omitted contradictory data, elaborated in Part II of the paper.
In summary, the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march.[8]
Instead, let people and the market decide, not governments.
Read the entire report here as a pdf:
Lindzen Happer GHGs and Fossil Fuels Climate Physics 2025 06 07
Net Zero is expensive and pointless.
But it is only the expensive bit that is seemingly becoming realised.
The pointless bit about carbon dioxide will take longer because it is a cult or religious belief and people are reluctant to give up what they were indoctrinated with over the last fifty years or so.
This Feynman quote from the report is noteworthy, “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”
A governmental committee on the other hand … those people can totally bend the laws of physics to their will!
God bless Richard Feynman, may he rest in peace.
Unfortunately, he was taken away from us before he could join Richard Lindzen and Will Happer in denouncing and falsifying the meme of AGW/CAGW, which I have no doubt he would have done eagerly.
BTW, beyond the relevant Feynman quote that you posted, there is this quote that reflects on any government having the
rightcompetence “to decide on the truth”:“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women, 1918
But if the carrots and sticks come from organizations explicitly calling themselves “non-governmental” (as they feel the need to do right at the start)?..
Indeed, it isn’t about science. It is about social engineering, and no amount of data can overcome dogma.
Richard Lindzen has been pointing this out ever since December 2004 (as it pertains to the notion of ‘science consensus,’ he said this two days before Naomi came out with her 100% consensus study!):
… According to Lindzen, climate “alarmists” have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.
“With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science — consensus is foreign,” Lindzen said.
Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.
“It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want.“
The only real ‘consensus’ among climate alarmists is that they want more government funding, but absent the utility of climate alarmism to the Left, such funding cc C wouldn’t exist.
I’m lifting a quotation from a source I can’t recall, but it’s along the line of ‘for the Left, the issue is never the real issue; the real issue is the revolution’.
It’s far too expensive (and has too much efforts and resources of power invested into it) to be pointless.
Rather, being absurdly expensive is one of its points.
Net Zero is an establishment of religion.
Indeed! It has all the characteristics of a religion:
What an unusual and wrong list.
It is an entirely logical and correct list — provable this way: get a degree in journalism, get a job at a legacy news media outlet, and then question your ‘high priest’ employers who otherwise redeem you if you say what they tell you to say about the climate issue, particularly regarding the accusation that skeptic scientists are paid industry money to operate under directives to spread disinformation. Ask ’em to prove that last bit. You will be fired and vilified as an unbeliever.
If one examines religions throughout history, it is accurate.
This should give the Climate Caterwaulists something to caterwaul about.
“For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.”
Negligible. Agreed. Thank you! Now I will have to read this new paper to check for anything new.
No, nothing really different from previous CO2 Coalition work in respect to the expected influence of rising CO2 concentrations on temperature. From page 12 of the pdf:
“The MAGICC model confirms that the U.S. achieving Net Zero CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2100 would cause negligible changes in Earth’s surface temperature. Reducing them to Net Zero would reduce global temperatures by less than 1° C (1.8°F) by 2100.
Thus the EPA’s own MAGICC formula confirms that, since CO2 is now and at higher levels a weak GHG, there is no risk CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather, and thus confirms there is no scientific knowledge that supports any of the Net Zero Theory rules, subsidies or polices.”
Not quite the same idea of “negligible” that I use, or that EPA used in the Endangerment Finding when discussing water vapor. More here about that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/04/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-4044742
‘No, nothing really different from previous CO2 Coalition work in respect to the expected influence of rising CO2 concentrations on temperature.’
Correct. No mention of ‘collisions’, ‘non-radiative deactivation’ or any other issues with assuming radiative transfer in the physics, hence inevitable warming. The only difference is that they obtain a much lower degree of warming since they are straightforward in their application of Schwarzschild’s equation, as opposed to the alarmist hacks, who jack up the heat with questionable feedbacks in their GCMs.
Yes, those “questionable feedbacks in their GCMs” becomes the point of contention. This is one reason why I focus on the emitter observations (Band 16 from GOES) and the modeled dynamics (ERA5 vertical integral of energy conversion) to show directly that the static radiative effect is truly negligible – too tiny to survive all the motion – vanishingly weak – indistinguishable in the end result from zero influence – etc., as you know from my posts. The claimed “feedbacks” are just as negligible as the direct radiative effect.
That guarantees that they will have a myopic perspective. Heat transport in Earth’s atmosphere has little to do with radiation physics – the part of the atmosphere that impacts life on Earth is the troposphere and the etymology gives a clue to how it transports heat. The radiation part is about what solar EMR gets thermalised; what gets reflected and the eventual emission of the thermalised EMR at long waves; predominantly from ice surfaces, which should be obvious to anyone having a clue on long wave emissions.
The average emission temperature of Earth is 255K. The vast majority of emissions is from H2O. At 255K, H2O at sufficient concentration to actually emit long wave will be ice. The ice runs out of emitting power around 200K when the water vapour pressure is less than 1Pa and the concentration by weight is around 20ppm.
The term GHG is unscientific and the gas part is a bit player from the perspective of Earth’s radiation balance. Approximately 30% of the available solar EMR is reflected by mainly ice in the atmosphere and does not even get thermalised in the climate system.
If there is an expert on ice and clouds they will be eminently more qualified to have a clue on the impact of trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Radiation physicists using terms like GHGs are part of the problem.
Let me cast myself as an expert in atmospheric ice and cloud formation.
I have determined that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically interfere with ice nucleation to form clouds. The result is that the CO2 has caused a decline in cloud cover that is ever reducing because the concentration of CO2 is increasing. The reduction in cloud cover, despite increasing atmospheric moisture, is well known and easily verified using CERES data.
How does the radiation physicist counter this claim. What do they know about ice nucleation?
It is also well known that the globe, on average, is warming and the 10C increase in temperature over the Greenland plateau in January is not trivial. How does the radiation physicist offer an explanation for this?
CO2 doesn’t seem to dramatically do anything to ice formation…agreed not in-air nucleation but….
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/26/5/1520-0469_1969_026_1142_iniava_2_0_co_2.pdf
The paper authors have backgrounds in meteorology and chemistry. That makes them better trained on cloud formation processes than radiation physicists. So it help make my point.
Now if they were still around, they could apply their expertise to Earth rather than Venus. But they would need to come up with a plausible way that CO2 is reducing cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere to get funding.
These are the researchers that dropped out of the funding circus once the UNIPCC got involved and schemad the Global Warming™ scam to gain a global tax base.
Are you suggesting that the imputed CO2 readings of up to 2000ppm from various proxies, including ICE CORES, are fraudulent? Surely, if less than 200ppm can cause a significant “reduction in nucleation”, then a 1800ppm increase would mean “the end of snow” altogether! s/
Ice does not need clouds to form on the surface. So having 2000ppm in ice core from the ground does not provide any insight on what CO2 does in the atmosphere.
I am just making stuff up about CO2 and cloud nucleation to make my point that a radiation physicist is not not going to be much help in providing insight into the processes forming clouds that really control the radiation balance.
The radiation physicists have made a habit of just waving away the 30% of the solar EMR that gets reflected as if it is a given. It is evident to me that clouds are in response to the surface conditions including temperature and are temperature regulating. They prevent ocean surface sustaining more than 30C and help retain ocean heat once the surface temperature is below 15C. Sea ice insulates the water below at minus 1.7C to dramatically reduce heat loss.
If a cloud physicist came up with a physical process whereby trace amounts of CO2 changes cloud formation or clearly do not, then that would be infinitely more compelling to me than any bunny yabbering on about GHGs. The indisputable evidence is that parts of the globe have warmed up over the past 300 years and there has been a reduction in cloud during the CERES era despite increasing atmospheric water.
I have previously offered my reasons for this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/04/high-resolution-earth-orbital-precession-relative-to-climate-weather/
but I am yet to accurately replicate successive radiosonde humidity profiles. A cloud physicist should be able to do that. So I am not a cloud physicist – nor are Happer or Lindzen
Relatively straightforward if one carefully examines available data . . . I suggest you start with this article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/13/my-hypothesis-re-emerges/
It has almost nothing to do with “ice nucleation” in clouds. Clouds can form (i.e., water condense from vapor to opaque microdroplet liquid phase) without any involvement of the ice phase. Look up the topic of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs); a good primer is found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei .
But congratulations on being “an expert in atmospheric ice and cloud formation.”
You make an excellent point. However, the presentation misleads.
When you cast yourself as an expert, perhaps you should have noted you are not (if true) or added something at the end that clarified what are your intentions with that post.
It looks to me like you both are saying the same thing – CO2 doesn’t affect temperature very much. They say because the radiative impact is saturated and you say because convection is the main contributor. If radiation is saturated then convection is the only transport possible.
Am I wrong?
Boldly spoken . . . but do you have any objective evidence to support such a claim with your “guarantee”, for whatever that’s worth?
You are using the Climate Mafia’s hijacked bogus definition of thermalize.
You are correct. GHG is a Climate Mafia bogus expression.
China is currently doing most of the heavy lifting toward the target of 2100 by 2100. That is 2100ppm CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100. India catching up aad USA at changing course to the right direction.
Restoring that level of CO2 into the atmosphere would increase the productivity of biomass by factors not percentage points. I expect it would convert current deserts into arable land. The greening of the Sahara would accelerate rather than just relying on the slow churn of Earth’s orbital precession.
It is reasonable to expect permanent ice to be returning to vast areas of land north of 40S this millennium. A forested Sahara will support the generations that follow the people currently living north of 40N when their current arable land is under the ice mountains.
There is not enough fossil fuel left over to increase CO2 from 425 ppm in 2025 to 600 ppm in 2100.
We increased CO2 from 290 ppm in 1900 to 425 ppm in 2025, 135 ppm increase over 125 years.
“We increased CO2 …”
Did we? What part is “we” and what part is Gaia?
According to the mass balance about 90% of the increase is from the use of fossil fuels, 10% (~13 ppmv) is from warming oceans since the LIA (assuming about 0.8°C increase, not the 0.2°C of Mann’s HS)…
The influence of the ocean warming can be calculated with the formula of Takahashi:
∂ln pCO2/∂T=0.0423/K
or more readable:
(pCO2)seawater AT Tnew = (pCO2)seawater AT Told x EXP[0.0423 x (Tnew – Told)]
The biosphere only expands with increasing temperatures, thus was (ans is) a net sink for CO2.
The oceans also are a net sink for CO2, as the current CO2 level in the atmosphere is way above the calculated pCO2 of the oceans for the current average SST (around 295 ppmv as calculated by Dietze, Lindzen, Spencer en myself)…
See further our work for the CO2 Coalition about the origin of the CO2 rise:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-to-Atmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
Ok. Assuming all of that is true (still skeptical), that does not conclude a runaway thermal crisis.
China has had 30 years of coal reserves for the past 30 years. India’s coal reserves trippled in the last decade.
I do not know how much carbon based fuel there is on and in Earth and I doubt anyone does. I do know that burning fossil fuels gives an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels but I do not know how long for. But that does not stop humans from aiming to retain the balance to more life sustaining level.
Humans may have to resort to calcining more limestone to release the needed CO2. We do not need to limit out horizons to carbon based fuels.
You’re a hoot and forgot the sarc, RickWill. Generalists and controllers are working on the unscientific principle of “let’s not change too many things in the environment”….so releasing more CO2 isn’t an accepted plan, and oddly nuclear power is fighting taboos as well…it seems that only eliminating the 10 tonnes per human per year by eliminating humans is in the works….when nuclear winter eliminates
90% of life on the planet, there will be those who say it saved us….You’re a hoot and forgot the sarc, DMacKenzie.
Poe’s Law applies here.
Without some variant of ether a “smiley / winky emoji” or mention of “sarcasm tags” I have no idea whether (or not) you are being “deadly serious” or are “just kidding”.
.
In both cases, a reminder of what the IPCC modelling community came up with regarding emission “pathways” could prove useful.
Notes for the attached graph
– In the AR6 WG-I report the IPCC labelled both the SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 pathways as “counterfactual” (in section 1.6.1.4,on page 239).
NB : RCP 8.5 falls within the IPCC’s “counterfactual” range …
– The RCP pathways were designed to produce mathematical “S-curves” in atmospheric CO2 abundances, and RCP 8.5 “levels off” at 1961 ppm from (simulated) year 2250.
NB : For the AR5 / CMIP5 cycle even RCP 8.5 didn’t reach your 2100 ppm “target” !
– The SSP pathways were “more realistic” curves, using a “peak and then slowly fall again” model, but they are all still mathematical constructs.
– SSP5-8.5 “peaks” at 2209 ppm, while SSP3-7.0 “only” gets to 1516 ppm, both around the years 2242 / 2243
– The highest “factual” pathways left are RCP 6.0 and SSP4-6.0, which level off around 752 ppm (in 2150) / peak around 790 ppm.(in 2228) respectively.
.
Various “non-consensus” analysts, e.g. Roger Pielke Jr., have commented that such “lots of coal burning” pathways are indeed “counterfactual”, even if they disagree with the IPCC on other points.
Whoever set your “2100 by 2100” target is either misinformed or is being disingenuous … or said it very firmly “tongue in cheek” …
Who are you going to believe, two career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, or these 9 “Awesome Celebrity Environmentalists”?
https://yoursustainableguide.com/celebrity-environmentalists/
The problem is the number of social media followers those celebrities have….they don’t need to actually know STEM anything and are skilled pretenders to be good at their chosen career.
And repetitive readings creates “truth” for the reader, aka brainwashing.
I look forward to all the complaints about the clack of any quoted uncertainties throughout the paper.
Same. I’m also looking forward to seeing the complaints about significant figures and averaging intensive properties.
That both of you continue to defend the guesses and gut feelings that constitute the “adjustments” applied by climatology to historic air temperature records indicates you both lack any understanding of metrology and measurement uncertainty.
You mean like:
“At today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million”
“about 7,000 ppm”
“a high of over 7,000 ppm”
Neither you or bdgwx have *ever* shown any actual understanding of measurement uncertainty basic concepts.
Exactly what measurements are there in the paper where you would like to see uncertainties quoted? Remember that counts, e.g number of extreme weather events, are not measurements and their uncertainty is accounted for differently.
Did you actually *read* the paper or are you just whining?
Yes, that’s a good example. No mention of what the uncertainty is. No mention of what the uncertainty is about their conclusions. Just a statement that
Their evidence for the claim is this graph
Which just shows a blue line showing the estimate, with the uncertainty interval removed. This despite the fact that they admit there are “attendant uncertainties”.
Here’s the relevant graph from the actual 2001 model.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
The black lines represent the uncertainty in the GEOCARB III model. The uncertainties are huge around that ~7000ppm spike. Could be less than half that, or much more.
Not that this is the real problem here. The main problem is the eextent to which the graph has been “adjusted”. In the Lindzen-Happer graph, they show the spike occurring in the Precambrian period, presumably during the Cryogenian period, given the claim that the earth was at near-record cold.
But as the Berner 2001 graph shows the actual spike, if it happened, was during the Cambrian period, at least 100 million years later. A period when temperatures were, according to the temperature graph, at least 10°C warmer than today.
“Yes, that’s a good example. No mention of what the uncertainty is”
He didn’t do any calculation, only a qualitative analysis. You REALLY have no concept of measurement uncertainty do you?
He ignored the uncertainty and faked the time scale to get the result he wanted.
I said nothing about measurement uncertainty. I’m pointing out that they have no uncertainty in any of their analysis.
He didn’t ignore the uncertainty. It wasn’t needed!
If I tell you that a 2″x4″x8′ board is shorter than a 2″x4″x10′ board? Does the measurement uncertainty impact the qualitative analysis that one board is shorter than another?
You TRULY, REALLY have no understanding of reality and metrology. You can’t even discern when measurement uncertainty is needed and when it isn’t!
Do you really think that this nonsense will distract from the point you keep evading?
The graph the argument is based on is fraudulent. It doesn’t matter how accurate the 7000ppm value is, it did not happen during the Precambrian period. It did not happen when the Earth was at a record cold point. It happened when the Earth was much hotter than today. It’s a pointless claim in the first place, but made more pointless by the the fact that it’s a lie.
Your whole argument is fraudulent. The fact that no uncertainties were quoted DOES NOT disqualify the conclusion.
You are proposing that if no uncertainties were shown, then the conclusion is not only wrong but fraudulent.
Your conclusion does not disprove the results shown. Your argument fails.
The reason uncertainty quotations in the one-hundredths and one-thousandths of degrees bring into question the quality of claimed measurements is that the resolutions and official uncertainty of measurement devices do not provide for the values of either ΔT’s nor the uncertainties being quoted.
If you think that a claim of “about 7000” needs an accurate quotation of uncertainty, then you do not understand measurements at all. With one significant digit, the assumed uncertainty would be ±1000. That would provide an interval of 6000 to 8000. Do you really think that would change the conclusion one iota?
You said:
Look at the time frames on the x-axis. With that resolution do you really expect “accurate measurements” that compare to current measurements? You do realize that to calculate measurement uncertainty, you actually need MEASUREMENTS, right? You make the point that the interval could be from ~3500 to what, ~10,500? Does that change the conclusions even a little?
You are still avoiding the point. I am not saying it’s fraud because they ignored the large uncertainties. Though you have said as much in the past. What I’m saying is that the claim and graph are fraudulent because it adjusts the time scale to make an incorrect claim.
The 7000ppm spike occured in the Cambrian period, when temperatures were close to record hit, if the graph is to be believed. Whoever created the graph has moved the spike back by at least 100 million years to the Precambrian period when the world was very cold.
Here’s a more correct version of the graph that has been used for ages.
See the temperature when the 7000ppm spike is not record cold. It’s around 10°C warmer than current temperatures.
There are many other reasons why this is dubious. The models used are about 25 years old. Better reconstructions are available. And the whol argument it bogus when you consider the numerous other factors that will effect global temperatures over millions of years. But faking the dates so you can claim the highest CO2 levels occured when temperatures were coldest is what I would consider fraudulent.
To be clear, in case there are any lawyers present, I am not saying Lindzen and Happier are the ones committing fraud. I’m saying the graph appears to be fraudulent, and L&H have simply used it at face value without checking the original data.
Here by contrast is the version used here.
This was taken from the CO2 Coalition site.
One thing to note is that the time scale is not linear, unlike on the previous graph.
“I am not saying it’s fraud because they ignored the large uncertainties.”
You don’t *need* to know the uncertainties when the differences they might cause do not affect the qualitative comparison!
What is so hard to understand about this?
