By Charles T Blaisdell PhD ChE
Abstract
The mathematical world of climate change is dominated by radiation, W/m^2, shortwave, SW, and longwave, LW. Many diagrams show radiation arrows going up and down all entering or exiting the top of the atmosphere, TOA, see Figure 1 for an example. The NOAA diagram (2) show SW in is equal to LW out. If SW in does not equal LW out we have climate change. The 20 year separate studies by Loeb (5) and Dubal (4) both show that the SW in and LW out are not equal over the 20 years. Leaving the questions: when did the departure from equality start, how long has it been going, what caused it, when will it stop, and is it real?
Figure 1 NOAA The Earth – Atmosphere Energy Balance, (2) (all # are in % of sun’s irradiation)
Irradiance is radiation over time, W/m^2-yr. That is: the average radiation over one year. Radiation is not energy. Irradiance is energy. This essay will show that the earth’s Enthalpy (energy) can be related to LW irradiance out. The Loeb and Dubal data only covers 20 years. The Physical Science Laboratory, PSL, cover data since 1948 from which enthalpy can be calculated.
This essay will calculate the total energy of all the annual global sources of enthalpy since 1948 from NOAA’s PSL (1) data. The enthalpy, kJ/m^2 – yr, results were converted to irradiance, W/m^2-yr. The 75 year plot of the calculated irradiance shows a good correlation to Loeb and Dubal results and suggests that the departure in SW and LW radiation started about 1975 (+/- 10). No suggestion of CO2 radiative forcing was found (no decreasing LW irradiance). The results show that atmospheric water has a small contribution to total irradiance but a significant contribution to the change in irradiance.
Methods and calculations
The diagram above shows that the total outgoing LW (TOA) irradiance is about 70% ( 240 W/m^2) of the sun’s total SW irradiance and is equal to the non-reflected incoming SW irradiance. This outgoing LW (TOA) irradiance can be divided into 4 sources that account for the 240 W/m^2:
En(total) = En(1) + En(2) + En(3) + En(4) = H * En(total) = 240 W/m^2 = Irr(total) Eq(1)
Where En(num) is the annual enthalpy of one of the 4 TOA sources of enthalpy below.
Conversion factor, H, for kJ/m^2 – yr to W/m^2 – yr Eq(2)
D = 0.278 W-hr/kJ conversion factor
E = 8760 hr/year
G = 5.15/E+14 m^2 surface area of earth
H = D * E / G W/m^2/kJ for one year Eq(3)
H = 6.16E-20 W/m^2/kJ – yr
- The atmosphere’s temperature (no water) TOA Enthalpy. The earth’s atmosphere is a complex zone where on an annual basis many energy forces come to equilibrium and the surviving irradiation makes it to TOA. The enthalpy can be calculated from the temperature, mass, and absolute heat capacity of an atmospheric profile and converted to irradiation. NOAA’s Physical Science Laboratory (1), PSL, provides annual temperature data for 6 atmospheric pressures (zones). (The temperatures were converted from anomalies to actual if needed.)
En(1) = (T(z1) + T(z2))/2 *) * Cs(air) + Cp(air) ) * M(z1) = H * En(1) = Irr Eq(4)
(repeated for each pressure zone and summed)
Where En is annual enthalpy, Irr is annual Irradiance , T is temperature in kelvin, M is mass, Cs is the specific heat, and Cp is absolute heat capacity, and the number in () is one of the 6 atmospheric pressure zones. The enthalpy for all 6 zones was added and converted to annual irradiance for atmospheric temperature. Note that the Cp is the absolute heat capacity of air from 0’K not the relative heat capacity at 0’C.
These 6 zones are far from ideal, but it is all we have. Let’s see how it works out. This analysis covers about 99% of the atmosphere’s mass. (Ending in the middle of the stratosphere at a temperature of -58.5’C , assumed to be constant with time.) There is no accounting for the remaining mass of the stratosphere and mesosphere were ozone in absorbing UV radiation.