If I tell you a titanium plate is stronger and lighter than a steel plate do you need to know the measurement uncertainties of the shear strenghts of each in order to not consider the comparison to be fradulent?
“do not affect the qualitative comparison!”
The “qualitative comparison” was saying that CO2 was at a record low. Their data actually shows that CO2 was at a record high when temperatures were at least 10°C warmer than today. Don’t you think that might call your qualitative comparison?
The fraud in climatology is “adjusting” observations to match what the practitioners expect them to be, then claiming they can resolve milli-Kelvins in averages of averages.
No, he doesn’t — in this very thread he made a bizarre statement differentiating between “uncertainty” and “measurement uncertainty”.
Real measurements are completely outside of his ken.
“The graph the argument is based on is fraudulent. It doesn’t matter how accurate the 7000ppm value is, it did not happen during the Precambrian period. It did not happen when the Earth was at a record cold point. It happened when the Earth was much hotter than today. It’s a pointless claim in the first place, but made more pointless by the the fact that it’s a lie.”
More meaningless word salad.
I’ll ask again. If I tell you that a 2″x4″x8′ board is shorter than a 2″x4″x10′ board do I need to tell you the measurement uncertainty of each for the comparison to be valid?
You don’t *NEED* to know the measurement uncertainty to do a qualitative analysis between two widely separated values. Your assertion was that since no measurement uncertainties were provided the analysis had to be considered as inaccurate. Meaning you have *no* concept of the basics of metrology at all!
More desperate as to miss the point.
“I’ll ask again. If I tell you that a 2″x4″x8′ board is shorter than a 2″x4″x10′ board do I need to tell you the measurement uncertainty of each for the comparison to be valid?”
You’ve claimed for the last 4 years that measurements without s stated uncertainty are invalid. But again, that is not the point. The pint is that the graph is not showing the correct time. It’s out by 200 million years, and is showing the CO2 spike during an ice age, when in reality the world was a hot house at the time. That’s a bit different to being s couple of feet out on s measurement.
“Your assertion was that since no measurement uncertainties were provided the analysis had to be considered as inaccurate. ”
No. I was pointing out your hypocracy about not caring about the lack of uncertainty analysis when you agree with the results. You keep demonstrating that hypocracy by saying it’s fine to ignore a few thousand ppm uncertainty and a few hundred million years of time, as long as you like the conclusion.
I see your point.
The 1999 plot and 2001 plot are not the same.
However, nothing you said defends one over the other as being more representative of reality.
“Clack”? I anticipated a duck joke. Disappointed.
Wow!
Watch the ad hominem attacks begin about these scientist’s knowledge and being paid by the oil companies.
I certainly hope they are funded by oil companies. Certainly the Climate Mafia has too many dogs in the fight to have spare change to offer.
With respect, opinions and consensus count for nothing, unless supported by reproducible experiment.
As Feynman said –
Experiments From John Tyndall onwards show that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
If Happer and Lindzen believe otherwise, they could show their experimental results – involving thermometers and CO2. That would be more convincing than opinion.
No GHE at all.
They made their case many times in the past you want it one more time, better that YOU go get it yourself.
Opinions and guesses are not fact.
To repeat Feynman –
That’s all there is to it.
That’s all there is to it.
Not so fast.
An uncounted number of carefully controlled and precision instrumented and measured laboratory experiments have shown that radiation absorption by radiatively-active gases (including CO2 and water vapor) in a mix with non-active gas (such as nitrogen) in the case of LWIR wavelengths follows a inverse exponential function . . . that is, an exponential decline in amount of incremental radiation absorbed over a given path length along the radiation propagation direction as the concentration of the active gas increases. This has been formalized as the Beer–Lambert law, aka the “Beer–Bouguer–Lambert (BBL) extinction law” . . .good summary of this available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law .
So Lindzen and Happer pointing out that CO2 is basically totally saturated in its ability to cause any additional warming in Earth’s atmosphere if it were to double from its current concentration level is entirely consistent with experiment . . . their position DOES NOT disagree with experiment.
Yes, that’s “all there is to it.”
It’s relatively easy to shine a light through a tube of CO2 and calculate the IR absorption of the CO2 based on what is received by the CCD of your IR camera. All much more reliable than the usual science fair project using a couple of glass pickle jars of unknown absorptivity or emissivity, and hardware store thermometers, with distances from source to receiver “eyeballed”, room convection uncontrolled…all so inaccurate as to provide essentially random results…
The CCD experiment has been done at probably every university on the planet. The conclusions are normally that the absorbed IR is thermalized and warms up the tube so slightly that drafts from people walking past the tube affect the sensors more, at least at with IR emission sources that are safe for student labs including sunlight reflected off mirrors into the tube…
Can you offer any objective references to support the “normal conclusions” that you assert come from professional science laboratory experiments?
It’s news to me, given that:
a) the Beer-Lambert law has been verified when there is only a single gas (e.g., only CO2) in the tube of the experimental apparatus . . . that is, that no thermalization with other gases is occurring, and where the concentration over a fixed path length is established solely by the absolute pressure at a carefully-controlled “fixed” temperature of the fixed volume tube and its contained gas (n/V = P/RT).
b) that the Beer-Lambert law has been accurately correlated to the underlying physics of radiation absorption by LWIR-active gases (including quantum statistics governing radiation absorption/emission processes in gases), and
c) that any experiment that allows “. . . drafts from people walking past the tube {to} affect the sensors more . . . including sunlight reflected off mirrors into the tube…” is so poorly designed that it would not even be considered beyond that of being a slightly-advanced high-school science fair project! You are obviously unaware that “sunlight reflected off mirrors” would be a ridiculous source to use to perform an experimental confirmation of the Beer-Lambert law relevant to CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere since sunlight contains almost none of the IR/LWIR associated with radiation off Earth’s surface . . . see the attached graph.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf
There are literally hundreds of such student experiments on the net (if you look) mostly giving bogus answers for the reasons I gave, some have been presented here at WUWT…
IR does not thermalized CO2.
There is a lot about that experiment that could be added, such as EM scattering, EM wave momentum, skin depth penetration (also know as optical depth) of the glass, how EM energy transforms to thermal energy in solids/liquids (not gasses), and so forth.
Indeed. And it is noted that a thermometer placed at the end of the tube distant from the heat source shows a fall in temperature. As Tyndall demonstrated. Nothing new there.
Tthat’s why temperatures on the Earth top out at around 90 C, not 125 C on the airless moon (after the same exposure time). The atmosphere blocks about 30% of the Sun’s energy from even reaching a thermometer on the ground.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. You are confused, that’s all. Turn your “light” off, and what happens? The tube and its contents (regardless of whether the CO2 content is 0% or 100 percent) quickly cools to the ambient temperature.
No GHE, sorry. That’s about as silly as extracting CO2 from a mixture of gases and expecting the temperature to drop, isn’t it?
Religion – not science.
“Tthat’s why temperatures on the Earth top out at around 90 C, not 125 C on the airless moon (after the same exposure time).”
Hardly the same exposure time! On the Moon it’s about 14 days exposure whereas on the Earth it’s ~12hrs.
“And it is noted that a thermometer placed at the end of the tube distant from the heat source shows a fall in temperature.”
And since the heat source in this case is the Earth’s surface that’s exactly what’s observed!
Well, that’s certainly a right load of irrelevant word salad, isn’t it?
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, does it? Not even a tiny bit.
No, not to anyone with an understanding of basic physics and seeking truth.
It is important, in matters of logic, to understand the context of any given statement.
First, assume I have atmospheric “air” (say initially composed of, 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 20,000 ppm water vapor, and 100 ppm CO2) and then I add 300 ppm of CO2. The result of that extra CO2 in air will be an additional significant absorption of LWIR radiated off Earth’s surfaces* and in turn those LWIR-excited CO2 molecules will exchange energy (thermalize) other non-LWIR active gases, predominately N2 and O2, via molecular collisions that happen at a rate of about 10^9 times per second in the first 1 km of altitude above the surface. So yes, in the context of considering adding CO2 to air in Earth’s atmosphere that is subject to LWIR radiation when there are relatively low concentrations of existing CO2, the additional CO2 will “make” (i.e., result in) the overall air becoming hotter.
*Note that the IR/LWIR absorption bands of water vapor do not completely overlap those of CO2.
However, if the existing CO2 concentration in that same defined air mixture is 400 ppm instead of 100 ppm, then adding in that extra 300 ppm (or more) of CO2 will have a relatively small effect on warming the air mixture . . . note that it will have SOME effect (i.e., “a tiny bit” — hah . . . please define that term scientifically!) even though most people might consider the resulting increase to be pretty much insignificant (reference Lindzen and Happer positions). So yes again, in the context of considering adding CO2 to air in Earth’s atmosphere that is subject to LWIR radiation when there are relatively high concentrations of existing CO2 there will be slight (albeit judged to be insignificant) warming of air.
As to simplifying what physicists term “approaching an asymptotic limit” or “saturation”, in terms of the effect continually increasing a given parameter can cause, I find no better example than the attached briefing slide extracted from — “The Crusade Against Carbon Dioxide”, William Happer, presentation at meeting of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Brisbane, Australia, September 2023 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I ).
Finally, If you really insist on pursuing the issue of “adding CO2 to air” as a pure laboratory experiment and in the absence of any IR/LWIR radiation in the absorption bands of CO2, then please direct that to a discussion separate from how atmospheric CO2 concentration affects Earth’s climate.
More word salad. The atmosphere cools at night.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, atmosphere, and so on.
You are regurgitating GHE religious dogma, even saying –
Given that climate is the statistics of weather observations, it is impossible to say what effect changes to the Earth’s lithosphere, aquasphere, or atmosphere will have, as all three behave chaotically, and future states are unknown by definition.
You are espousing religion, not science.
You sound ignorant and gullible to me. Other opinions may differ.
“The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, atmosphere, and so on.”
That’s a real word salad!
There is that poop abused thermalized word again.
Thermalize: approaching or achieving thermal equilibrium.
IR is not thermal energy, it is electro-magnetic energy. Eunice Foote discovered this a few years before the Tyndall experiments.
Experiments From John Tyndall onwards show that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
You are correct, it would not. Unfortunately for you, that’s not how the GHE works. You are displaying your ignorance which will no doubt be followed by a volley of insults.
CO2 is logarithmic, its in every IPCC report since AR1, and the entire debate should have ended with that. As Happer and Lindzen show, we’re at the point where additional CO2 just doesn’t do much more. The alarmists figured that out and started talking about tipping points and the like and they suckered us unto debating them on all their absurd assertions.
CO2 is logarithmic. That’s a pretty easy explanation to show the average person on a graph like the one in the paper. The trouble is getting them to sit down and look at it.
You claim that the GHE is nothing to do with surface temperatures being raised by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but you believe it does, anyway.
That’s religion, not science.
There is no consistent and unambiguous description of the GHE. Saying that you know how that something that cannot be described “works”, is quite bizarre! A contribor here, Andy May, says –
You may not have noticed that in the linked paper. Happer and Lindzen avoid describing the GHE. It’s impossible to provide an unambiguous description which accords with observation or experiment. Thermometers are affected by heat, not CO2.
You are free to feel “insulted” if it makes you feel better. I don’t mind.
You claim that the GHE is nothing to do with surface temperatures being raised by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but you believe it does, anyway.
That’s not what I said.
That’s religion, not science.
Actually its a lack of reading comprehension.
A contribor(sick) here, Andy May, say
Andy May would agree that CO2 has a warming effect, quoting him out of context just shows that you either don’t understand what he says or you don’t care as long as the out of context quote serves your purposes.
Happer and Lindzen avoid describing the GHE.
Because the paper isn’t about how it works its about quantifying effects based on how it works.
You are free to feel “insulted” if it makes you feel better.
I don’t feel insulted, I was just referencing the fact that when you are losing an argument you have a record of hurling insults.
I didn’t say you did. That’s what you believe though, isn’t it?
Good for him.
You mind want to reread what you wrote. It isn’t about how it works, but based on how it works? This would be something that isn’t described, but you believe in it anyway? That’s religion, not science!
And?
Spot on.
There is no greenhouse effect except in a greenhouse and it has nothing to do with the composition of the air in a greenhouse.
A comment made about the results of an experiment (wooden box, glass lid) being similar to what happens in a greenhouse became the battle cry for the Climate Mafia.
There is that Climate Mafia bogus term GHE again.
Earth is not a greenhouse. The experiment from which that bogus expression took root was a wooden box with a glass lid and the experimenter stated the results were similar to that of a greenhouse (which in fact a close box with a glass lid would approximate).
Tyndall should have let the sunlight fall on a black surface and then quickly measured the temperature in the CO2 atmosphere above this surface. However, as the surface heats up, convection will start to carry away the heated CO2 contacting the surface.
Actually, conduction and convection is the main process for warming the air over land. In humid environments (e.g., jungles) the greenhouse gas H2O make significant contribution to warming of the air. In a jungle at 90° F and 100% RH, the concentration of H2O is 50,800 ppmv and that of CO2 is 430 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 40.8 g of H2O but only ca. 0.74 g of CO2.
To the first approximation and all things being equal, the greenhouse effect (GHE) for H2O is given by:
GHE for H2O = 50,800 ppmv/50,800 +430ppmv = 0.993 or 99.3%
Please keep in mind that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by H2O, the dominate greenhouse gas.
Why? Tyndall did let the sunlight fall on the black surface of a “black ball thermometer”, about which “climate scientists” prefer to remain ignorant, as it reads surface temperatures.
What’s your point? Are you trying to disagree with something I said, but lack the necessary English expression skills to do so? You may well believe that adding CO2 makes the surface hotter, or something equally silly. That would make you ignorant and gullible – unless you have reproducible experimental data to support your belief in a GHE, for which nobody can offer a consistent and unambiguous description.
Sounds like you prefer religion to science, but that’s up to you, of course.
Not Tyndall. Eunice Foot.
For the next level of approximation, you add in the “IR radiative efficiency” of CO2, which is much higher than H2O. IIRC about 25 times higher than H2O over a wide band covering Earthly atmospheric temperatures. So you end up with CO2 being about 1/4 compared to H2O vapor of the GHE….
Here’s a chart:
CH4 (black), CO2 (grey), and H2O vapor (blue) as a function of (a) solar and (b) thermal infrared wavelengths (right) in a 1-bar atmosphere.
You failed to proportion based on atmospheric concentrations.
Harold’s first level approximation included that already I think.
Eunice Foot did that a few years before Tyndall did his experiments with a thermal pile as the measuring instrumentation.
Greenhouse gas is a bogus fabrication.
That aside, yes H2O contributes much more to the energy transfers in the atmosphere than CO2 could have hope to achieve.
“Greenhouse gas is a bogus fabrication”…where do you get such an idea?…..in common usage everybody assumes GHG just means an IR absorbing/emitting gas.
The analogy to greenhouse glass isn’t great but isn’t horrible either.
That’s every gas in existence. All matter above absolute zero emits IR.
But the main point of discussion about “greenhouse gases” (aka water vapor, CO2 and methane) in Earth’s atmosphere, first and foremost, is how they absorb IR/LWIR emitted by Earth’s surfaces.
Nope. Not IR. Although IR is part of it. ENERGY in all of its beautiful forms.
And as I and others have pointed out to you on multiple occasions that statement is false!
No, many gases such as N2 and O2 don’t emit any electromagnetic photons until they are in excitation bands warmer than Earthly atmospheric temperatures. You are confused with solid black body surfaces with their continuous emissions over all wavelengths.
Yes. I believe the term gray body is more appropriate.
Common usage is not the same as scientific.
While H2O, a marvelous molecule, is a major player in the regulation of earth’s energy system, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. If we are to end this insanity, we must stop giving the Climate Mafia credibility boosts by using their unscientific terminology and definitions.
Very nice, well done.
The report highlights the spectral saturation effect but overlooks the mainstream counterpoint that higher CO2 concentrations elevate the effective emission altitude, where the air is colder, resulting in reduced infrared radiation to space and ongoing surface warming.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
The elevation change is very small, and the warm forcing effect is already very low by the 430-ppm level.
The change in emission height may be small in absolute terms, but that doesn’t mean its radiative impact is negligible. In the upper troposphere, the temperature drops rapidly with altitude, so even slight increases in emission height lead to noticeably colder temperatures. And because thermal radiation scales with temperature to the fourth power (S-B), even modest cooling at the emission level significantly reduces the amount of energy radiated to space.
“the temperature drops rapidly with altitude”
No more than the rest of the troposphere.
And the tropopause jumps up and down by as much as 10-20% on a daily basis.
You are typing unscientific gibberish.
Complete nonsense, of course. “Emission level” is just more pseudoscientific GHE religious jargon. Just like “effective emission altitude”.
Obviously, “climate scientists” are indulging in too much mathturbation, and their emission levels have clouded their brains.
spot on
‘the temperature drops rapidly with altitude,’
Why? Why does it get colder going up the mountain?
Air density.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. Halve the number of molecules and the temperature drops. Simple Ideal Gas Law.
Nonsense. You cannot tell whether a gas cylinder is full or empty by taking its temperature.
For example, a SCUBA cylinder at 300 Bar far more molecules than a depleted cylinder, but both may be at the same temperature.
The atmosphere is not a pressurized tank.
Nor a greenhouse.
The atmosphere closer to the ground is hotter. That which is closer to the 3 K or so of outer space is colder. The thermosphere is nominally thousands of Kelvins.
Depends on your definition of “temperature”, I guess.
CO2 doesn’t emit to space below 84km, aka the mesosphere. The entire premise that radiative transfer applies to the lower troposphere is flawed. Try this:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
That is not entirely true.
One has to apply electro magnetic fields and waves to it.
Perhaps. I was just relaying what vW&H noted in the graphic on page 26 of the attached paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00808
Also, at that altitude, CO2 could spontaneously emit after colliding with non-GHGs of sufficient energy to raise it to an excited state.
Not a whole lot of molecules to hit at 84 km.
Janet your clam is based on the lapse rate. Because the lapse rate is based on the Cp of air and WV could you please provide the new updated Cp of air due to the increase of CO2? Please also include the increase update WV increase due to the increase in CO2.
Lastly, does the increased mass atmosphere due to CO2 have any effect?
Fail. !!
If the emission height is elevated the emission area is raised by the square of the change in height…
So more emissions overall.
Except the decrease in molecular density as the elevation increases.
Not simple math.
You are correct that the surface area of a sphere is R^2.