- Atmospheric water TOA Enthalpy. The water data in PSL was treated in a similar manner with PSL data for specific humidity
En(2) = ( (SH(z1)+SH(z2))/2 )*Cp(water)+Cs(water)*(T(z1)+T(z1)/2 ) )*M(z1) =
H*En(2)=Irr(1) Eq(5)
(repeated for each pressure zone and summed)
Where SH is specific humidity, Cs(water) is the specific heat of water, and Cp(water) is the absolute heat capacity of water relative to 0’K not the relative heat capacity at 0’C.
- Ocean’s TOA enthalpy. The earth’s oceans where the majority sun’s SW irradiance (that is not reflected) is absorbed and readmitted to the atmosphere as water vapor, returned as rain, convection energy, and a small amount of LW irradiance makes to the TOA. This small TOA LW irradiance is a function to the ocean’s surface thickness (assume 1 meter), effective area of SST measurement, heat capacity of water, and average surface sea temperature, SST, of the ocean’s surface. The area of ocean involved in this source of irradiation will be changed to match Dubal data at year 2006.
En(3) = T(SST) * surface thickness * surface area * Cp(water) Eq(6)
- Land’s TOA enthalpy. The land where the sun’s SW irradiance (that is not reflected) is absorbed and readmitted to the atmosphere similar to the ocean’s where the bulk of irradiation goes to the atmosphere and a small amount makes it to TOA. This small TOA LW irradiance is a function of thickness (assume 1 meter), effective area (same % as ocean’s), heat capacity of land, and lower atmosphere temperature.
En(4) = T(1) * surface thickness * surface area * Cp(land) Eq(7)
Results
(attached is the excel work sheet, here)
(If this mathematical exercise has been done by someone else please let me know in the comments.)
The assumptions of 1 meter surface thickness for both ocean and land and fit to the Dubal 2006 data point resulted in a reasonable 68% area where SST data average data for ocean was taken, land was set at the same 68%. The 75 year plot of the calculated LW outgoing irradiance shows a detectable increase in irradiance after about 1975 and a flat trend from 1948 to 1975, see Figure 2.
When the Dubal data is overlaid over the calculated irradiance data’s slope the fit to Dubal data’s slope is reasonable, Figure 3. (The Dubal 2006 data was used to adjust the calculated irradiance to one point: therefore, only the slope of the data is significant.) The calculated irradiance seems to have a lower standard deviation than the CERES data.
Temperature dominates the enthalpy and irradiance calculation thus Figure 2 is about the same shape as a temperature plot. The calculation does come out very close to measured irradiance values which could be an indication of the accuracy of the PSL data.
The 2023 distribution of the earth’s irradiance shown in Figure 4 indicates that the atmosphere’s temperature is the main accounting of irradiance at TOA. Water is a very small contributor to the total irradiance.
Looking at the change in irradiance from 1975 to 2022 the atmospheric temperature and water show a significant contribution to the change with water changing the most, Figure 5. Since temperature and water are related, this observation suggests that the change is related to a change in the earth’s water cycle.
If CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) where involved in the irradiance vs time graph there would be a decrease in irradiance with time, this was not observed
Of interest is the atmospheric profile of irradiance to TOA from each PSL zone. Figure 6 shows the lower altitude zones with their higher mass have the lowest irradiation to TOA while the higher altitude zones with lower mass have higher irradiation to TOA. This is the expected result, giving confidence to this analysis.
Discussion
This mathematical exercise was done to see how close calculated irradiance would come to measured irradiance and to prove that climate models using enthalpy instead of radiation or irradiation were valid. (The CRGW (3) model is a enthalpy based model). With the non-ideal PSL data for this task and the assumption this exercise came very close to the measured annual outgoing LW irradiation. This gives some validity to the annual enthalpy correlations to cloud fraction and vapor pressure deficit, VPD. used in the CRGW model.
Annual enthalpy is pseudo annual LW irradiation.
Bibliography
- NOAA The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance web link The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- “Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW 101. A Competitive Theory to CO2 Related Global Warming” (2025), by Charles Blaisdell, web link Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW 101. A Competitive Theory to CO2 Related Global Warming – Watts Up With That?
- “Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020” by Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt web link: Atmosphere | Free Full-Text | Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 | HTML (mdpi.com)
- Norman G. Loeb,Gregory C. Johnson,Tyler J. Thorsen,John M. Lyman,Fred G. Rose,Seiji Kato web link Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate – Loeb – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent article!
Results…
Getting the right answer used to be what it was all about. But that was then and this is now.
…argument against math is that it is inherently racist and needs to be made antiracist. That is accomplished by undermining the notion of right and wrong answers, by getting rid of the expectation that students show their work, by referring to mathematical testing tools as racist, and by doing away with accelerated math classes.
If that sounds like a caricature, I urge you to read this whole document, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
https://www.thefp.com/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-white-math
Gates knows programming and he knows why the maths have to be right – SQL Server etc etc You can’t mess around with that being politically correct. He’s dividing by zero.
But then, today’s climate science is a curious blend of painfully tortured data and wholly invented data they like to call extrapolated, fed into a number cruncher. Their statistical analyses are equally flawed, one might fairly call them hockey stick generators.
What Does It Show About Climate Change
We don’t know half as much as the alarmists like to think we do.
Yes, why don’t climate scientists just concentrate on getting us to the point where we know all that we don’t know, and then take it from there.
Governments need to accept that they’re using taxpayers money to fund “research”, not “hypotheses”.
(Sheesh, even I can provide hypotheses for free).
Yes, why don’t climate scientists just concentrate on getting us to the point where we know all that we don’t know, and then take it from there.
Governments need to accept that they’re using taxpayers money to fund “research”, not “hypotheses”.
(Sheesh, even I can provide hypotheses for free).
Government employees know there are getting paid with taxpayer funds. However, there are true believers that mankind is the enemy and those that do what they do because they are told to do so.
We as taxpayers must come the realization that government does not work for you (taxpayers), it works for those that can pay for it …..
Heck, out of 153.6 million tax returns my little project only costs $1 per return, so why should I care. /s
Dunno why my comment appeared twice.
Maybe because I dropped my phone when I pressed SEND, then maybe I pressed it again when I picked it up?
Nice article. I very much appreciate the mathematical derivation using empirical data. Many of us have insisted over the last several years that enthalpy is the only reasonable value to use in the transport of energy throughout the atmosphere. Your derivation proves that enthalpy to calculate the energy transports has validity. As always more data and longer times will prove its correctness. I suspect that will occur.
This article proves that climate science needs to reevaluate their preoccupation with ΔT and CO2 concentration correlation. The science community needs to concentrate on designing and implementing a comprehensive measurement system to provide better information about enthalpy (energy) movement in the atmosphere. They could easily do so by admitting that prior work is preliminary only with a high degree of uncertainty and requesting funding to develop a better system of evaluating atmospheric transport.
Yes. Just like weather apps have begun including “feels like temperature,” it feels like climate models confuse independent and dependent variables.
feels like temperature
Once upon a time the forecasters – like Michael ‘Hurricane’ Fish – would give the [wintertime] temperatures and add a wind chill factor, so in the wind it would feel quite a bit colder than advertised.
But now, they say 15C feels like 19C or similar. That’s just silly.
Are you of the opinion that humidity has no impact on how dangerous high temperatures can be?
What high temperatures? Where?
Correlation does not prove causation.
A & B appear to be correlated.
A causes B
B causes A
X causes A & B
A is independent from B
One can not determine strictly from the correlation which of the possibilities is correct.
Correlation does serve as a cause to investigate.
Well, I would argue that EVERY correlation is a cause for investigation. The investigation should be clearly designed to show which of the options you describe above is true, but just because you don’t know which one it is doesn’t mean there should be no investigation. Not knowing which it is *IS* the argument for the investigation.
That’s literally what Sparta said, that correlation is a cause for investigation, i.e., a reason to investigate.
Also there can be a causation with no correlation. Take an alternating current, and a dc current after passing through a rectifier. The correlation of the ac and dc is zero over a whole number of periods.
True that correlation does not prove causation. But causation generally involves causation and so is worthy of investigation.
I do hope some of the more technically-skilled climate scientists who frequent WUWT assess this analysis for its validity in calculation and appropriateness of implications. I’ve always thought the pure temperature-based models had to be wrong for their failure (I believe) to deal with enthalpy effectively. I’ve wondered what an enthalpy-based analysis of climate dynamics would show but never have seen one — although there could be such in the academic literature, which I do not read natively.