But if CO2 radiates in a random direction, wouldn’t the same percentage of CO2 be radiated out to space as before? Why would there suddenly only be more radiation down to the surface?
Good question
Look closely at the phrase “higher CO2 concentrations”. More CO2 radiating less per-unit. What’s the net effect? Somehow that never gets mentioned, only the smaller per-unit value.
That is the saturation effect.
CO2 like any EM source (point source) radiates in a sphere. The sun radiates in a sphere.
Yes I know we have constructed antennae that have useful beam patterns, but CO2 is nearly a point source.
Actually a molecule does not radiate in a spherical fashion. That is why Planck defines a volume dτ that holds sufficient radiators such that the volume radiates in all directions due to randomness.
“higher CO2 concentrations”
“reduced infrared radiation to space”
The piece missing is that the per-unit radiation may be reduced but you have more molecules radiating because of the higher CO2 concentrations. It’s the net effect that is important and never mentioned because the higher concentration is always ignored and the reduced per-unit value is always put forth by itself.
It is colder up there not because the individual molecules have less kinetic energy, but because the density is much smaller.
In addition, black body calculations do not apply to individual molecules.
I read the report it is exactly what we need. An authoritative examination of why CAGW is nonsense and those promoting it as liars and cheaters. The best part is that any high school kid can understand it. Excellent work.
A least bright ones can.
Private / charter schools come through again.
Public schools react: “Release the Kraken!”
“An authoritative examination of why CAGW is nonsense and those promoting it as liars and cheaters.”
Sure, matey. Lol.
Do you have any evidence CAGW even exists, or is anything more that anti-science gibberish/scam?
Certainly, many of those who promote the climate scam are liars and cheats.
Do you choose to be one of them ??
Janet, you believe that adding CO2 to air makes the surface hotter, but that’s because you are ignorant and gullible – if you can’t support your religious belief with reproducible experimental data.
And of course you can’t.
That’s religion, not science, matey. Lol.
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/16/physics-demonstrates-that-increasing-greenhouse-gases-cannot-cause-dangerous-warming-extreme-weather-or-any-harm/#comment-4084158
Drs. Lindzen and Happer and their CO2 Coalition have offered many truths to counter the
global warming narrative over the years. Good going, guys. Still I must object, as
several others have, to their treating the terminology of their opposition as respectfully
as they do when, for instance, they state: “At the outset it is important to understand
that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties: as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a
greenhouse gas (GHG)”. I believe, as a scientist, you don’t equate the fundamental truth
that CO2 is the gas of life on Earth with the preposterous delusion of “greenhouse gas
global warming”. As RickWill said, radiation physicists should be careful when handling
fundamentally non-radiative processes.
It is not true that the Earth is significantly warmed because of carbon dioxide gas in
its atmosphere, or because of any other such “greenhouse gas”, absorbing infrared
radiation emitted by its surface and then radiatively reemitting that energy, on its
second try, in a downward direction. It is the much more energetic visible sunlight
radiation falling down on the earth — ON ITS FIRST TRY — reaching its surface (where all
our weather is) and then getting absorbed thereon (or maybe under if that surface happens
to be liquid water), that is doing the warming. And certainly CO2 atmospheric
concentrations halving or doubling now will not change this physical warming effect, to
whatever miniscule amount it might exist, W.H.A.T.S.O.E.V.E.R. (but such changes assuredly
will have a massive biological effect on photosynthesis on Earth).
The concept of the “greenhouse effect” in this form did not even exist in science until
the global warming hoaxsters started to hype it up to further their anti-capitalistic,
anti-science, pro-governmental regulation crusade. And so was born the preposterous
notion that a gas (CO2) — that exists in our thin (relative to the density of the solid
Earth) atmosphere at a thinner 0.04% by volume, with that atmosphere open to outer space
at one end and with the predominant energy of the Sun going through it (sometimes blocked
by lots of haze) to be absorbed by the solid Earth at the other end — can somehow effect
changes in global surface temperatures. How does this demonic gas accomplish this
miracle? All it does is absorb an insignificant (certainly relative to the Sun’s absorbed
incident energy) fraction of far-infrared energy emitted by the Earth, then almost
instantly and non-radiatively conducts it away to its immediate, one-atmosphere-pressure
molecular surroundings, and then is heard from no more. And it certainly doesn’t
radiatively cast it back down towards the Earth to thereby warm it. This fantasized
process, ignoring the severe limits of blackbody radiation coming from an
ambient-temperature gas and the role of atmospheric convection, is based on fudged,
inscrutable “models” and the belief that measurements of infrared radiation leaving the
Earth by 250-mile-high satellites have relevance for its surface temperature. They don’t.
I call these models and that belief an exercise in masturbatory mathematics, NOT SCIENCE!
Vely intaresting. Luk zee into mein eyes. Don’t you just feel the force just forcing you
to be forced into believing in this forcing? Especially when you know you’ll lose your
academic position and be canceled if you don’t feel it?
Claptrap! Dear doctors, don’t show it ANY respect! Ain’t no such thing as a
“greenhouse gas” — not even in an actual greenhouse!
David Solan
Known as mathturbation, I believe.
David the “non-existing” IR back-radiation is actually measured in tens of stations at the surface, and its total energy content is higher than of the direct solar energy hitting the earth’s surface… Even if it is “recycled” energy, it heats up the surface, enough to make current life livable. A “snowball earth” doesn’t sound that comfortable… See:
scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Water vapor is the main GHG, but CO2 acts in parts where water vapor is less or not active, thus is simply additional in effect.
A few stations not only measure IR back radiation as sum, but measure the full spectrum, line by line. Two stations did that over the period 2000-2010 and could measure the contribution of CO2 itself: about 0.2 W/m2 due to the increase of 22 ppmv CO2 over that period. That they could measure the seasonal amplitude of CO2 in the atmosphere gives confidence of their results:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
BTW, gases are not “black bodies”, only liquids or solids mostly are. Some gases like N2 and O2 are “nobodies”, some are “radiative” active, but only in very specific wavelengths, independent of their own temperature or that of the rest of the atmosphere around it. Nothing to do with the S-B equation…
Ferdinand, the “IR backradiation” is just pseudoscientific jargon for radiation emitted by an atmosphere which is above absolute zero. I know devout GHE worshippers refuse to believe that oxygen and nitrogen can absorb or emit infrared, but that’s because they are ignorant and gullible. All matter above absolute zero emits IR, whether you want to accept reality or not.
Talking about “total energy content” is nonsensical. Just another piece of “climate scientist”, sounding impressive, but unquantified and meaningless. “Higher than of the direct solar energy”? Not at night, obviously, and not anywhere at all where the ground temperature due to the rays of the Sun, is higher than the air temperature.
Pretty much everywhere, even though surface temperatures vary between about 90 C, and -90 C.
No GHE, and adding CO2 to air does not make the surface hotter.
Sorry about that.
Correct. Back radiation is radiation emitted back to the source, which is the sun.
This has been recognized the rhetoric has changed to “downwelling radiation.”
In support of your comments, how can one tell which photon comes from the sun and which comes from a molecule? (Photons are not real, just a math tool.) Do the photons were ID tags?
Generally we are talking about “back radiation” from greenhouse gases and cloud bottoms, which are much warmer than outer space.
I understand its use. I also understand it was fabricated by the Climate Mafia and we need to stop giving them credibility boosts by using their words and definitions.
Control the language, control the ideas.
— Commonly credited to 1984, G. Orwell
But in the case of IR/LWIR as can be emitted from IR-active gases (aka GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere, the source is Earth’s surface.
The spectrum of sunlight actually contains very little radiation in the IR/LWIR wavelengths associated with Earth surface temperatures in the range of 210-310 K . . . see the attached graph.
And of course there is absence of sunlight during night time, but the atmosphere is still radiating to deep space and back toward Earth’s surface at those times.
Per NASA, back radiation is towards the sun.
What is emitted from the surface (grey body) is back radiation.
Just an FYI, the Climatologists no longer use back radiation. They use downwelling radiation.
It’s the sun that makes the surface hotter….
. . . and it is the atmosphere (with and without clouds) that reduces Earth’s surface radiative cooling to deep space 24/7/365.
“I know devout GHE worshippers refuse to believe that oxygen and nitrogen can absorb or emit infrared, but that’s because they are ignorant and gullible. All matter above absolute zero emits IR, whether you want to accept reality or not.”
The one who is “ignorant and gullible” is you, you have proved on multiple occasions that you don’t understand how the interaction of radiation with gas molecules works. Ferdinand, on the other hand, does understand it.
“Even if it is “recycled” energy, it heats up the surface,”
No, it doesn’t. Read Planck. All this does is replace some heat that has already been emitted. That causes slower cooling. But slower cooling means longer intervals at higher temperatures –> more heat radiated per unit time.
It’s no different than bringing a colder object near to a warmer object. That colder object can’t heat up the warmer object. It can slow the cooling of the warmer object meaning the warmer object actually radiates away more heat – it’s called compensation. Any heat from the colder object just gets radiated away and the warmer object still cools.
Add in the fact that the CO2 can only replace *part* of the originally emitted heat since some of it will either get to space via direct radiation or by convection. What happens is a decaying series. If one unit goes out and half is returned you get 1 ↑ 1/2 ↓ 1/2 ↑ 1/4 ↓ 1/4 ↑ 1/8 ↓ …..
“Any heat from the colder object just gets radiated away and the warmer object still cools.”
What happens if there is a constant source of energy warming the warm object?
You mean an Object C that is warmer than both Object A and Object B?
What difference does that make? It just means that Object A and Object B will eventually reach an equilibrium at a different temperature. In = Out.
Are you trying to imply that CO2 is “on fire” and is a constant source of heat?
CO2 is a passive reflector.
As Planck wrote: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.
Generally we may say: Emission without simultaneous absorption is irreversible, while the opposite process, absorption without emission, is impossible in nature.”
‘You mean an Object C that is warmer’
I mean like the Sun, generating a constant source of energy.
“It just means that Object A and Object B will eventually reach an equilibrium at a different temperature”
And that’s the difference. Without an external input, your warmer object will eventually cool to 0K, regardless of the input from the cooler object.
“Are you trying to imply that CO2 is “on fire” and is a constant source of heat?”
No, I’m saying the sun is “on fire”, CO2 is being constantly warmed by the earth’s radiation.
“And that’s the difference. Without an external input, your warmer object will eventually cool to 0K, regardless of the input from the cooler object.”
Did you read this before you posted it?
CO2 is *NOT* an external SOURCE. If neither Object A or Object B is a SOURCE and they are the only objects in the system then *both* will eventually cool to to 0K.
CO2 is a reflector. It reflects some of the sun’s radiation. It reflects some of the Earth’s radiation.
I know your reading skills are atrocious but here is Planck one more time:
“ “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.”
Can you figure out what he is saying?
Reflected heat gets radiated away via slower cooling, i.e. the new rays.
The sun, the SOURCE, determines the equilibrium temperature of Object A and Object B. Object B, as a reflector, does *NOT* determine the equilibrium temperature of Object A. Nor does Ojbect A determine the temperature of Object B. It is the *sun* that determines the temperature of Object B, via direct radiation. Reflected sun energy from Object A that impinges on Object B gets radiated away by Object B by a slower cooling rate. READ PLANCK ABOVE.
Your assertion would mean that both Object A and Object B would warm without limit merely by passing the same heat energy back and forth between them. A physical impossibility since neither is a SOURCE of heat.
“CO2 is *NOT* an external SOURCE.”
I said the sun is an external source, not the CO2.
“The sun, the SOURCE, determines the equilibrium temperature of Object A and Object B. Object B, as a reflector, does *NOT* determine the equilibrium temperature of Object A.”
This is nonsense. How does object A know it should ignore energy coming from object B?
With no atmosphere or GHGs the Earth warms to the point where energy received from the sun equals energy emitted by the Earth.
With GHGs some of the energy emitted by the Earth is absorbed and re-emitted. You can look at that in two ways. Either the Earth’s surface is now getting an additional source of energy, and so has to warm more in order to balance the incoming energy, or the entire Earth is no longer emitting as much energy and so has to warm up in order for energy out to equal energy in. Either way the Earth gets warmer.
“Your assertion would mean that both Object A and Object B would warm without limit merely by passing the same heat energy back and forth between them.”
That’s an assertion that exists only in your head.
Once you make the assumption that the sun does not warm the atmosphere, you have a two body equation. It does not matter where the surface gets the energy, from a third body or from an internal “fire”. The surface heats to equilibrium with its source.
Since we are discussing a dynamic system, we should say it is important to only examine one instant of time if algebra is going to be used instead of calculus. It is also necessary to define the bodies as similar, homogeneous, no convection or conduction, and are black bodies.
At a single point in time, we will assume the surface and its source has reached equilibrium at 100°. We will then assume that the atmosphere is at 50°.
The SB equation can be used to describe the net flow of energy. It will show a net value from hot to cold until thermal equilibrium is reached.
I hope you are not trying to hint that the surface is heated (increases in temperature) because of the energy simultaneously received from both the source and cold body being added together. If so, look up the zeoth law of thermodynamics and study it closely.
Ho, ho, ho. 2 down votes already, but no response. Hope you folks that did the voting understand that that indicates you don’t like the conclusion, but you can’t refute it either!
“I hope you are not trying to hint that the surface is heated (increases in temperature) because of the energy simultaneously received from both the source and cold body being added together.”
I wasn’t “hinting” at it. Why would you not think that the energy coming from the atmosphere had a warming effect? Are you disagreeing with the general idea of the Greenhouse Effect? Would you disagree with this paper saying:
or
From post:”…394 W/m2…”.
So this is the amount coming down from the atmosphere from CO2.
It can be shown that the emissions of CO2 is less than .2 what does that say about the temperature of the atmosphere?
I said it in the past I say it again Mr.Gorman (either) are generally correct.
We have seen that CO2 is a lousy blackbody with full column emissivity somewhere between .002 and .2. The value we have developed above, .02, falls in this range.
Emissivity of CO2 | geosciencebigpicture
“So this is the amount coming down from the atmosphere from CO2.” No, it clearly states that is all greenhouse gases, so water is included and accounts for a high portion of the GHE….
“From post:”…394 W/m2…”.
So this is the amount coming down from the atmosphere from CO2”
No. As the quote says, that’s the amount radiated from the earth if there were no greenhouse gases.
“I said it in the past I say it again Mr.Gorman (either) are generally correct.”
If you disagree with the figures than your argument is with Lidzen and Happer, not me.
Let’s write a simple gradient equation.
T = -0.1°/sec × t where
T is temperature,
t is time in seconds
This is a cooling gradient.
What gradient from another body is needed to change “T” from a negative (cooling) to a positive value (warming)?
Lastly, here is a quote from Max Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation.
How can Body B “cool” Body A if Body B’s energy is ADDED to Body A?
“Let’s write a simple gradient equation.”
Or you could just answer the question. All you are showing is that if you write an equation where temperatures rapidly cool over time, then you have an equation where temperatures rapidly cool over time. It has nothing to do with my question which was why you would not think that the earth’s surface would warm to a higher temperature if it is not only getting heat from the sun, but also from the atmosphere.
“Lastly, here is a quote from Max Planck”
And another lengthy cut and paste of something you don’t understand.
“How can Body B “cool” Body A if Body B’s energy is ADDED to Body A?”
Read your quote. The fact that B cools A is entirely due to B being a seeker emitter than A. A receives less energy from B than it emits. If B was not there it would still cool, and at s faster rate.
This would be the same with the Eart if the sun was extinguished. It would cool, because the heat from the atmosphere is less than it emits. If there was no atmosphere it would cool more rapidly. This is what happens at night. The surface cools, but it cools quicker on a clear night than on a cloudy one. During the day the surface is warmed by the sun, because it gets more radiation than it is emitting, but it is still getting the additional energy from the atmosphere, so it warms up more than if there was no atmosphere.
“hy you would not think that the earth’s surface would warm to a higher temperature if it is not only getting heat from the sun, but also from the atmosphere.”
The atmosphere warming to a higher temperature would mean the Earth is a SOURCE. The Earth is not a source, it is a reflector of the sun’s energy. CO2 in the atmosphere is a REFLECTOR. Any heat it receives from the Earth is reflected *somewhere*, some back toward Earth and some toward the sky. As Planck says, heat from a reflector is radiated away by slower cooling. Slower cooling is *NOT* warming!
If you take the sun away from the system what happens to the atmosphere? Does it’s temperature just continue to climb because of radiation from the Earth?
“The Earth is not a source”
Are you now claiming the Earth doesn’t emit energy?
“it is a reflector of the sun’s energy”
It reflects some of the sun’s energy, but absorbs some of it. If it reflected all of it the Earth would never be warmed by the sun.
“CO2 in the atmosphere is a REFLECTOR”
It absorbs energy.
“Any heat it receives from the Earth is reflected *somewhere*, some back toward Earth and some toward the sky.”
It re-emits the energy.
“Slower cooling is *NOT* warming!”
You still don;t understand that the sun keeps shining. The earth is not cooling, just because it keeps re-emitting energy. Atmospheric GHGs do not get colder despite re-emitting their energy. The reason is because the sun keeps shining.
“If you take the sun away from the system…”
Why would you do that?
“…what happens to the atmosphere?”
It gets cold, as does the Earth. That’s what I said at the beginning. The point, however, is that nobody has taken the sun away.
You said:
You obviously have no experience or training in analyzing dynamic systems if you think gradients don’t apply to your question.
If you don’t understand, or don’t believe, what the quote from Planck’s treatise is saying, you need to obtain it and spend some time doing some in depth study. Then maybe you can refute his conclusion.
Otherwise, the statement stands that a cold body can not add heat to a warmer body.
Surprise. You again avoid answering the question and try to distract with a load of ad hominems and insults.
“Then maybe you can refute his conclusion.”
This pathetic trick is wearing very thin. You do it all the time, quote some authority, misunderstand what it says, and when I try to explain it to you, you clutch your pearls and claim I’m the one disagreeing with them.
I am not in anyway trying to refute Plank. I’m pointing out that you are misusing that quote.
“Otherwise, the statement stands that a cold body can not add heat to a warmer body.”
That is not what the quote says. It specifically says that B is a weak emitter. It is adding heat, or heat rays, to A, it’s just that A is emitting more heat so cools.
Now, in the case of the real Earth, it is both receiving a lot of heat from the Sun, and less heat from the atmosphere. It’s temperature will be determined by both sources of heat. Take away the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth goes down, because it is only receiving heat from the Sun.
“A is emitting more heat so cools.”