Planet Earth has multiple coupled energy systems.
The climate model is wrong. It does not satisfy the basics of systems engineering.
The model:
CO2 is input
IR is transfer function
Temperature is output
The BS alarm is sounding at ear splitting decibel levels.
An “enthalpy-based” analysis is fraught with peril, which is really glossed over in the above article.
To properly bookkeep using “enthalpy” once must accurately account for:
— the heat content that moves into and out of the world’s oceans (extremely difficult, even with the Agro float array data, due to global subsurface circulation currents moving heat energy horizontally and vertically) as well as the very large heat capacity of liquid water and the total mass of the world’s oceans
— the heat content that is “tied up” in the phase changes of water (liquid <—> vapor, and liquid <—> ice) via the latent heats of vaporization/condensation and latent heats of freezing/thawing, respectively) and does not appear as a temperature change.
— ultimately, since energy arrives at and leaves Earth only as radiation (in physical terms of power and not enthalpy), one has to “down convert” incoming power to enthalpy, perform enthalpy-based booking of its “balance on Earth” over some given time period, while simultaneously “up converting” enthalpy to outgoing radiation as part of that mathematical balancing . . . very complicated!
BTW, one similarly cannot use a model based only on temperature to perform any kind of calculation for Earth’s energy/power balance due to the presence of the above-mentioned latent heats associated with the phase changes of water (a key past of Earth’s hydrologic cycle).
Excellent points. Atmospheric temperature is a poor proxy for atmospheric heat content.
Yes it is, according to the IAEA, which states
No offense intended, but maybe you meant to say something else. The rest of the post is quite nonsensical, including vague terms like “TOA”, and making the meaningless statement
Nonsensical word salad. Climate is the statistics of weather observations – nothing more nothing less. The plain facts are that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years to its present temperature, and currently loses about 44 TW – which is certainly cooling, albeit measured in millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Others may choose to ignore reality if they wish.
He posted the correct term, irradiance.
Just like W/m^2 is not energy. It is power density.
Hmmm, no uncertainties provided for any of the irradiance values…
Valid point. Except this was not a precision calculation, per se, it is an explanation of how the process works.
Whenever I see solar radiation divided into just two wavelengths, “short” and “long”, my radar detector starts beeping. Reality is infinitely more complex than this, but this is how climatology deals with the subject.
I agree with that fully.
I don’t have a problem with starting at an “ideal” set of assumptions in order to start an analysis.
That’s what got my alarm bells originally. CO2 being a control knob for temperature? Yeah right, now tell me a bridge!
Thee CERES data is not particularly accurate. The repeatability should be sound. So it is useful for assessing trends, not absolutes.
The radiation instruments are calibrated to the ocean heat content so the accuracy of that measurement is what the radiation balance rests on.
There is no particular reason to expect Earth to ever be in radiation balance. Earth’s relationship to the Sun and the Sun’s output are the drivers of Earth’s climate. It takes energy to store ice on land and energy to remove the ice. And there are numerous other energy sources and sinks that work over different time scales. For example, we know biomass is presently increasing. Coral is constantly sequestering CO2 as well.
The energy being stored in the oceans is presently in the region of the Ferrell Cells. More in the Southern Hemisphere than the NH despite the NH warming more than SH.
?ssl=1
Your conclusion regarding CO2:
Is not how the GCM jockeys view it. They now claim they have always said that CO2 induced warming would have a positive feedback with clouds and cause them to reduce. So showing an upward trend in OLR is supporting the CO2 warming story. To be convincing, you must show what has caused the warming to then cause the OLR to increase. The vast majority of people are convinced it’s CO2. Right now, those still getting funds are hard at it adjusting their cloud parameters to achieve the positive feedback.
On the other hand, very few people appreciate how much Earth moves relative to the Sun. Many people do not understand orbital precession. Any useful model of Earth’s climate must start with sunlight and the way it changes across the surface from day-to-day, season-to-season, year-to-year and so on. This might help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/04/high-resolution-earth-orbital-precession-relative-to-climate-weather/
You first must show why ocean heat is accumulating predominantly in the region of the Ferrell Cells. The validity of the radiation data all depends on the ocean heat data. So oceans heat should be the starting point for validation any theory. And it must exhibit the peaks in the region of the Ferrell Cells in both hemispheres.