You said:”why you would not think that the earth’s surface would warm to a higher temperature if it is not only getting heat from the sun, but also from the atmosphere.”
If the Earth is cooling then how is it warming to a higher temperature?
As usual you just say what you need to say in the moment.
“If the Earth is cooling then how is it warming to a higher temperature?”
What part of “the sun is shining” confuses you? The Earth would be cooling, just as Object A cools, except the sun keeps warming it up.
So does the cooler object push the warmer object to a higher temperature?
“It results in a warmer temperature”, “it’s warmer because of”, “it would be colder without.”
If you want to play with words and claim that doesn’t mean “push to a higher temperature” that’s up to you.
“If you want to play with words and claim that doesn’t mean “push to a higher temperature” that’s up to you.”
No play with words. Slower cooling is *NOT* warming. It is slower cooling. It results higher heat output per unit time. It’s dumping the reflected heat. This is the compensation that Planck talks about in his quote.
You need to detail out what you mean by warming. Is it higher temperatures or slower cooling? Slower cooling does *NOT* imply higher temperatures.
“You need to detail out what you mean by warming.”
Something that is hotter. E.g. hotter than it would have been without GHGs, or hotter as a result of GHGs increasing.
“Slower cooling does *NOT* imply higher temperatures. ”
You need to detail exactly what cooling you are talking about. The Earth cooling by emitting energy is only going to happen if it was too warm in the first place. That is it’s temperature has to be such that the emitted energy is greater than the input energy.
No wonder you can’t figure out what is happening. Hotter than it would be IS NOT warming. That is why I challenged you with a gradient equation.
A gradient of -1°C/second is cooling.
A gradient of -0.5°C/second is cooling.
A gradient of -0.001°C/second is cooling.
A gradient of +0.1°C/second is WARMING.
Now tell us how a cold body can change a negative gradient of a hot body to a positive gradient.
“Hotter than it would be IS NOT warming.”
No wonder you are so confused.
“Now tell us how a cold body can change a negative gradient of a hot body to a positive gradient.”
Firstly, changes in temperature are never going to be linear. As an object cools down it emits less energy.
Secondly, none of your equations are describing what happens in the real world. Assume a planet has no atmosphere but has a sun, and has reached equilibrium with the sun’s energy. It’s gradient is 0. Now add an atmosphere with GHGs. Less of the energy the planet is emitting goes into outer space. Some is absorbed and re-emitted back to the surface. That extra energy causes the surface to warm, hence it gets a positive gradient. Eventually that gradient levels out as the new equilibrium is reached, and so again the gradient is zero.
If you think there’s a negative linear gradient, then why do you think the earth hasn’t just dropped to the universal temperature by now? Cooling at -0.001°C/second, would mean the planet would be at absolute zero within 4 days.
How do you figure this? This is nothing more than the de-bunked “trapped heat” argument of the CAGW crowd.
So you DO believe a colder object can raise the temperature of a warmer object! You’ve dug yourself into quite a hole here. You should stop digging.
“re-emitted” means it is REFLECTED energy. The atmosphere is *NOT* a source of heat. All that reflected heat does is replace PART OF the heat that has already been lost – it slows cooling, nothing more. It cannot *raise* the temperature of the emitting body.
You keep wanting to contradict Planck. “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.”
Where is your math that shows Planck is wrong?
Again, reflected heat cannot raise the temperature of the emitting source. Saying that “the object won’t cool off as fast” doesn’t imply “raising” the temperature of the object, it only implies that it doesn’t cool off as fast, it still retains a negative gradient. Reflected heat cannot change the temperature gradient over time from negative to positive. And you have shown no math at all to show otherwise.
“How do you figure this?”
The GHGs are absorbing some of the emitted energy. Some if that energy is re-emitted and absorbed by the Earth. Hence less than 100% if the energy goes into space.
“So you DO believe a colder object can raise the temperature of a warmer object! “
Yes that’s the whole point of greenhouse gas theory. If you weren’t do obsessed with denying it you might have tried to understand how it works. But you will never understand how this works if you keep ignoring the fact that the sun exists.
““re-emitted” means it is REFLECTED energy. ”
Oh no, another reference to the Hitman dictionary. In any other dictionary there is a clear distinction between energy that is reflected and energy that is absorbed.
“The atmosphere is *NOT* a source of heat.”
OK, let’s just say it’s an emitter of heat.
“All that reflected heat does is replace PART OF the heat that has already been lost ”
But that “lost” energy is already being replaced by energy from the sun. So now you have all the lost energy plus the energy you get back from the atmosphere.
“it slows cooling, nothing more. ”
The logic of what you keep saying is that the Earth is continuously cooling. So how long before we reach absolut zero? Or are you now going to suddenly remember the sun is still shining?
“You keep wanting to contradict Planck.”
Stop these pathetic lies. If you think Planck is sayong that the atmosphee does not keep the Earth warmer, I think it’s odds. On that you are the one not understanding him.
“Again, reflected heat cannot raise the temperature of the emitting source.”
Show us the maths that proves that. Not some random quote about entropy in isolated system. Your math has to acknowledge the existence of the sun.
“Saying that “the object won’t cool off as fast” doesn’t imply “raising” the temperature of the object”
Again, what do you think the consequence of what you are saying is? If the world is constantly cooling off, how long before we reach absolute zero?
You cannot look at just the interaction between the Earth and the atmosphere, and ignore the constant energy coming from the sun.
Consider a bathtub with water constantly pouring in from a tap, and an equivalent amount pouring out of the plug hole, such that the volume in the tub is constant. If the hole gets bunged up with hair, such that less water pours out, does the amount of water in the tub go up or down? If it goes up, is that because the plug hole is adding water, or because it is losing water less fast?
Less of the energy the planet is emitting goes into outer space.
You are basically mixing the number of bodies that you are dealing with.
Sun – Body A
Earth Surface – Body B
Atmosphere – Body C
Since Body A and Body C don’t interact, you have 2, two body problems.
Body A –> Body B
Body B –> Body C
Let’s say at some instant in time Body A is at 200K, Body B is at 100K, and Body C is at 10K.
Now let’s look at what occurs when Body A and Body B reach equilibrium, i.e., each are radiating at 200K.
That means Body B and Body C should be approaching equilibrium also. Yet your assumption is that the radiation from Body C will make Body B even warmer, that is, the fluxes from Body A and Body C are additive. That will mean that instead of equilibrium, Body B will be increasing beyond 200K. At that point, Body B will be warming both Body A and Body C.
The result is that Body C will also be warmed beyond 200C which then begins an ever increasing series of warming and where it stops no one knows.
Show us something different using your assumption.
“You are basically mixing the number of bodies that you are dealing with.”
I’ve been painting out to you that you have to include the sun from the start. Good to see you are now agreeing.
“Now let’s look at what occurs when Body A and Body B reach equilibrium, i.e., each are radiating at 200K.”
I think you are confusing the temperature of the objects with the radiation balance. The Earth is never going to get as hot as the sun. And the atmosphere will never be as warm as the surface of the Earth.
“. Yet your assumption is that the radiation from Body C will make Body B even warmer”
Yes.
“That will mean that instead of equilibrium, Body B will be increasing beyond 200K”
Again, you are confusing bodies having the same temperature with being in equilibrium. The Earth is never going to be as hot as the sun or warm the sun up. The sun does not cool down to the temperature if the Earth. It generated it’s own heat by nuclear fusion.
“The result is that Body C will also be warmed beyond 200C which then begins an ever increasing series of warming and where it stops no one knows.”
We do know. It stops when the radiation emitted equals the radiation received.
“Show us something different using your assumption.”
I’ve given you my handawing explanations several times, and I gave you a university course document that explained it far better than I could. You simply won’t accept any explanation that disagreed with your dogma.
But here goes nothing.
Body A is emitting a constant stream of energy.
Body B is in equilibrium, so it’s temperature is such that it emits the same amount as it receives, according to the SB equation.
As long as nothing changes the temperature of B remains constant.
Now body C appears near B. It gets hit by some of the radiation coming from B. As a result C warms up, to the point where it is emitting the same amount of radiation as it receives from B. Its equalibrium temperature will be less than B, depending on how much radiation slips past it.
Because C had a temperature it emits radiation, some of which goes back to B.
B is still receiving the same amount of energy from A as it ever was, but is now also receiving some additional energy from C.
As B needs to be onequalibrium it has to now emit more energy to equal the energy it receives from A and C. This means it has to get warmer, and will continue to do so until everything balances again.
If course it won’t. Quit waving your hands and jumping up and down.
It will warm to the amount of energy being absorbed. The surface will reach equilibrium with the energy it receives.
Your self-congratulations for being correct is you waving your hands again! Exactly what do you think Body Bᵢ in the quote from Planck represents? THE SUN!
Let’s examine this closer.
This means B will be warmer than either A or C. Since a body radiates based on its temperature, it will be radiating more than 200 at A and more than 200 at C.
Hmmm?
What happens when Body A receives more from Body B than it is radiating?
What happens to Body C when it receives more than 200 from Body B?
Do you see an infinite series here?
Show some math as to how everything balances again.
“If course it won’t. Quit waving your hands and jumping up and down.”
You say that, but then later say
“Let’s examine this closer.
This means B will be warmer than either A or C.”
Equalizing energy does not mean that B (the Earth) will be warmer than A (the sun). The sun is very hot but a long way away.
“What happens when Body A receives more from Body B than it is radiating?”
If you still mean A to be the sun and B the Earth that is never going to happen.That is never going to happen.
“Do you see an infinite series here?”
An infinite series that converges to a constant.
“Show some math as to how everything balances again.”
There are numerous sources that explain the mathematics. Why do you think I can explain it better than them. In the mean time you keep demanding I go through all the equations, but you have provided zero mathematics to explain what you think should happen. All you have ever given is mindless “gradient equations” showing a linear rapid decline in temperatures. I’m still not sure if you think the Earth should be cooling down to absolute zero.
We aren’t close the sun. The reference to the sun is rhetorical. It describes the radiant energy at the TOA, that is, ~1360 W/m^2.
The reference to 200K should be your first clue if you were actually doing some calculations instead of waving your hands and jumping up and down.
That is a conclusion you have not proven.
If B warms C and then C warms B even more, the series does not converge.
Show the math that proves that is a converging series.
“We aren’t close the sun.”
That’s what I said.
“The reference to the sun is rhetorical.’
It may be rhetorical to you, it’s rather fundamental to the actual physics. Your problem seems to be you can only think in terms of objects in an isolated system equalising their temperatures. That’s not what is happening in the real world.
“Show the math that proves that is a converging series.”
Very well. I’m writing this on a phone so apogise in advance for the inevitable mistakes.
We assume there is a sum emitting a constant stream of heat rays. That the Earth’s surface absorbs a proportion of the sun’s energy and that you the earth is entirely surrounded by an atmosphere. More simplistically I’ll also start by assuming the atmosphere is entirely transparent to the incoming energy from the sun, but entirely opaque to the energy being emitted from the Earth.
Now we assume everything is balanced so that the energy emitted by any object is equal to the energy it receives.
Let ,
S be the energy from the sun that the Earth absorbs. That is ignoring any reflected sunlight.
E is the energy the Earth’s surface emits.
A is the energy the atmosphere emits back to the Earth’s surface.
We assume A is only half the energy the atmosphere emits as the other half is emitted into space. Hence the total energy emitted by the atmosphere is 2A.
So now we have a set of equations based on the balance of energy.
At the surface we have
E = S + A.
And at the atmosphere we have
2A = E
By substitutions we get
2A = S + A
Implies
A = S
Which means
E = 2S
So the Earth’s surface emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. That is the opaque atmosphere doubles the energy from the surface.
Using the SB equation we can see what this does to temperature.
Let Ts be the Earth’s surface temperature with no atmosphere and Ta be the temperature with an atmosphere.
σTs^4 = S
σTa^4 = 2S
So
σTa^4 = 2σTs^4
Which means
Ta = 2^0.25 Ts
So the temperature of the Earth with a totally opaque atmosphere is around 19% warmer than the temperature would be with no atmosphere.
Using conventional figures this means a temperature of 255K becomes 303K.
Of course that isn’t the actual temperature of the Earth, the atmosphere is not completely opaque and it absorbs some of the sun’s energy, and you need to consider a multi-layered atmosphere. But it does illustrate how am atmosphere that absorbs and re-emitts some of the Earth’s energy can warm the surface. And it shows that this does not cause infinite warming.
If you want to understand how it’s working over time, consider that in this model the atmosphere always returns half the Earth’s energy. On the first iteration the Earth’s energy increases by 1/2, on the next iteration it increases by 1/4, on the next by 1/8 and so on. I’m sure you realise that the SIM of this series is 1, which explains how the Earth ends up emitting twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.
Ok, your turn. Show us your equations that show how the Earth gets colder despite getting more energy from the atmosphere.
This is your first mistake. Thermodynamically, you don’t analyze “energy”, you analyze heat transfer and the resulting temperatures.
You and Eli Rabett need to get together since you are both wrong.
Let’s look at a system with three bodies. They are similar, homogeneous, isotropic, no convection or conduction.
Body A – Since you don’t like calling this the sun, we will call it the plane wave equivalent temperature at TOA, about 1360 W/m². This is the only source in the system.
Body B – The surface of the earth. We will assume no reflectivity or effects from Body C.
Body C – The atmosphere.
The relative thermodynamic systems are:
Body A <==> Body B
Body B <==> Body C
Body A <==> Body C is negligible.
Body A <==> Body B
At some point in time the SB two body equation will control the temperature of Body B such that equilibrium is reached. Let’s assume Body A starts at 200K, Body B at 100K, and Body C at 0K.
In other words,
0 = σ(T_A⁴ – T_B⁴)
At equilibrium, both bodies will be in thermodynamic equilibrium at 200K and the net radiation will be zero.
Body B <==> Body C
Body B’s temperature will be that of the source, 200K when equilibrium is achieved with Body A. Then, when Body B and Body C reach equilibrium, they will both be at 200K.
The SB equation will be:
0 = σ(T_B⁴ – T_C⁴)
This is what we’ve been trying to tell you. Body C is not a source, it is simply absorbing/emitting the radiation received from Body B. As it absorbs radiation, its temperature will increase until equilibrium is reached with Body B.
In essence, one can have Body B engulf Body A and become the source when interacting with Body C.
When looked at using gradients, one will find that the time taken to reach thermal equilibrium between Body A and Body B will increase because Body C cools Body A, but at some longer amount of time, thermal equilibrium will be reached.
Look at what you have done with this equation:
E is the earth surface
S is the sun’s energy
A is the atmosphere’s energy
This is incorrect. “S” is the energy injected into the system. That is all the energy there is. You can not make Body A a source of energy. A only receives energy from the sun via Body B.
That is why attempting to analyze the heat and temperatures in the system using just energy doesn’t tell you the correct answer. Doing so, one must start with this equation which conserves the energy available.
S = E + A
If it was this simple, engineers wouldn’t need 2 to 3 semesters of thermodynamics. One could easily learn how to analyze a system in an algebraic physics class.
“Thermodynamically, you don’t analyze “energy”, you analyze heat transfer and the resulting temperatures.”
The energy is heat transfer.
“Body A – Since you don’t like calling this the sun, we will call it the plane wave equivalent temperature at TOA, about 1360 W/m². This is the only source in the system.”
Why not just call it the sun?
“Let’s assume Body A starts at 200K”
The sun does not have a temperature of 200K. You’ve already said it’s energy at TOA is 1360 W/m². In reality, you need to divide that by 4 and remove the 30% that is reflected. This should raise the Earth to 255K, but that is not the temperature of the sun.
“This is what we’ve been trying to tell you.”
And everything you tell me, tells me you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Body C is not a source, it is simply absorbing/emitting the radiation received from Body B”
As I said, it’s emitting half of it’s radiation to space, the other half back to the earth. That energy redirected back to the Earth means the earth absorbs more energy then it gets just from the sun. If you don;t like calling it a source of energy, call it a source of heat rays.
“This is incorrect. “S” is the energy injected into the system. That is all the energy there is.”
So where do you think the energy re-emitted from the atmosphere goes? Conservation of energy means it can’t just vanish. The atmosphere does not reduce the amount of energy the Earth absorbs from the sun, if it’s also getting energy back from the atmosphere, how does it avoid absorbing this additional energy?
“That is all the energy there is.”
But that’s an unlimited amount of that energy. The sun shines continuously. If the Earth isn’t continuously getting rid of an equal amount it’s getting hotter. What happens when some of the energy it tries to get rid is returned to it?
“You can not make Body A a source of energy. A only receives energy from the sun via Body B.”
This is why it would be so much easier if you used sensible names, rather than this A, B & C abstraction. I assume you mean Body C here, not A.
“Doing so, one must start with this equation which conserves the energy available.”
Where do you think energy is not being conserved? All the energy starts from the sun. It’s absorbed by the Earth. Some is emitted from the Earth and absorbed by the atmosphere. Half of the energy from the atmosphere is re-emitted back to the earth. No additional energy is being created, some is lost to space.
“One could easily learn how to analyze a system in an algebraic physics class.”
Yet some seem to be incapable of doing even that. The usefulness of these simple equations is that they allow you to quickly get to the answer to the question, what does it take for the system to be be in equilibrium. That is each body receiving and emitting the same energy. If your dynamic solution doesn’t come to the same conclusion, then you are doing something wrong.
You still haven;t provide any actual maths to demonstrate your claims. Just assuming that everything will end up at the same temperature is just your way of avoiding the actual calculations.
No, it is not.
Heat exchange requires a difference in temperature. Energy only enters the heat equation for radiation via the SB constant σ. A change in energy is not part of the heat equation.
Read page HT-60 here.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/87d9f4544b7fd64a77201382500d057c_10_part3.pdf
Make ε1 = ε2 = 1 (emissivity=1)
The equation ends up being the SB equation when emissivity is =1.
q₁ ₜₒ ₂ = σ(T₁⁴ -T₂⁴)
This what I’ve continually shown you. Why do you not show any thermodynamics references to support your analysis? There are literally thousands of web sites that cover heat transfer. Surely you can find one that uses energy (Joules) to determine heat transfer.
Still no attempt from you to actually explain out the math. All you are doing is look at isolated parts of the system with no concept of you they fit together.
You are right that I’m talking about thermal radiation rather than heat transfer, but that should’t effect the result. Heat transfer is just the net effect of radiation in both directions.
“Read page HT-60 here.”
That’s talking about a thermos flask. It is not a model for the sun-earth-atmosphere. You still keep wanting to ignore the effect of having a heat source. A thermos flask will eventually cool down to the surrounding temperature. It won’t do that if you put an electrical element into the flask.
“This what I’ve continually shown you.”
All you continuously show me is you don’t understand any of this.
If you want to claim the greenhouse effect is wrong, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it is. And why you think almost everyone else is getting it wrong. Including the authors if this paper, and Anthony Watts. A reminder that it is against WUWT policy to promote the “misguided idea that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist”.
“Why do you not show any thermodynamics references to support your analysis?”
What:s the point? You’ll just say they are wrong.
But here are a few links I could find. I make no claims for their accuracy.
https://climatepuzzles.org/2022/08/why-some-think-ghe-violates-2ndlot/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/300046/explain-it-to-me-like-im-a-physics-grad-greenhouse-effect
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/27/the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Your math starts wrong.
The heat equation should be
+Sun – Earth heat loss * Reflected heat
You keep leaving out the Earth-heat-loss factor.
Earth-heat-loss > Reflected heat
If Sun > Heat-loss – Reflected heat
then Earth would have become a molten ball long ago.
According to Planck, as Reflected-heat goes up Earth-heat-loss gies up the same amount.
“+Sun – Earth heat loss * Reflected heat”
I avoided reflected heat by making S the amount of energy absorbed by the surface. It makes no difference to the argument. I’ve no idea why you want to be multiplying heat loss by reflected heat. If S is the amount of energy at the Earth’s surface before reflection, say the albedo is 0.3, then you have S * 0.7 energy being absorbed and the balancing emission from the Earth is S * 0.7, assuming no atmosphere.
“You keep leaving out the Earth-heat-loss factor.”
That’s E. The amount of energy the Earth radiates. It needs to be equal to the energy absorbed in order to keep the temperature in balance.
“Earth-heat-loss > Reflected heat”
Yes, becasue the reflected heat is only 30% of the energy received from the sun.
“If Sun > Heat-loss – Reflected heat then Earth would have become a molten ball long ago.”
No. You surely must understand that as the Earth gets hotter it emits more energy. Eventually it reaches a point where Sun == Heat-loss.
“According to Planck, as Reflected-heat goes up Earth-heat-loss gies up the same amount.”
Could you give an exact quote, as this sounds like nonsense. The amount of heat reflected by the Earth is heat that will not be absorbed by the Earth. It’s the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth that determines the amount of energy emitted by the Earth.
You still don’t understand the phenomena you are discussing. Heat transfer is the result of conduction, convention, and radiation causing a temperature difference across a boundary.
Here are the equations for heat.
Conduction
Q = [kA(T_hot – T_cold)] / d
Convection
Q = hA(T_hot – T_cold)
Radiation
Q = σA(T_hot⁴ – T_cold⁴)
“k” contains a term for energy, joules, but it is a constant. Heat transfer is determined by ΔT.
“h” also contains a term for energy, but again is is contained in a constant. Heat transfer is determined by ΔT.
“σ” also contains a term for energy, but again is is contained in a constant. Heat transfer is determined by ΔT.
The model shows the mechanism for heat transfer from one body to another. Your failure to recognize that is telling. You do not want to learn anything about heat. Why do you Planck has “Heat Radiation” in his treatise? Why didn’t he use “Energy Radiation” instead?
No, the point is showing references from some physics and/or thermodynamic textbooks or treatises that have pertinent discriptions of how heat radiation between bodies work in terms of heat.
I’ve shown a reference from Planck’s treatise that you just blew off as being wrong. As an EE I learned thermodynamics in order to work in the design of high pressure steam power plants. I am not a neophyte.
“Heat transfer is the result of conduction, convention, and radiation causing a temperature difference across a boundary.”
Just show us your math. Explain how you think the three bodies should be interacting. You know full well we are only considering radiation here.
“The model shows the mechanism for heat transfer from one body to another.”
But where’s the sun?
“Why do you Planck has “Heat Radiation” in his treatise? Why didn’t he use “Energy Radiation” instead?”
Planck often refers to energy radiation, and as far as I can see uses the two terms interchangeably.
“No, the point is showing references from some physics and/or thermodynamic textbooks or treatises that have pertinent discriptions of how heat radiation between bodies work in terms of heat.”
I gave you three references. You haven’t given me one showing how thermodynamics can make energy vanish, or how the Earth can absorb energy from the sun, but not from the atmosphere. So far all you have done is endlessly repeat the heat transfer equation for two bodies, and never explained how you think they should work with multiple bodies.
“I’ve shown a reference from Planck’s treatise that you just blew off as being wrong.”
Stop lying about me. I never said Planck was wrong, I said you were misunderstanding the point, or that the point wasn’t relevant to your case.
“I am not a neophyte.”
I didn’t say you were – just that you are wrong.
I already supplied you with an analysis. See this link
The sun, earth, and atmosphere can be treated as three separate bodies. Normally Body C (atmosphere) is assumed to be unaffected by Body A (sun). That means there are two systems as I showed.
Body A <==> Body B
Body B <==> Body C
Each of these systems are separate and each system can achieve equilibrium. Since there is a common body (Body A) the transitive property applies so that Body A’s temperature will equal Body C’s temperature.
Here is a link that explains the zeroth law of thermodynamics. It shows three bodies, all in thermal equilibrium.
Since bodies radiate based on their temperature and not on what other bodies are nearby, they all radiate at similar intensities.
At equilibrium, net radiation is zero between two bodies. That requires T_hot to be the same as T_cold. It does not matter what the temperature actually is, both will be the same.
If one of the bodies is a source, with a constant temperature, all three bodies will be in equilibrium at the sources temperature.
“I already supplied you with an analysis.”
That’s not remotely what I asked for. All you’ve done is treat the sun-Earth and Earth-atmosphere bodies as two separate heat transfer equations and assumed they are in thermal equilibrium.
“Body A <==> Body B”
Where A is the sun, or rather the proportion of the sun’s energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface. But the problem is they are not in thermal equilibrium. That requires no net energy between the two bodies. But the sun is transferring energy to the Earth and getting nothing in return. If, or as, the Earth’s surface is warmer than the Sun, the equation
σ(T_A⁴ – T_B⁴)
is negative, and so there should be heat transfer from the Earth to the sun. That does not happen as all the Earth’s energy goes to Body C, the atmosphere.
“Body B <==> Body C”
Again, not in thermal equilibrium. C only returns half of the energy it receives from B, the rest is going into space.
This has been explained to you multiple times and you just continue to blow it off.
i have a metal rod out in the vacuum of space (Earth). I start heating it with a torch (sun). I bring a second metal rid close to the first rod between the torch and the first rod? What happens to the first rod? Does it reach a higher equilibrium temperature? Does it remain at the same equilibrium temperature as defined by the temperature of the torch? Dies it reach a lower equilibrium temperature?
Now assume the 2nd rod absorbs no heat from the torch – since CO2 doesn’t absorb SW.
“This has been explained to you multiple times…”
Yes, very unconvincingly. But it’s not me you really have to convince – it’s Lidnez, Happer and every scientist who understands how this works. Or, maybe you consider the possibility that you are wrong.
“What happens to the first rod? Does it reach a higher equilibrium temperature?”
Assuming the second rod is not blocking the heat from the torch, yes – but not by very much.
Difference between a rod in space and the atmosphere is that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. All the energy coming from the Earth has to go through the atmosphere. A lot of the energy coming from the atmosphere has to go back to the Earth.
You didn’t answer my questions. I’m not surprised.
How exactly did the addition of the second rod add any heat to the system? Can temperature go up, even “not by very much”, if heat is not added into the system?
Does it matter if the second rod surrounds the first rod, e.g. the second rod is hollow, if it adds no heat to the system? If it adds no heat to the system then how does the temperature of the first rod go up?
If the second rod is actually a hollow tube does it matter what the wall thickness of the tube is? Does a thicker wall make the temperature of the first rod go up? Does a thinner wall make the temperature of the first rod go up? Assume this is all in a vacuum with no conduction or convection involved.
You *still* have not refuted Planck’s assertion that reflected heat does nothing but replace heat that has already been lost. You have *still* not refuted Planck’s assertion that reflected heat is compensated for by immediate emission of new “rays”.
Nor have you refuted *my* assertion that you cannot analyze radiative heat transfer through analyzation at one point in time.
assuming that m^2 = 1
dQ/dt = joules/sec. Watts (W) = joules/sec. dQ/dt = W
Q = ∫ dQ = ∫ W dt
Then the question becomes what is the functional relationship of W?
For radiative heat loss we know that an exponential decay is at play. So W ∝ c(T0^4) e^(-λt) where c is a constant.
Then ∫ W dt = c(T0^4)∫ e^(-λt)dt
c(T0^4)∫ e^(-λt)dt ==> -c(T0^4)/λ (e^(-λt))
So Q_lost = -c(T0^4)/λ (e^(-λt))
meaning the amount of heat lost is inversely proportional to the decay factor. Slower decay means more heat lost per unit time. That is Planck’s “compensation” for reflected heat which slows cooling – i.e. a slower rate of decay.
The only way for T to go up is for dQ/dt to go positive, meaning the e^(-λt) factor is overridden. That can only happen by adding a *SOURCE* of heat, not by adding a reflector of heat, i.e. CO2.
You can argue till you are blue in the face but it won’t change reality. Radiative heat loss *has* to be analyzed as a time function which climate science refuses to do. Climate science is tied into treating CO2 as a heat source instead of reflector of emitted heat.
While Q (heat loss/gain) is not equivalent to enthalpy it is related to enthalpy. And climate science absolutely refuses to use enthalpy to analyze climate. It’s a fundamental flaw in climate science.
“You didn’t answer my questions.”
Stop lying. It’s really pathetic. I answered all your questions. You asked what happened to the rod and if it got warmer. Now you are complaining that I didn’t answer a question you never asked.
“How exactly did the addition of the second rod add any heat to the system?”
I’ve already answered that in relation to the greenhouse effect. The answer is the same for the rods, just on a much smaller scale.
Rod 2 will be warmed by the small amount of radiation coming from rod 1. As rod 2 has some temperature it will emitt some radiation in all directions. Some of that radiation will hit rod 1. Rod 1 is now getting the same amount of energy from the torch as it ever did, plus the radiated energy from rod 2.
That’s the system containing the two rods and the torch. If by system you mean the universe, then no it won’t add any energy.
“Can temperature go up, even “not by very much”, if heat is not added into the system?”
Again, you need to define the system. Is it open, closed or isolated?
The rest of your rambling questions all have the same answer.
“You *still* have not refuted Planck’s assertion that reflected heat does nothing but replace heat that has already been lost.”
Why would I. You keep trying to pretend I, along with the rest of science, am somehow disagreeing with Planck. I am not.
And you still don’t get ee are not talking about reflected heat.
“Nor have you refuted *my* assertion that you cannot analyze radiative heat transfer through analyzation at one point in time.”
You make so many dumb assertions it’s impossible to refute all of them individually.
Of you can analyse heat transfer at one point in time. Look at what Jim tries to do. In particulate you can say what will it look like when you have equalibrium.
I’ll go over your equations later if I have the time.
You didn’t answer. You just employed your typical argumentative fallacy of Equivocation – using the term “warmer” without specifying what definition of “warmer” you are employing.
You didn’t even bother to explain how temperature can go up when the only source of heat is the torch. You just made the bald assertion that sticking an object between the torch and the first rod can raise the temperature of the first rod but “not very much”.
T = Q/mc where m is mass and c is the specific heat. The only way for T to increase is for Q to increase. Yet you can’t explain how a non-source can add Q to the system.
QED; you didn’t answer my questions at all. You just repeated your unsupported assertion that T can go up without Q increasing.
No, you just stated that an object that is not a heat source can raise the temperature of another object. A physical impossibility. Again, T = Q/mc. If you don’t increase Q then you can’t increase T — unless you are a climate scientist or a statistician like you.
You are *STILL* repeating the same garbage! Where did that heat from rod 2 come from? if it came from rod 1 then rod 1 HAD ALREADY LOST THAT HEAT. Rod 2 can only replace part of that lost heat through reflection. And reflected heat is immediately replaced by current emission!
You keep denying Planck without explaining how he is incorrect!
Let me repeat one more time:
————————-Planck————————
“the emission of a black body of temperature T without
simultaneous absorption of heat radiation is irreversible without com-
pensation, but can be reversed by a compensation of at least the stated
finite amount. For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.
Generally we may say: Emission without simultaneous absorption
is irreversible, while the opposite process, absorption without emission,
is impossible in nature.”
—————————————————-(bolding mine, tpg)
Please show us where Planck is wrong, preferably with sufficiently detailed mathematics.
One more red herring. What difference does it make whether the system is open, closed, or isolated? If it is isolated then neither mass or energy can enter or leave the system. The temperature remains constant. If it is closed then energy can enter/leave the system but mass cannot. For the open system both mass and energy can enter/leave the system.
But the temperature in the closed and open system can only change if energy (heat) is introduced or lost. For the Earth, atmosphere, and sun there is only ONE SOURCE of heat. The atmosphere is *NOT* a source.
Again, look at Q = mcT. T = Q/mc. If you increase the mass in an open system the temperature goes DOWN!. T can only go up if you introduce more Q. And CO2 can *not* introduce more Q, it is *not* a heat source.
In the closed system Q = mcT the mass is fixed it is constant, so is the specific heat. Therefore the only way to change T is to change Q. But, again, CO2 is not a heat source so it can’t change Q.
Of course you are. You are saying that Planck was wrong in saying that reflected heat is immediately compensated for by new emissions.
You: “Rod 1 is now getting the same amount of energy from the torch as it ever did, plus the radiated energy from rod 2.””
You are claiming that the reflected energy is not replacing heat that has already been lost and is *NOT* compensated for by new emissions. That means you are claiming that Planck is wrong.
You are flailing, trying to have it both ways. You want to believe that reflected heat is not compensated for while also believing that it is.
It’s like you believing the SEM is the measurement uncertainty when the equation is SEM = SD/n and it is SD that is the measurement uncertainty, the dispersion of values that can be reasonably assigned to the measurand.
JUDAS H. PRIEST!
If CO2 is RETURNING heat then that is, by definition, REFLECTION. Does a mirror not reflect the light from your body back to your body? Does that reflected light that originated from your body work to increase your tanning level? Does standing in front of a mirror increase your temperature?
“Of you can analyse heat transfer at one point in time.”
But that point in time is *NOT* the totality of the heat transfer. You can calculate the heat transfer IF you know the functional relationship over time for the heat transfer. Temperature is determined by *total* heat transfer, not transfer at an instant. You can’t determine the temperature of a rod being heated by a torch if you don’t know how long the torch has been held on the rod. If you pass that torch over the rod with an infinite velocity how much heat gets transferred?
I’ve told you this before – you live in a world of cognitive dissonance. Reflected heat is not reflected heat. Reflected heat is compensated and is not compensated. Sampling error is measurement uncertainty. Average uncertainty is uncertainty of the average. And on and on and on and …..
“You are saying that Planck was wrong in saying that reflected heat is immediately compensated for by new emissions.”
What do you think that passage is saying? Because to me it’s just confirming my point. If an object is in equilibrium with it’s surroundings and then receives some of it’s radiation back, i.e. by some reflection, it has to compensate by emitting more rays to stay in balance. This means that the temperature of the body has to rise.
If you don’t think that’s what he’s saying then you need to explain why you think he’s ignoring the conservation of energy.
“You are claiming that the reflected energy is not replacing heat that has already been lost and is *NOT* compensated for by new emissions.”
It isn’t replacing heat that has already been lost. The rods are not sentient. They don’t change there emissions in order to compensate for other objects. Without rod 2, rod 1 emits exactly the amount of energy needed to keep the net flow at zero. If energy is reflected back on the rod it has to increase the energy it emits to keep the balance.
“You are flailing, trying to have it both ways. You want to believe that reflected heat is not compensated for while also believing that it is.”
I’m saying that the new energy is compensated for, and that is why rod 1 gets hotter. You seem to think that the rod can increase it’s emissions in order to compensate for the additional energy coming from rod 2, without getting warmer. But that cannot be true, due to the Stefan–Boltzmann law.
“It’s like you believing the SEM is the measurement uncertainty when the equation is SEM = SD/n and it is SD that is the measurement uncertainty, the dispersion of values that can be reasonably assigned to the measurand.”
You’re just ranting now. Keep to the subject.
“If CO2 is RETURNING heat then that is, by definition, REFLECTION.”
Can you provide a link to this definition? Or is it one of those odd definitions that only exists in your head. And are you saying Planck is wrong when he says
“You can calculate the heat transfer IF you know the functional relationship over time for the heat transfer.”
Or you can assume it’s already in equilibrium and solve the simultaneous equations.
“You can’t determine the temperature of a rod being heated by a torch if you don’t know how long the torch has been held on the rod.”
If the torch’s energy is constant you can easily calculate the eventual temperature of the rod, it’s when energy in equals energy out.
(and why are you still talking about rod’s and torches. It’s a terrible analogy for the sun earth atmosphere system. It’s almost as if you want to distract from the real world.)
“If you pass that torch over the rod with an infinite velocity how much he at gets transferred? ”
Case in point, why do you think the sun is going to be passed over the Earth at an infinite velocity? And why do you think Einstein was wrong?
“I’ve told you this before – you live in a world of cognitive dissonance.”
Says someone who won’t even acknowledge that almost every “skeptic” accepts that the greenhouse effect is real.
“Reflected heat is not reflected heat.”
And now resorts to strawman lies rather than accept that he might not understand what the word “reflect” means.
“And on and on and on and …..”
And is incapable of accepting that he might be wrong on just about every “and so on”.
See this equation =>. I = σ(T_h⁴ – T_c⁴)
Here are some questions about this equation.
You didn’t read the page I posted about the zeroth law of thermodynamics did you?
Give us an accepted academic reference that has a math derivation that shows the radiation from a cold body can reverse the sign in a cooling gradient from negative to positive.
“See this equation”
How many more times are you going to repeat the same equation, without any understanding of what it means? For you it’s just numbers are numbers, you just don’t care about the real world. In particular, you keep ignoring the empirical evidence that the Earth’s surface is not currently 255K. Your beautiful theory is destroyed by that ugly fact.
It’s so sad that I, knowing next to nothing about thermodynamics, can easily see why the accepted Greenhouse effect theory is correct, yet you with your years of experience can only quote a single equation that explains very little of the real world.
The thing is there are several ways of describing the planetary system correctly, and if you weren’t so motivated to disbelieve the Greenhouse effect you might be capable of learning something.