The GCM jockeys violate Kirchhoff’s law constantly as the earth turns.
The repurposed engineering terms like feedback using social context definitions, not engineering definitions.
You know this. I am just ranting.
Leaving aside for the moment the numerous methodological issues in your analysis, this remark:
misunderstands how radiative forcing by CO2 manifests in the Earth’s energy budget. A decreasing in OLR is an instantaneous response to increasing CO2. The response to this drop is an increase in surface temperature, which increases OLR as the planet warms. Loeb (which you cite extensively) explains this clearly:
You do not know much about atomic physics, that is clear.
It is also clear you know next to nothing about electro magnetic fields and waves.
You may know who Maxwell was, though.
Radiative forcing by CO2 violates Kirchhoff’s Law.
“Heat trapping” violates thermodynamics, and especially, physics.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy (aka kinetic energy) across a temperature gradient (hot to cold).
Trapping stops the flow and therefore there is no heat.
CO2 forcing does not violate any laws of physics. You seem to be conflating radiation exchange with conduction-based intuitions about heat flow. All bodies above absolute zero emit thermal radiation in all directions, with intensity determined by temperature. What matters is the net energy flow, which always goes from warmer to cooler. This is exactly what happens in the atmosphere and it’s fully consistent with how CO2 radiative forcing works.
AlanJ:”CO2 forcing does not violate any laws of physics.”
He only addressed Kirchhoff’s law. Can you explain this law and tell us why he is wrong?
Gases are not black bodies and do not radiate based on temperature.
Sure. Happy to explain.
Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation states that, at thermal equilibrium, a material’s emissivity equals its absorptivity at a given wavelength. That means: if a substance is good at absorbing radiation at a certain wavelength, it’s equally good at emitting radiation at that wavelength. This law holds for all materials, including gases, it just needs to be applied spectrally (wavelength by wavelength) and locally, not over the full blackbody curve unless you’re dealing with an ideal blackbody.
Now, it’s true that gases are not blackbodies. But Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t require them to be. Instead, gases like CO2 are selective absorbers and emitters; they interact strongly with radiation only in specific bands (e.g., around 15 microns for CO2). Within those bands, CO2 has high absorptivity and thus high emissivity. That means it both absorbs and emits infrared radiation in those bands, in full accordance with Kirchhoff’s Law.
The idea that gases “don’t radiate based on temperature” is simply incorrect. Gases emit radiation in specific spectral bands determined by their molecular structure (e.g., CO2 around 15 microns). Those absorption and emission wavelengths don’t depend on temperature. But the intensity of that radiation does depend on temperature: hotter gases emit more strongly within those same bands, following Planck’s law and consistent with their emissivity. So while CO2 always emits in the same wavelengths, the amount of radiation it emits increases as its temperature rises.
So, the claim that Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t apply or that gases don’t radiate based on temperature is wrong on both counts. CO2 emits IR radiation in exactly the same bands it absorbs it, and the amount it emits depends on its local temperature, just as Kirchhoff and Planck would predict.
This seems to stand well where CO2 is the only gas which in it’s IR band.
However, given that H2O highly overlaps the IR bands as CO2, I am curious how H2O vapor is treated. Particularly since world wide, H2O vapor is in greater concentration the CO2.
Radiative transfer models explicitly account for spectral overlap. The combined absorption of CO2 and H2O is not simply additive; the radiative impact of each gas is calculated by integrating over their absorption features, including where they overlap. So yes, water vapor can “fill in” some of the absorption, but CO₂ still makes a measurable, independent contribution, especially in the atmospheric layers where H₂O is minimal (such as the upper troposphere and stratosphere, where water vapor is sparse).
If you’re curious to explore this directly, you can experiment with the MODTRAN radiative transfer model here. Try changing CO2 or water vapor levels and observe how outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere responds. It’s a good way to visualize how each constituent affects Earth’s energy budget.
You keep talking about radiative emission from CO2. If a CO2 molecule absorbs, but then relaxes due to a collision, does that count as part of emissivity? If not, then absorptivity does not equal emissivity. You appear to have a limited knowledge of atmospherics.