“I = σ(T_h⁴ – T_c⁴)”
This starts with the SB law
q = σT⁴
where q is energy per area. But that only applies to perfect black bodies. The expanded equation is
q = εσT⁴
where ε is the emissivity of the surface of the object. The lower the emissivity, the less energy is emitted for the same temperature.
And this is one way of looking at the greenhouse effect. Take the earth as a whole with a surface at the top of the atmosphere. The sun’s effective temperature is 255K at the Earth, and as the Earth is in equilibrium it has to emit the same radiation, but the greenhouse gasses reduce it’s emissivity. Hence, it’s temperature has to be be higher than the that of the sun in order to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics.
The other way is to look at all the energy flows, as I showed you some time ago. Your problem is you keep wanting to reduce this down to a couple of heat transfer equations, but ignore the fact they only work if two things are in thermal equilibrium in an isolated system. That is not the case when looking at the sun – Earth’s surface system. The Earth is not radiating directly back to the sun. All it’s energy goes into the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is radiating energy back to the Earth’s surface as well as into space.
“You didn’t read the page I posted about the zeroth law of thermodynamics did you?”
You didn’t post any page, but as I pointed out before, the zeroth law only applies to things in thermal equilibrium, and the Earth’s surface is not in thermal equilibrium with the sun.
“Give us an accepted academic reference that has a math derivation that shows the radiation from a cold body can reverse the sign in a cooling gradient from negative to positive.”
I’ve already given you three references that explain the greenhouse effect using thermodynamics. Here’s another one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
and here’s another model
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198
“where q is energy per area”
You can’t even get the basics right. It is *NOT* energy per area. It is the RATE of energy transfer as in joules/sec-area.
Correction noted. It’s the energy per unit area, per unit time.
NO! The temperature does *NOT* have to rise. Think about it. Assume *all* the radiated heat from Object A is reflected back to it. Does its temperature rise because of the reflected heat? How does that not describe a runaway condition where the temperature of Object A rises forever?
The compensation is the SLOWER COOLING which is still a DECREASING temperature, not a rising temperature.
You have *still* not refuted my math showing that heat loss, i.e. decreasing temperature, is
Q_lost = -c(T0^4)/λ (e^(-λt))
Where the amount of heat lost is dependent on the decay factor, λ. There is no way to get rid of that minus sign at the front of the equation.
When λ gets smaller, you get more heat loss since it is in the denominator. Slower cooling dumps *more* heat and that is the compensation for the reflected heat. But that does *NOT* cause a temperature RISE. You *still* get cooling.
All you are doing is repeating CAGW dogma, that reflected heat can make temperature go up – in complete denial of Planck.
“Does its temperature rise because of the reflected heat?”
Yes, if it’s still receiving the same energy from the heat source and reflected energy, the temperature must rise. You could probably test this for yourself. Put a heater on in a room when it’s really cold outside and see what temperature your room rises to. Now repeat the experiment but cover all your walls with tin-foil. Does the room get hotter?
“How does that not describe a runaway condition where the temperature of Object A rises forever?”
If you have a perfect reflection so all the heat energy is reflected back, it will be a runaway effect. But this only happens if there is 100% reflection – not possible in the real world. Anything less and the temperature will converge to a finite value.
“The compensation is the SLOWER COOLING which is still a DECREASING temperature, not a rising temperature.”
Why do you think this object is cooling? The whole point Planck is making is that it’s in equilibrium with the external energy. If it’s cooling than entropy is greater 0.
“You have *still* not refuted my math showing that heat loss, i.e. decreasing temperature”
If you think an object that is receiving a constant amount of energy is going to cool down to 0K over time, then I can tell you without going into the details that your equation is wrong.
“But that does *NOT* cause a temperature RISE. You *still* get cooling. ”
Is everything in your world always cooling? Your equation is just for how a body will cool when it’s in a 0K environment.
“You could probably test this for yourself. Put a heater on in a room when it’s really cold outside and see what temperature your room rises to. Now repeat the experiment but cover all your walls with tin-foil. Does the room get hotter?”
Stop and think about this for a minute. Does the temperature of the heater go up as well? Or does the heater stay at the same temperature? Remember, if the tin foil is reflecting heat back into the room then it is also reflecting heat back into the heater as well. Does CO2 warm the sun as well? Does it warm it enough to be measurable?
You just can’t accept what Planck says, can you?
“Does the temperature of the heater go up as well?”
No. Because it’s a magical heater like the sun, that only emits radiation. But just keep distracting from the point. It’s all right, I didn’t expect you top actually answer.
“I’m saying that the new energy is compensated for, and that is why rod 1 gets hotter.”
Reflected energy is *NOT* “new energy”. It is *lost* energy, energy that has already been lost.
It doesn’t get hotter, it still cools! You somehow want to convince yourself that slower cooling is the same as a rising temperature. It isn’t! Reflected heat is *NOT* an independent heat source which can cause an increase in Q. In order to increase temperature Q must increase. A heat reflector simply cannot increase Q, it can only slow the loss of Q.
Take a house in equilibrium with the environment at 70F, no heat source or air conditioner inside the house. Cover it in aluminum foil. Does the temperature go up to 71F?
Take a hot dog that is in equilibrium with the environment and put it in a cooler that has been opened, is in equilibrium with the environment, and is lined with aluminum foil. Does the temperature of the hot dog go up from the reflected heat caused by the aluminum foil?
Now take that same house above and assume the furnace just shutoff and the house is at 70F while the outside is at 40F. Will covering the house in aluminum foil cause the house to go up to 71F? Or will it just take longer to cool down to 60F?
“Reflected energy is *NOT* “new energy”.”
We are not talking about reflected energy – but it makes no difference. It is not “new energy” but it is energy hitting the rod in addition to the energy it’;s getting from the torch. And why do you keep using this ridiculous model, other than to confuse the issue?
“You somehow want to convince yourself that slower cooling is the same as a rising temperature.”
Why do you still think rod 1 is cooling. You are heating it somehow with a torch. If rod 1 starts of cooler then the torch it will be warming. If it starts of cooler than the torch it will be cooling. At some point it reaches the magic temperate where it is emitting the same energy as it is receiving at which point entropy is zero and the rod neither warms or cools. If at this point you add some reflective rod which reflects some of the energy from rod 1 back onto itself it will not start cooling unless you turn the torch off. If you keep the torch on and assume rod 1 is not getting in the way, rod 1 can only warm because it’s total energy input is now greater.
“Take a house in equilibrium with the environment at 70F, no heat source or air conditioner inside the house.”
Why is there no heat source? The whole point of the greenhouse effect is there is a heat source – called the sun.
“Cover it in aluminum foil. Does the temperature go up to 71F?”
No. Hence the importance of assuming there is a heat source.
“Now take that same house above and assume the furnace just shutoff”
What furnace? You just said there was no internal heat source. And if the furnace is meant to represent the sun, why is it turning off?
“and the house is at 70F while the outside is at 40F. Will covering the house in aluminum foil cause the house to go up to 71F? Or will it just take longer to cool down to 60F?”
Of course it will cool down, just as the Earth will cool down if you turn the sun off.
“Take a hot dog”
Too many dumb analogies here. Ever come up with one that in someways reflects the Earth, or just stick to talking about the Earth.
If I give you a dollar and you then hand that dollar back to me, i.e. you REFLECT it back to me, do I now have $2? Or did the dollar you give me just replace the dollar I gave you? Heat is no different. If I give you a unit of heat and you reflect it back to me do I now have 2 units of heat? Or did the unit of heat you reflected back to me just replace the unit of heat I originally sent to you?
If you only reflect back $ 0.50 will I have $1 or something less?
This isn’t rocket science fer Pete’s sake. There is only ONE source of heat – the Sun. It is that source of heat that determines how much heat is received.
Do you understand just how ridiculous you are being now? Are you one of those that believe that two objects in thermodynamic equilibrium don’t radiate toward each other? Equilibrium happens when heat in equals heat out! What do the words “heat out” indicate to you?
You even admit it subconsciously! Emitting energy causes cooling!
CO2 IS NOT A HEAT SOURCE! It is a passive reflector!
Why would the earth cool down if CO2 is reflecting all the heat back to the earth? If the reflected heat ADDS to that from the sun then it will *still* add to the heat the earth receives after the sun goes out! You don’t even seem to realize that you have just admitted that reflected heat can’t raise the temperature of the earth because it is heat that the earth has already lost!
None of the analogies are dumb. They are basic thermodynamic situations. The fact that you are confused by them indicates that your ability to apply thermodynamics is lacking.
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and
this is the compensation required by the second principle.”
You just can’t accept what Planck says, can you?
“If I give you a dollar and you then hand that dollar back to me, i.e. you REFLECT it back to me, do I now have $2?”
It’s so cute that rather than accept you don;t understand what reflecting heat means, you now have to use the word over and over, even to the point of writing it in all caps, even when you are talking about money changing hands.
As to your question – it depends on whether someone else keeps giving you $1 every time period – as with the earth and the sun.
And it will be the same answer the other dozen times you ask the question.
“Are you one of those that believe that two objects in thermodynamic equilibrium don’t radiate toward each other?”
That’s why I have to keep pointing out that the Earth’s surface and the sun are not in thermal equilibrium. Nor is the Surface and the atmosphere.
But to repeat the rod question, given that you’ve set up this whole “thought” experiment, what is the torch doing if it is not maintaining rod 1 at a given temperature?
“CO2 IS NOT A HEAT SOURCE! It is a passive reflector!”
Calm down. The heat source I was talking about was the sun.
“Why would the earth cool down if CO2 is reflecting all the heat back to the earth?”
Why don’t you take a deep breath and actually think about the system. Think about what you are actually arguing against.
“If the reflected heat ADDS to that from the sun then it will *still* add to the heat the earth receives after the sun goes out!”
What heat is the Earth receiving from the sun when the sun has gone out?
“None of the analogies are dumb.”
Maybe there’s a reason they don;t appear dumb to you.
“You just can’t accept what Planck says, can you?”
Obviously you think I’m misunderstanding that one passage you’ve copied several hundred times. But all I can say is if you are correct that Planck is saying that it’s possible for a body to be in equilibrium, then have some of it’s energy reflect back on itself, emit more radiation to compensate – yet not increase in temperature, then you are right, I can’t accept what Planck is saying as he is clearly wrong. So stop using this as an argument by authority.
And before you twist my words again – not very clearly I said “if you are correct”. In my view you are not correct and Planck is.
me: “If CO2 is RETURNING heat then that is, by definition, REFLECTION.”
you: “Can you provide a link to this definition?”
Are you now going to argue what the means of “is” is?
Do you *really* think CO2 in the atmosphere is on fire making it a heat source?
“Are you now going to argue what the means of “is” is?”
No, I’m asking you what you think “reflection” means. I’d have thought that was obvious from the words I used.
“Do you *really* think CO2 in the atmosphere is on fire making it a heat source?”
Do you think the atmosphere is a mirror? When you look up at night do you see your face reflected in the sky? Things that have a temperature are not necessarily on fire.
I gave you the definition of “reflect”.
You have dug such a hole for yourself that you can’t even accept the common definition of the word!
Yes, the atmosphere is a mirror. Just like water is a mirror. Ever see your face in a pool of clear water? The atmosphere is no different than that pool of water.
Again, you have dug such a hole for yourself that you can’t even accept reality!
“t isn’t replacing heat that has already been lost. The rods are not sentient. They don’t change there emissions in order to compensate for other objects.”
So reflected heat is *not* heat that has already been lost?
Did you actually read your statement before posting it?
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and
this is the compensation required by the second principle.” (bolding mine, tpg)
You just can’t help saying Planck is wrong, can you?
It’s like your meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. You deny you have that meme embedded in your sub-conscious but it still show up in everything you post on measurement uncertainty. You don’t even realize it!
“So reflected heat is *not* heat that has already been lost? ”
What do you mean by “lost”? You seem to think that if the Earth’s surface emits some radiation than the energy has been “lost” and that makes the Earth cooler. The point is that energy is not really lost as it is continuously being replaced by an equivalent amount of energy from the sun. That does not stop if the Earth also starts getting additional recycled energy from the atmosphere. So now it’s receiving two lots of energy, but only “losing” enough to compensate for the sun’s energy.
If I have a bank balance and get a payment of $1000 dollars each day from my communist paymasters, but I also pay $1000 dollars a day to the taxman, then my balance stays the same. If I start to get a rebate of $500 a day from the taxman, then I’m I just getting back “lost” money, or am I now turning a net zero income into a +$500 income? And however you choose to word it does my bank balance go up or down?
“You just can’t help saying Planck is wrong, can you?”
You think Planck is saying a body can be in balance with it’s environment, then have some of its energy reflected back on itself, and stay at the same temperature. Either Planck is an idiot, or more likely you are misunderstanding Planck.
“It’s like your meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.”
So obvious that you know you are losing this argument when you keep trying to switch the subject.
“ou seem to think that if the Earth’s surface emits some radiation than the energy has been “lost” and that makes the Earth cooler.”
It’s not even wort arguing with you. You are living in an alternate universe. You can’t even accept that when an object radiates away heat that it has *lost* that heat and that the loss of the heat cools the body.
“The point is that energy is not really lost as it is continuously being replaced by an equivalent amount of energy from the sun.”
Once again you are postulating that the earth *should be* a ball of fire by now. If the sun is constantly providing heat and that reflected heat adds to it then you have set in motion a spiraling heat condition. Unless the earth re-emits that reflected heat then it will continue to gain heat in a continuous manner. Reflected heat building on reflected heat building on reflected heat ….. ad infinitum.
You have two options. Either the earth re-emits that reflected heat or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t re-emit that heat then you have an ever increasing amount of retained heat in the earth. If it does re-emit that heat then it doesn’t cause the earth’s temperature to go up.
Pick one and stick with it.
Planck picks re-emission and calls it compensation.
“It’s not even wort arguing with you.”
Yet you still feel the need to rant multiple times every day. What might make it worth arguing is if you made the slightest attempt to understand what I and everyone else is trying to tell you, rather than cling to your strawman fallacies.
“You can’t even accept that when an object radiates away heat that it has *lost* that heat and that the loss of the heat cools the body.”
The answer to that, is to just accept that the sun is shining. That it already supplies all the heat lost by the Earth. Look around you. Is everything now a ball of ice? You think the Earth is constantly cooling, how long do you think it will take to reach absolute zero?
“Once again you are postulating that the earth *should be* a ball of fire by now.”
Unless, I believe, as I keep trying to explain to you, that the Earth reaches an equilibrium where it’s losing as much heat as it’s gaining.
“If the sun is constantly providing heat and that reflected heat adds to it then you have set in motion a spiraling heat condition.”
Which is why it’s just as well the atmosphere does not reflect all the the heat. But you will never understand that as you refuse to even accept there’s a difference between reflection and absorption.
“Reflected heat building on reflected heat building on reflected heat ….. ad infinitum.”
What is the sum of a geometric series where the ratio is less than 1?
“You have two options. Either the earth re-emits that reflected heat or it doesn’t.”
Or option 3, the sky does not reflect heat, or option 4 it does reflect heat, but some of it escapes. But anything that says the earth does not emit energy as it’s temperature rises is contradicting Stefan-Boltzmann law.
“If it does re-emit that heat then it doesn’t cause the earth’s temperature to go up.”
You want the Earth to emit more energy but keep the temperature the same? You really don;t understand how thermodynamics works do you?
“And are you saying Planck is wrong when he says”
I’m not sure what you think your quote from Planck is proving.
Take this part: “When a smooth surface completely reflects all incident rays, as is approximately the case with many metallic surfaces, it is termed “reflecting.””
Is the surface of a metal rod, i.e. a metallic surface, not a reflector? You are saying it isn’t since the heat it radiates to Object A is not “reflected” heat but “new heat”.
The rest of the quote has to do with *how much* of the incident heat gets reflected back. If you go on to read Planck he has a large section of math equations describing this.
As usual you seem to be wanting it both ways. Reflected heat is not reflected heat unless you need it to be reflected heat at the time. It is “new heat” unless you need it to be reflected heat.
All Planck is saying in your quote is EXACTLY what I’ve been telling you.
“Take this part: “When a smooth surface completely reflects all incident rays, as is approximately the case with many metallic surfaces, it is termed “reflecting.”””
Yes, that’s what I mean by reflection. Do you think the Earth’s surface or the atmosphere is a metallic surface?
“Is the surface of a metal rod, i.e. a metallic surface, not a reflector?”
What has that got to do with the greenhouse effect? You’re making a classic argument by analogy fallacy.
“As usual you seem to be wanting it both ways. Reflected heat is not reflected heat unless you need it to be reflected heat at the time.”
As usual you resort to strawman arguments. All I’m saying is that reflected heat is reflected heat, and absorbed heat is absorbed heat.
“Do you think the Earth’s surface or the atmosphere is a metallic surface?”
You are still digging your hole. Is ice a smooth reflecting surface? Is water a smooth reflecting surface?
Why is the sky blue and not white? or black?
The Earth reflects some of the sun’s energy – that’s accounted for in the 30% decrease in the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Hand waving. Don’t look at the issue, look over here!
The usual figure quoted is 30%. I’m not sure why you are so obsessed with hand-waving. Everything I said is based on simplistic assumptions. It doesn’t matter when the objective is to explain how the greenhouse effect work.
“Or you can assume it’s already in equilibrium and solve the simultaneous equations.”
Even if the system is in equilibrium the functional relationship of the heat transfers that are occurring are time dependent. That’s because the radiant fluxes are joules/sec-m^2. See the “sec” factor?
You are becoming increasingly incoherent with your assertions. As I said, you are flailing. When you are in a hole like you are the best thing to do is to stop digging.
“Even if the system is in equilibrium the functional relationship of the heat transfers that are occurring are time dependent.”
Of course, but it will still reach the same equilibrium, which is what you are interested in most of the time. If you don’t like that take it up with your brother who keeps wanting everything to obey the zeroth law.
“If the torch’s energy is constant you can easily calculate the eventual temperature of the rod, it’s when energy in equals energy out.”
It is *still* a TIME function.
Then give us the time function and solve for that. You will still get the same answer fore the resting temperature. The time function will simply tell you how long it takes to reach that temperature.
I already gave the time function to you. It shows that the slower the decay the greater the amount of heat that is released. I’m not surprised you couldn’t figure out what the “t” in (λt) stands for.
And did you solve for it? What equilibrium temperature did you arrive at for the Earth’s surface?
“(and why are you still talking about rod’s and torches. It’s a terrible analogy for the sun earth atmosphere system. It’s almost as if you want to distract from the real world.)”
You are still flailing. Make them planet size spherical balls. It doesn’t change things one iota!
The main difference is that the rods are only occupying a small area of space. Only a very small amount of energy from rod 1 will hit rod 2, and vice versa. The other difference being that rod 2 is not a semi transparent medium that will allow some wavelengths through, but not others.
Now you are into describing view factors. One more complication to deal with. What is the ramification? That the angle of radiation determines the amount of flux that is reflected or absorbed.
If you can’t deal with the “ideal” conditions properly, why are you wanting to complicate the issue.
Did you ever read the link I gave you on the zeroth law of thermodynamics? Did it change what you think at all?
“Now you are into describing view factors”
Yes.
“Did you ever read the link I gave you on the zeroth law of thermodynamics? Did it change what you think at all?”
What link? You claimed to give me one here, but there was no actual link. As I’ve told you more than once the zeroth law does not apply to the sun-Earth- atmosphere system as they are not in thermal equilibrium.
https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/system/files/file_attachments/basic_thermo.pdf
Quit hand waving. Discussing the end result of A and B being in equilibrium and B and C also being in equilibrium is a test of your theory.
The fact the temperature of B does not rise to A + C when A and B are at equilibrium should convince you that the fluxes from A and C do not add at B.
Tell how many hours of thermodynamics at university you have. You obviously believe you have greater knowledge than I do and that you can reliably refute all the references I’ve shown. Therefore, you must have some level of coursework behind you.
That reference confirms my point. The zeroth law only applies to objects in thermal equalibrium. In that they go further and say they are in thermodynamical equilibrium. Note that the reference doesn’t mention radiated heat, and for the most part is only concerned with ideal gases.
Regardless, you seem to think the the 0th law is saying that everything must have the same temperature. It doesn’t. What it says is that when things are in thermal equalibrium they have the same temperature and that this is a transitive property, so that temperature is an equivalence relationship.
“Discussing the end result of A and B being in equilibrium and B and C also being in equilibrium is a test of your theory.”
They are not in thermal equilibrium, that’s the point. What is in equalibrium is the total energy flow. Looking as the earth with it’s atmosphere as a single system then energy in is the same as energy out. That shows that the temperature of the Earth as seen from space is the same as that of the sun – about 255K. The fact that the Earth’s surface is somewhat warmer than that should tell you that your interpretation is wrong.
“The fact the temperature of B does not rise to A + C when A and B are at equilibrium should convince you that the fluxes from A and C do not add at B.”
Look at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. You should understand that there is a 4th power relationship between temperature and energy. I explained this in my initial equations. In the simplest case of assuming the atmosphere absorbs all outgoing radiation, then B receives equals amount of energy from A and C, double what it receives from A alone. But that translates into an increase on temperature of around 20%. A change from 255K to 303K.
“Tell how many hours of thermodynamics at university you have.”
Absolutely zero. But unlike some here I don’t consider education to stop at school.
This and hominem is so telling about your hypocracy. Half the time you argue that only people with the same education as you can pint out your errors, but at other times you insist all climate scientists and all statisticians are wrong.
“You obviously believe you have greater knowledge than I do and that you can reliably refute all the references I’ve shown.”
You keep pretending that the greenhouse gas theory is some weird concept I personally drempt up. It’s a well established theory accepted by virtually everyone, climate scientists and skeptics alike. I don’t think I’m “more knowledgable” then you regarding thermodynamics, I just think you are not really understanding the knowledge you have. I base that on the little I know, and the fact that those who are more knowledgable about it than either of us accept it. That and the actual evidence that supports it.
View factors only affect how much radiation gets reflected.
If the reflection can’t replace *all* of the heat being lost, i.e. radiated away, then it *can’t* raise the temperature of the radiating body.
Even if *all* the heat loss is radiated back it can only cause the temperature to remain at equilibrium (i.e. offset the heat being lost), it cannot raise it further!
“small area”
“semi transparent”
“some wavelengths”
You just keep digging the hole deeper.
None of these invalidate the fact that reflected heat is heat that has already been lost. All they do is place boundaries on how much heat is reflected.
You want us to believe this sequence:
At time T_0 (S = E) where Sun is the amount of insolation and E is the amount the earth radiates. If they are not in equilibrium then the earth warms till they are.
At time T_1 CO2 is introduced
a. The earth is still radiating S = E, i.e. it is losing heat
b. CO2 starts to reflect E back to the earth
c. the sun is still delivering S
At time T_2
a. The earth is receiving S and E_reflected.
b. The temperature of the earth goes up by ΔT due to E_reflected
c. The earth now starts to radiate E + ΔE due to the increased temperature
At time T_3
a. CO2 now reflects back E + ΔE
b. the sun is still delivering S
c. total insolation is S + E + ΔE
d. the temperature of the earth goes even higher because of the ΔE reflection
e. The earth now starts to radiate at E + ΔE + ΔE
At time T_4
a. CO2 is now reflecting E + ΔE + ΔE
b. the temperature of the earth now goes up another ΔT because of the additional ΔE.
c. The additional ΔT causes the earth to radiate at E + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE
At time T_5
a. CO2 is now reflecting E + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE
b. The temperature of the earth goes up another ΔT because of the additional ΔE
c. The earth now starts to radiate E + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE
At time T_6
a. CO2 is now reflecting E + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE
b. Temperature now goes up another ΔT causing another ΔE increment
c. earth is now radiating at E + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE + ΔE
…….
ad infinitum
All because you say the reflected heat from CO2 is *new* heat to the earth and not just a replacement for heat that the earth has already lost. If the reflected heat is considered as a replacement for already lost heat then the sequence becomes
T_0, earth is radiating E from a heat content of Q
T_1, earth is radiating E – ΔE because of Q = ΔQ, CO2 is introduced
T_2, earth is radiating at E – ΔE + ΔE because of the reflected E
At this point nothing is happening further because of the ΔE – ΔE factor
The earth remains in equilibrium with the sun, just as it was before CO2 introduction.
The reflected heat ΔE is offset by the heat loss from (-ΔE) just as Planck says. The reflected heat is just replacing the heat that has already been lost.
Under your assertions there is no boundary, just an ever-increasing spiral of ΔE adding to ΔE forever. You want us to believe that the reflected heat only happens once, that it raises the temp of the earth, and then it stops. That’s the entire premise of CO2 “trapping” heat and warming the earth. It stems from *not* looking at heat transfer as a time function. The entire premise ignores the heat loss prior to the heat being reflected by CO2.
The earth *is* a green-house. But the cause is *NOT* CO2. Even if there were no GHG’s in the atmosphere the earth’s surface would not be that of space. Things like O2 and N2 would still generate a temperature gradient because of atmospheric pressure. Add in water vapor and the gradient changes primarily because of latent heat, *NOT* because of back radiation. As pointed out above, back radiation from CO2 does not increase the temperature of the earth either. It only replaces heat that has already been lost and just gets re-emitted as compensation via slower cooling.
These factors lead to the generation of all kinds of crazy theories like “CO2 traps heat through back radiation”.
“None of these invalidate the fact that reflected heat is heat that has already been lost. ”
Pointless arguing if all you are going to do is keep claiming this and ignoring the fact that all the energy lost was already replaced by the energy from the sun. You seem to have a real problem with the idea that the sun shines. You seem to think that the Earth is cooling down.
You just don’t get that without an atmosphere the earth is already in equalibrium with the sun. It is constantly “losing” the same amount of energy as it receives from the sun. Hence it’s net loss is zero. The energy from the atmosphere is not replacing a deficit in the Earth’s energy balance, it’s adding to what was already zero. I gave you an analogy involving money. You just deflefted from it by asking a different question.
I’ll repeat it. If I have a steady income of $1000 a day, and pay out $1000 a day, what happens to my bank balance? Now if I get back $500 a day from my expenses, does my bank balance go down or does it go up?
“Pointless arguing if all you are going to do is keep claiming this and ignoring the fact that all the energy lost was already replaced by the energy from the sun. You seem to have a real problem with the idea that the sun shines. You seem to think that the Earth is cooling down.”
You can’t seem to get past the fact that if reflected energy is considered to be *new* energy then you have set up a system with an increasing spiral of energy. That “new” energy will raise the temperature which will in turn increase the emission flux which in turn will increase the reflected “new” energy which in turn will increase temperature and therefore emission flux even further which in turn will increase the reflected “new” energy even further which in turn will increase temperature and therefore emission flux even furhter and ….. ad infinitum.
That reflected energy doesn’t happen just once and raise the temperature just once. Raising the temperature *will* increase the emission flux which, in turn, *will* increase the reflected emission flux which will increase temperature even more.
If you look at the math in Planck that is why he developed the fact that reflected heat is compensated for and does not raise temperature since it is immediately re-emitted due to slower cooling.
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and
this is the compensation required by the second principle.” (bolding mine, tpg)
Reflected energy that is absorbed is immediately re-emitted as new rays.
Cooler bodies (CO2) simply can’t increase the temperatures of warmer bodies (earth). You keep wanting to violate that rule of thermodynamics.
“ad infinitum.”
Very much describes your arguments. Pointless continuing until you understand how to sum a geometric series.
“You want us to believe this sequence:”
Out of interest, I run a time sequence using my model. When I get back to my computer I’ll post the graphs for you. Spoiler though, they come to the same result as I obtained balancing the simultaneous equations.
“At time T_1 CO2 is introduced
a. The earth is still radiating S = E, i.e. it is losing heat”
It is losing the same amount of heat as it it is receiving. The temperature remains constant.
“CO2 starts to reflect E back to the earth”
Whatever you say. But in the real world the atmosphere, not just the CO2, absorbes the energy and so grt’s warmer.
“. The temperature of the earth goes up by ΔT due to E_reflected”
How big is delta?
“The earth now starts to radiate E + ΔE due to the increased temperature”
No. Look at the SB law. The energy is proportional to (E + ΔE)⁴. Though as long as ΔE
Is small compared with E it makes little difference.
“At time T_3
a. CO2 now reflects back E + ΔE”
No it is not. It’s absorbing that much energy, which is rising it’s temperature and then radiating energy based on it’s new temperature. But it is only radiating half of that back to Earth. You really need to swallow your pride and learn the difference between reflection and absorption.
“The earth now starts to radiate at E + ΔE + ΔE”
At some points you are really going to have to put some figures on these Delta’s. Or you are going to jump to an incorrect conclusion.
Cutting through your endless repetition, you are trying to claim that the Earth’s emitted energy increases linearly with time. That just isn’t true. The reason it’s not true is that the atmosphere is not reflecting all of the energy back to the surface. By assumption half is radiated back to Earth, half to outer space.
Let’s assume for simplicity that the energy is reflected, but only half of it.
Step 1: Earth transmits E to the atmosphere, let’s back E/2 from the atmosphere. Total energy received is now E + 1/2 E.
Step 2: Earth transmits E + 1/2 E to the atmosphere, let’s back (E + 1/2 E) /2 = (1/2 + 1/4) E from the atmosphere. Total energy received is now E (1 + 1/2 + 1/4)
Can you guess the pattern by now? Do you see a geometric series forming? Do you know what the sum of this geometric series is?
Just in case you don’t the answer is that the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … = 2.
At the end of your infinite series the total energy the Earth receives is 2S. Just as I said at the start. (And after typing all that I realised I fell into your trap of calling this E, when it should be S)
“At this point nothing is happening further because of the ΔE – ΔE factor”
And then what happens if someone turns the sun back on?
Your entire argument seems to be to assume the sun warms the Earth to it’s own temperature and then goes away, whilst the Earth maintains its temperature through 100% reflected radiation.
“And then what happens if someone turns the sun back on?”
If the sun is off the earth will STILL radiate its heat – until it reaches 0K.
“Your entire argument seems to be to assume the sun warms the Earth to it’s own temperature and then goes away, whilst the Earth maintains its temperature through 100% reflected radiation.
Bullshite! You are *still* showing that you can’t figure out the physics of a time function in the reality the rest of us live in!
As the earth COOLS the heat CO2 receives from the earth will go down. Everything cools if there is no source of heat!
*YOU* are the one that keeps claiming that CO2 *warms* the earth, not me. You are claiming that CO2 is a source of NEW heat, i.e. that it is a source of heat instead of a reflector of heat!
Heat transfer is a TIME FUNCTION. Stop ignoring the heat lost by the earth in that time function.
“If the sun is off the earth will STILL radiate its heat – until it reaches 0K.”
My question was what happens when the sun is on, not off.
“As the earth COOLS the heat CO2 receives from the earth will go down.”
Why do you think the Earth is cooling? I don’t expect you to actually answer.
“You are claiming that CO2 is a source of NEW heat, i.e. that it is a source of heat instead of a reflector of heat!”
You are just playing with words. It doesn’t matter if you call it a source or new or any other word you use. It is just additional energy. Energy that the Earth’s surface wouldn’t receive if all the GHGs did not exist. Energy that is additional to the constant energy it receives from the sun.
You are the one who needs to explain how increasing the total energy the surface receives does not increase it’s temperature. You seem to think that because the Earth emits more radiation in order to keep the equalibrium, it means the Earth is cooling. But the SB equation shows that if it is emitting more radiation it’s temperature must be higher.
“My question was what happens when the sun is on, not off.”
If the sun is on then the earth is radiating away E(sun). If it wasn’t it would be a ball of plasma by now. A reflector in the atmosphere doesn’t change this one iota.
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and
this is the compensation required by the second principle.” (bolding mine, tpg)
Reflected heat is radiated away by new rays. You still haven’t figured out that heat is joules.
As I already mentioned it DOES NOT radiate “half” down and half up. A body radiates with the same flux in all directions based on its temperature.
You are dancing and hand waving all over the place. The issue is if equilibrium can be achieved if emitted power from a hot body that is sent back from another body is an ever increasing series.
The zeroth law provides that three bodies will reach equilibrium at some point. You continue to ignore that.
“As I already mentioned it DOES NOT radiate “half” down and half up.”
It’s a simplified model like everything else in this discussion. As you say it radiates in all directions, which includes up and down.
“You are dancing and hand waving all over the place.”
I’m describing actual models and equations that produce results. I’ve done it using simultaneous equations and iterative simulations. They both give me the same result, and with tweaking give results consistent with observations.
All you two have done, is argue that the energy from the atmosphere is not “new”, failed to understand how geometric series add, and invoked the laws of thermodynamics with no understanding of the assumptions in those rules. You keep claiming the earth is in equilibrium with the sun, and the next moment claim it is continuously cooling. You refuse to provide a complete model of the system, let alone one consistent with the conservation of energy, or observations.
Yet you think I’m the one hand waving.
“The issue is if equilibrium can be achieved if emitted power from a hot body that is sent back from another body is an ever increasing series.”
It’s a convergent series. You claim to have studied calculus yet seem to have a problem understanding how series converge.
“The zeroth law provides that three bodies will reach equilibrium at some point.”
No it doesn’t, you keep confusing the 0th law with the second. The zeroth law just says that if A is in thermal equilibrium with B, and B is in thermal equilibrium with C, then A and C must be in thermal equilibrium. It isn’t in itself a particularly profound law, it’s just necessary to justify the other laws – hence why it is given the number zero.
What you are really talking about I suspect is the 2nd which says that it’s impossible to reduce entropy. This does imply that “at some point” everywhere will be the same temperature – but that isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future – not until the last star has gone out, at least.
“All you two have done, is argue that the energy from the atmosphere is not “new”,”
It is *NOT* new heat. It is a reflection of heat that has already been lost. Heat transfer is a *time* function. W/m^2 ==> joules/sec-m^2.
If you want to calculate heat, i..e joules, then you have to take the “sec” factor into account.
“You keep claiming the earth is in equilibrium with the sun, and the next moment claim it is continuously cooling.”
Did you bother to think about this AT ALL before you posted it? If the earth is not cooling at the same rate that it is warming, EQUILIBRIUM doesn’t exist! If it isn’t cooling then it will keep on warming from the heat input received from the sun!
The earth would be a ball of plasma based on your view of heat transfer!
“The earth would be a ball of plasma based on your view of heat transfer!”
Pointless arguing when you just ignore anything I say. One more time, what is the sum of the geometric series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … ?
Where is the heat loss factors? 1 unit of heat loss minus 1/2 unit of reflected heat *STILL* represents 1/2 unit of cooling – which you keep on wanting to ignore!
So here is my simple model run as a time sequence. I start with the sun at a nominal 255K and the Earth and it’s atmosphere at 0K. Not realistic as there would be no atmosphere at that temperature.
Each iteration I work out the energy emitted by each object as T⁴, and subtract and add to the other bodies as appropriate. Changing the temperature by a fixed arbitrary constant. Again not realistic as it’s ignoring mass etc. As before the energy flows are from the sun to the Earth’s surface. From the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere. And from the atmosphere half to the surface and half to space.
First here’s the model with no atmosphere.
The Earth’s temperature just rises until it matches the sun at 255K.
Next here’s the model I detailed before where all of the Earth’s emitted energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere.
The Earth’s surface temperature rises beyond that of the sun, stabilizing at around 303K. The atmosphere follows and reaches the same temperature.
Finally, here’s a slightly more realistic version where the atmosphere only absorbs 80% of the Earth’s energy, the rest disappearing into space.
Here the Earth’s surface warms to about 290K, and the atmosphere only gets to 270K.
You are still viewing reflected energy as “new” energy. It isn’t. It’s a replacement for energy that has already been lost. If earth emitted nothing CO2 would return nothing, IT IS NOT A SOURCE OF HEAT.
There is no old or new energy. The earth doesn’t care how old the energy is. If it did it would be violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
It’s pointless continuing if you just keep going round in circles with these word games. Write out your model, explain how it preserves the conservation of energy, work out what the equilibrium temperature of the earth’s surface will be with and without an atmosphere, and the say how well it agrees with observations.
“There is no old or new energy.”
More bullshite! CO2 can’t send back what it doesn’t receive first. Heat loss is a TIME FUNCTION. You still refuse to understand that flux is a time relationship. W/m^2 ==> joules/sec-m^2.
Heat transfer is a time function! The earth loses the heat and CO2 sends it back. You *have* to know what happened at a prior time to know what is happening now! Heat transfer is a stateful process, it represents how you got to where you are, it is path dependent!
You continue to show your lack of understanding of physics and reality!
“If it did it would be violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
The only violation of thermodynamic laws is your assertion that a reflector is a source of new energy. Remember that it was *YOU* that claimed the reflected heat was new energy.