You’re right that CO2 can lose absorbed energy through collisions, especially in the lower atmosphere. But emissivity is a macroscopic property that reflects the net radiative behavior of the gas under local thermodynamic equilibrium, not the fate of individual molecules.
Even if most excited CO2 molecules relax via collisions, the population of excited states (set by temperature) still leads to radiative emission at predictable rates and wavelengths. That’s why Kirchhoff’s Law still holds: CO2 absorbs and emits in the same bands, and emissivity equals absorptivity under LTE, which is something we directly observe in satellite spectra.
From post:” So while CO2 always emits in the same wavelengths, the amount of radiation it emits increases as its temperature rises.”
This is probably the oddest thing I have seen written here. You fully agree with me that CO2 doesn’t radiate at different frequencies based on temperature but throw in this foolish idea that it emits at the same frequencies but more intensely.
Here is an emissivity chart of CO2 showing it has zero emissivity below about 400k and as the temperature increases there is very little increase and the emissivity tends back to zero. The only thing that increases CO2 emissivity is pressure and the max we have here on earth is 1 atm.
AlanJ simply doesnt understand proper atmospheric physics as witnessed by his many posts. It is imo no use pointing it out any longer.
You’re misinterpreting the chart and its relevance to Earth’s atmosphere.
That emissivity chart comes from high-temperature combustion studies and shows band-averaged emissivity of CO2 over broad spectral ranges and for specific optical depths, it’s not representative of how CO2 behaves under Earth’s atmospheric conditions. In radiative transfer, what matters is spectral emissivity, which is nonzero for CO2 around 15 μm even at standard temperature and pressure.
You’re right that CO2 emits in the same spectral bands regardless of temperature, but the intensity of that emission increases with temperature, as dictated by Planck’s Law. That’s why satellites observe more IR emission from warmer lower layers of the atmosphere and less from the colder upper layers, all in CO2 bands.
The idea that CO2 has “zero emissivity” below 400 K is simply incorrect for atmospheric science. CO2 is a strong infrared emitter in its bands at all relevant atmospheric temperatures, a fact that is directly confirmed by satellite spectral observations.
Gasses *do* radiate based on temperature, as do all things, just not as do black bodies. This is particularly hard to recognize in common experience because the gasses we come into contact with at all times of every day are far too cold to irradiate at visible wavelengths, but for the most part don’t emit in mid-IR (which is where their blackbody equivalent would radiate) because of quantum mechanical selection rules – i.e., O2 and N2 can radiate vibrationally. But they can radiate in other ways and do. Those other ways are highly inefficient processes, especially in gasses, so yes it’s complicated, but they certainly radiate and that radiation certainly is based on temperature.
One should look at vibrational ( modes)and rotational aspects of molecules but that is usually a step too far for the general public interested in the topic.
You need to read Planck. CO2 is not a heat source. It can only reflect back what has already been lost by the original body. As such it cannot raise the temperature of the original body. The best a reflector can do is slow the cooling of the original body. That slower cooling results in more energy being radiated away per unit time, what Planck termed as “compensation”.
There is no such thing as “radiative forcing” from CO2. There is only reflection of what has already been list.
Again,
“It can only reflect back what has already been lost by the original body.”
It does not reflect, it absorbs and re-emitts. If it reflected the energy back then the surface would be receiving twice as much energy.
“As such it cannot raise the temperature of the original body.”
You keep forgetting that the sun is shining.
“The best a reflector can do is slow the cooling of the original body.”
I’ve asked before, but why do you think the Earth is cooling rather than being in equalibrium? What temperature did it start at, how quickly do you think it’s cooling, when do you think it will reach absolute zero?
“That slower cooling results in more energy being radiated away per unit time,”
And how does any body radiate more energy except by being warmer? You keep wanting to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Energy radiated increases with temperature. A cooling body can only radiate less energy.
“There is only reflection of what has already been list.”
Plus the continuous energy from the sun.
You’ve tried to nitpick this before and failed. You are failing now.