“t’s pointless continuing if you just keep going round in circles with these word games”
They are not word games. It’s you not understanding that 1/sec means you have a time function and that you need to know what happened in the past in order to find out where you are in the present.
“Write out your model”
I did write it out, both mathematically and in a textual sequence.
Total heat loss depends on 1/λ. It is a result from integrating the temperature curve. CO2 decreases the decay time (λ) meaning 1/λ gets bigger. More heat loss! I’m not surprised you don’t understand this. You truly have a problem relating simple algebra and calculus to reality.
No atmostphere. heat in = heat out. (conservation of energy)
No GHG: heat in = heat out (conservation of energy)
GHG: heat in – heat loss – heat-reflected + heat-reflected = heat in – heat loss (conservation of energy)
*YOU* on the other hand, want to ignore that the reflected heat first has to be lost. Thus you never include heat loss factors in anything you assert.
You just want to add up all the fluxes in while ignoring the fluxes out. So does climate science.
You and climate science have yet to figure out what Planck is talking about.
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.” (bolding mine, tpg)
The point is that it is LOSING heat! Losing heat over time! It just happens to be receiving NEW heat from the sun at the same time. The sun is a SOURCE of heat, it is not a reflector of heat emitted by the earth!
And what does it do when it gets warmer? Does it emit more radiation? I.e. REFLECT the heat received from the earth?
ROFL!! It does *not* matter. In the equation Circumference = πr^2 how big is r?
You *still* don’t understand the physics! S-B tells you the radiant flux. How much heat is lost from that radiant flux IS A TIME FUNCTION. For at least the third time W/m^2 ==> joules/sec-m^2. When are you going to actually memorize that? Based on past performance, probably never!
“E” is the amount of heat, not the radiant flux!
Bullshite! Do you have to have discrete figures for ΔA = π(r + Δr)^2 – π(r)^2 to understand what the equation is telling you? You are just throwing up a red herring argumentative fallacy to avoid having to actually address the issue.
This is perfect proof that you simply don’t understand the physics at all, let alone the math.
I am claiming that reflected heat is HEAT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST. It can’t do more than replace the HEAT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST. Replacing what has already been lost is *not* the same thing as saying the earth’s energy is increasing linearly over time. You can’t even figure out simple math!
CO2 IS NOT A SOURCE OF HEAT – IT IS A REFLECTOR.
Planck: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall
back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing
these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and
this is the compensation required by the second principle.” (bolding mine, tpg)
“Total energy received is now E + 1/2 E.”
NO! The energy is E(sun) – E(lost heat) + 1/2E(reflected heat). The earth will STILL have cooled by 1/2E!!!!!
Why do you insist on ignoring that the heat transfer is a TIME FUNCTION? You keep wanting to ignore the fact that the earth has already lost E heat! CO2, as a reflector and not a source, can only return what has already been lost. And that reflected heat is immediately re-emitted because of slower cooling – EXACTLY AS PLANCK HAS EXPLAINED!
Until you understand that heat transfer is a time function you are never going to figure this out! If the earth has lost “E” heat, which you’ve already admitted, and only gets back 1/2E then it has LOST a total of 1/2E heat. IT HAS COOLED, just at a slower rate!
Pointless arguing with some who uses so many explanation marks – “a sure sign of a diseased mind.” but this one quote seems to sum up the issue.
“The energy is E(sun) – E(lost heat) + 1/2E(reflected heat). The earth will STILL have cooled by 1/2E!!!!!”
Tim is here arguing the E – E + 1/2E = -1/2E, where as I, with no concept of basic math, thinks it equals +1/2E.
Tim’s problem, I suspect, is he only sees one side of the equation, the loss of energy rather than the net change in energy. He thinks that as the Earth is emitting energy it means it is cooling, rather than see that if it receives more energy than it is emitting it will warm.
“Tim is here arguing the E – E + 1/2E = -1/2E”
you can’t even distinguish heat loss from heat gain. Talk about a diseased mind!
“Case in point, why do you think the sun is going to be passed over the Earth at an infinite velocity? And why do you think Einstein was wrong?”
ROFL! You are still flailing. I am trying to show you that the heat transfer functional relationship is a time function and not a static function.
“Says someone who won’t even acknowledge that almost every “skeptic” accepts that the greenhouse effect is real.”
Says the person that doesn’t believe that reflected heat is heat that has already been lost and is, instead, “new” heat.
“And now resorts to strawman lies rather than accept that he might not understand what the word “reflect” means.”
Dictionary.com
reflect
verb (used with object)
You are still flailing. You can only cast back what has already been sent.
“Show the math that proves that is a converging series”
Any comment on my math yet, and are you going to show your own maths.
“is both receiving a lot of heat from the Sun, and less heat from the atmosphere. It’s”
The Earth is just getting back PART of what it has already emitted. As Planck says that heat it gets from the reflector (CO2) gets re-emitted leaving the Earth with less heat than it started with. I.E. COOLING! The Earth can’t cool and warm at the same time from reflected heat.
Again, your assertion leads to the incorrect conclusion that a cooler body can warm a warmer body.
It can’t do that. Never has, never will. It just slows down the cooling which is how it gets rid of the reflected heat.
“The Earth is just getting back PART of what it has already emitted.”
Along with a near constant amount from the sun.
“…leaving the Earth with less heat than it started with. I.E. COOLING!”
Leaving it with the re-emitted energy, plus the constant amount each day from the sun. Do I have to write in block capitals before you can understand that the sun still shines.
“Again, your assertion leads to the incorrect conclusion that a cooler body can warm a warmer body.”
A cooler body can not warm a warmer body in a closed system. But the Earth and it’s atmosphere is not a closed system. If the atmosphere results in the Earth losing heat more slowly, whilst at the same time getting a constant amount of energy from the sun, it will warm.
“It just slows down the cooling which is how it gets rid of the reflected heat. ”
It is not reflected heat. But regardless, slowing down the heat loss is what causes warming.
To make it easier for you to understand, consider what happens at night when the sun is not shining. The dark part of the Earth cools down. If there is an atmosphere it cools down more slowly. As a result the minimum night time temperature is warmer with an atmosphere than without – hence the atmosphere warms the night time Earth. And by warms, I mean it has a higher temperature.
“If the atmosphere results in the Earth losing heat more slowly, whilst at the same time getting a constant amount of energy from the sun, it will warm.”
ROFL. If the sun’s output is constant and CO2 (the cooler object) doesn’t warm the Earth then what drives the Earth’s temperature higher? This would mean the Earth would have a rising temperature since it coalesced into a planet! It would still be a molten ball.
“If the sun’s output is constant and CO2 (the cooler object) doesn’t warm the Earth then what drives the Earth’s temperature higher?”
The CO2 along with the other GHGs. Surely you’ve figure that out by now.
“This would mean the Earth would have a rising temperature since it coalesced into a planet! It would still be a molten ball.”
Stop trolling. How many times have I mentioned equilibrium temperature.
Let me try to explain again as simply as I can.
Without atmosphere:
With atmosphere:
Why do you think it is higher?
Tell you what, when the sun is directly above a point on the earth, show us the surface temperature at that point and time.
Assume the albedo is 30%. Assume absorptivity/emissivity is 1 or whatever you think is correct. Assume 1360 W/m².
Then tell us how much GHE “back radiation” raises that temperature.
See if you can reconcile a surface temperature 33°C higher than what you calculate.
“Tell you what, when the sun is directly above a point on the earth, show us the surface temperature at that point and time.”
The temperature of the Earth is not the temperature of a single point when the sun is directly overhead.
The earth is far enough away from the sun that the wavefront is considered to be a plane wave. You *can* calculate the impact of a plane wave on a point.
Or are you trying to weasel out of your claims by asserting that local weather determines the temperature? if that is the case how does infilling and homogenization of temperatures work?
NO!
A higher temperature means the total heat has gone up. That’s how the term “trapped heat” came about in climate science.
It violates Planck. The reflected heat is heat that has already been LOST. If the atmosphere was a perfect reflector the atmosphere could only return 100% of what the earth radiated away – THAT is equilibrium! But that reflected heat would *NOT* raise the temperature of the earth one iota!
Assuming that replacing the amount of heat that has already been lost will raise the temperature of the earth beyond where it started creates a runaway condition where the temperature will climb to a point where the earth is nothing but a ball of plasma! It violates *all* of the laws of thermodynamics.
Your reading skills are non-existent. Read Planck’s quote over and over 100 times and maybe it will begin to make sense to you – but I doubt it.
One more time – replacing heat that has already been lost simply can’t increase the temperature of anything. Slower cooling means a higher heat loss per unit time – compensation for the reflected heat.
An object (Object1) that cools from 1000° to 900° in one unit time will not radiate away as much heat as an object (Object2) that cools from 1000° to 950° in the same unit time. But both COOL. Their temperatures both go DOWN, not up. Neither “warm”. Object2 may have a lower temperature gradient because of reflected heat but its temperature will *never* go up. That lower temperature gradient dumps more heat per unit time in order to compensate for the reflected heat.
Climate science will never understand this because it never looks at radiative heat transfer as a time function. It simply says Sun(source) + CO2(reflected) raises the temperature of the earth. It doesn’t. It can only slow cooling which means MORE heat loss per unit time. The only heat gain in the system is from the source, the Sun.
“It violates Planck. The reflected heat is heat that has already been LOST.”
How many more times does it need to be explained that we are not talking about reflected heat?
“Assuming that replacing the amount of heat that has already been lost will raise the temperature of the earth beyond where it started creates a runaway condition where the temperature will climb to a point where the earth is nothing but a ball of plasma!”
Just as well that’s not what happens then. The Earth received more energy than it loses, warms up, loses more heat as it does do, and eventually reaches a point where energy out equals energy in. At which point it stops warming.
“An object (Object1) that cools from 1000° to 900° in one unit time will not radiate away as much heat as an object (Object2) that cools from 1000° to 950° in the same unit time. But both COOL.”
Gee, you don’t say. But it has no relevance to what we are discussing. Start with a planet with no atmosphere, see what temperature it is. Now add an atmosphere and see what happens to the temperature. If it goes up, then I say it is warming. Your cooling more slowly is irrelevant to that. The planet will cool at night, but if it cools more slowly it will still be a warmer temperature. During the day it will warm and if it warms more quickly it will be a higher temperature and so it will have warmed.
“Climate science will never understand this”
By climate science you mean people like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Lindzen and Happer.
The Earth does *NOT* receive more heat than it loses. Reflected heat HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST!
What do you think Planck is saying about reflected heat?
Meaning it is losing heat at a higher rate! It is a time function. COOLER TEMPERATURES ARE NOT WARMING” They are cooling! Can you simply not comprehend the contradiction you are asserting?
Go look up the term “lapse rate” for Pete’s sake!
“Reflected heat HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST!”
And again, I am not talking about reflected heat.
“Meaning it is losing heat at a higher rate! It is a time function. COOLER TEMPERATURES ARE NOT WARMING” They are cooling!”
It’s almost like you don’t want to understand.
it is one more instance of using averages to attempt to prove a point.
I remember not being able to take Statics and Dynamics Engineering until passing two semesters of calculus. Statics can pretty much be done with algebra since everything has a single unique value. Dealing with time based functional relationships requires the use of calculus.
One can read Planck’s works without knowing calculus, but if one doesn’t follow through the mathematics used when dealing with Maxwell’s equations and other people’s functional relationships, one will never understand how everything comes together.
“Dealing with time based functional relationships requires the use of calculus”
Any time based function should give you the same answer as the static solution, or there’s something fundamentally wrong. The static solution is just the limit if the tome based function.
If you are using calculus and ending up with a solution that says the world is just going to keep cooling or warming indefinitely, then I suspect your calculus is wrong. Which would not be surprising considering how badly wrong you are when handling even the simplest linear equations.
Spot on.
You are doing your usual opining with nothing to back you up. Show us some math or other thermodynamics texts that support your position.
You seem to have a mental block about this. Ask yourself why Body A doesn’t raise the temperature of body Bi.
What is the final temperature of the bodies if the various bodies all raise the temperature of each other?
Is one random piece of text I found explaining it.
“Ask yourself why Body A doesn’t raise the temperature of body Bi.”
Because it’s a closed system and A is colder than B’.
“What is the final temperature of the bodies if the various bodies all raise the temperature of each other?”
0K if they are all radiating into space with no generated heat.
“thus increasing the net downward radiative flux at the surface.”
Again, this is where climate science loses it thermodyamically according to Planck.
If part of that flux is REFLECTION then it is doing nothing but replacing heat that has already been lost. And that causes nothing but re-emission of the reflected heat by slower cooling.
It’s a TIME function and gradient, not a simple addition at a fixed point in time! Returning what has already been lost can’t raise temperature!
If Body A is cooling, then how does Body B raise the temperature of Body A?
You just said, “A is emitting more heat so cools”. Then turn around and say it warms!
SB between Body Bi and Body A.
I = (5.67×10⁻⁸)(1273⁴ – 373⁴) = 1.45×10⁵
SB between Body A and Body C
I = (5.67×10⁻⁸)(373⁴ – 273⁴) = 7.82×10²
Both of these show positive net radiation, hot to cold.
Show us these two equations when thermal equilibrium occurs and all the bodies have the same temperature.
“If Body A is cooling, then how does Body B raise the temperature of Body A?”
Are you just going to keep asking the same inane questions whilst ignoring the answer? The answer will always be the same – it’s the sun.
You said earlier that the sun’s impact was constant. How can a constant source continue to raise the temperature of a passive receptor? That’s a runaway condition that results in the passive receptor becoming a ball of plasma!
“How can a constant source continue to raise the temperature of a passive receptor?”
It doesn’t. What will rise the temperature is adding an additional heat source.
“That’s a runaway condition that results in the passive receptor becoming a ball of plasma!”
You keep claiming to understand all this, yet never seemed to have noticed the general principle that temperatures move towards an equilibrium. As temperature rises, so do the emissions. At some point energy on equals energy out.
Of course he is. The GHE cultists believe that adding CO2 to air makes the surface hotter.
They are too scared to say what they believe, for fear of the derisive laughter which would follow.
“The GHE cultists believe that adding CO2 to air makes the surface hotter.”
It’s what this Lindzen-Happer document says. Are you saying they are GHE cultists?
Distraction from the point.
If you are referring to the Sun warming the Earth, then the Earth cools. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Why ask a silly question if you already know the answer?
Ah Ferdinand, you and others are dealing with MF, BN, and RW’s incorrect assumptions that they “know” to be correct and won’t revisit. Best you can do is comment they are wrong and prevent some other site reader from joining the KliKlulessKlan.
The oceans control the climate and only direct sunlight can warm its surface. It is impossible for CO2 to warm the ocean.
Spot on.
Well, technically when they add CO2 to a greenhouse to augment plant growth, that can be legitimately called a greenhouse gas.
That bit of humor aside, I fully agree. Anytime someone adapts the bogus jargon and hijacked and repurposed words with new definitions, that someone is augmenting the credibility of the Climate Mafia.
But you totally ignore the fact that in the hours between sunset and sunrise it is the atmosphere of Earth— including the “greenhouse gases” water vapor, CO2 and methane—that prevents the tremendous radiative cooling directly to deep space that would otherwise occur.
As others have pointed out, the Moon’s surface when not illuminated by sunlight gets as cold as -208°F (-133°C) at its equator, specifically because the Moon does not have an atmosphere.
You see, “measurements of infrared radiation leaving the Earth by 250-mile-high satellites” DO have relevance for its surface temperature . . . but you have to consider the whole Earth, not just the sunlit half of it. Simple.
Reply to ToldYouSo
Of course you’re right about the nighttime but also irrelevant.
I distinguish gas insulation warming from magical greenhouse gas warming. In the
latter case you are relying on the infrared absorption features of the greenhouse gas
(CO2) supposedly doing the warming. In the former case it is just the fact that ANY
atmospheric gas under some pressure (as exists on Earth and most assuredly Venus but not
on the Moon) does not conduct nor convect heat that fast from the surface of a world
(certainly not as fast as radiation — it’s an example of the tortoise and the hare, big
time, in that case). In gas insulation warming, which is so much more significant in
keeping the heat of an atmosphere-containing world trapped near its surface vis-a-vis
radiation (and which therefore proves the very limited role that “greenhouse” infrared
radiation plays, fast though not voluminous, in transferring heat on any world), ALL gases
contribute, whether they absorb infrared radiation or not, and therefore there exists no
special role for CO2 in warming such a world, contrary to the demonization-of-CO2
hypothesis of the global warming wackadoodles. It remains true that the sunlight I was
describing is (almost) the sole source of the heat that warms a world.
Also, while I thank profusely those commentators who supported my position relative to
Mr. Engelbeen’s less-than-sterling criticisms (quoting a 2010 “article” from
scienceofdoom.com?), I must say some of their arguments were not well-taken because they
ignored the time-dependent, steady-state dynamism of the weather and temperatures of
Earth. Thus it is theoretically possible for Earth’s surface heat to effectively do a
double-whammy on the warming of itself in this dynamic process (such as it does with
insulation warming). But my differential argument remains rock solid: given the
ridiculously high absorptivity of certain frequencies of infrared radiation by CO2 gas,
doubling its concentration in our atmosphere, or even quintupling it (you can’t go any
higher than that due to geological CO2 absorption processes kicking in), “will not change
this physical warming effect, to whatever miniscule amount it might exist,
W.H.A.T.S.O.E.V.E.R.”. This means, besides the fact that any attempts to maintain those
concentrations in our atmosphere at present levels will have insanely catastrophic side
effects, and will be entirely compromised by other countries doing the opposite of our net
zero efforts, even if somehow successful they will be utterly futile.
And it also remains true that satellite measurements of infrared radiation leaving the
earth are also irrelevant. People do not live high in the atmosphere. They live on the
surface of the Earth. To paraphrase what they say about Las Vegas: what happens up there
stays up there.
David Solan
Spot on. GHE violate 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.
GHE violates science. It is a bogus expression.
Winning!
Excellent.
After reading all the comments to date I have come to the conclusion that everyone at this rodeo has their own hobby horse that they will ride unto death, except Nick, his horse died years ago, but he just keeps flogging it, hoping to revive it.
It is not CO2 that warms the air.
It is the 70+% of the surface covered in water.
Water is a huge heat sink and store the vast bulk of energy received from the sun.
The earth energy systems are coupled heat engines fueled by the energy stored in the oceans.
The could are the governor for the heat engine.