“Atoms and molecules don’t have either a racquet or energy to just “bat” that radiation and change its direction. It requires that atom or molecule to absorb the incident radiation so it can redirect it.”
Which is the difference between absorption and reflection. I just don;t understand why you keep wanting to confuse the issue by calling both reflection.
But whatever – you’re focusing on this to ignore all the other points.
This comes directly from Max Planck’s thesis on heat radiation.
If you cannot recognize that absorption and the resulting emission is similar to a reflection, then I suggest you get a copy of The Theory of Heat Radiation by Planck and spend the next six months studying it.
“then I suggest you get a copy of The Theory of Heat Radiation by Planck and spend the next six months studying it.”
Or, alternatively you could quote something that justifies your claim.
Here’s a quote from Planck: (my bolding)
Seems like two completely different things to me. Where does he say they are similar?
My point with Kirchhoff’s las is CO2 cannot created energy.
Correct. It can only reflect received energy. Climate science incorrectly views CO2 as being on fire.
Thankfully this is science, not politics.
Excellent!
Ah, a physics article written by a chemical engineer who apparently learned his “physics” from the professional liars calling themselves “climate scientists”. This should be entertaining. (It’s possible that the article is supposed to be parody, but it’s not labeled as such, so I’ll take it at face value.) Let’s see…
“The mathematical world of climate change is dominated by” [fake] “radiation, W/m^2”
You should add the word “fake” in there so that we know that you know what you are talking about.
“Many diagrams show radiation arrows”
Yes, and most of them are, as I said, fake, i.e. unmeasurable imaginary constructs – nothing but mathematical games. But you knew that, since you described the subject of this article as a (fictional) mathematical world, not the physical one that we actually live in.
“Radiation is not energy.”
Who told you that? It certainly wasn’t a physicist. Even Willis the fisherman knows better than that. Here is a Wikipedia article you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy . As it says there, “radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic[1] and gravitational radiation“. Can you explain to us what you think the phrase “the energy of electromagnetic radiation” means if “radiation is not energy”?
The rest of the article makes even less sense. Maybe you should stick to chemistry… physics obviously isn’t your bag. Unless you are just poking fun at untutored “climate scientists”?
Because radiation is not energy. Where did you get your physics degree? Energy is measured in Joules. Radiation is not – but in fairness “radiation” is a poorly defined term here. There are all kinds of “radiation.”
It’s the “energy” part pf the phrase “radiant energy” that makes it energy – not the “radiant” part – and “radiant” doesn’t mean “radiation”.
“Energy is measured in Joules. Radiation is not”
Only by non-physicists. It is a form of energy, and is measured in Joules like every other form of energy. Where did you get your physics degree?
When and where do you use the concept of “radiant energy” in your view of “radiation”? And what precisely do you think is the difference between “radiant [electromagnetic] energy” and “electromagnetic radiation”?
You should attach your concepts to temperature and latent heat/ kinetic energy otherwise all this talk about radiation being energy or not is irrelevant if we are talking atmospheric physics and the influence of the variables on the surface temperature.
The article author obviously doesn’t know the difference between energy, temperature, power, radiation, work, entropy, and latent heat, so none of that would help him at this stage, I wager. He needs to start with some fundamentals.
What’s the matter, Merrick? I was looking forward to an enlightening explanation of what “radiant energy” and “the energy of electromagnetic radiation” mean, if “[electromagnetic] radiation is not energy”. Then what is it, precisely? And where did you go? Have we exhausted your knowledge of physics already? That didn’t take long… but if that’s all you’ve got, then by all means insult me and run away. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Who taught you to behave like this? How old are you, anyway?
““Radiation is not energy.”
In terms of physics, that statement is absolutely true as is seen by comparing physical units of the two. Radiation is given in units of power (e.g., joules/sec) or alternatively power per unit area (e.g., joules/sec/m^2, whereas energy is given in units different from either of those (e.g., joules).
I do think even Willis Eschenbach, true scientist and mathematical analysis whiz, knows that.
Now, you were saying something about physics not being “someone’s bag” . . .
”
““Radiation is not energy.”
In terms of physics, that statement is absolutely true”
It absolutely isn’t. No measurement you can make will back up your claim, because it is false.
“Radiation is given in units of power”
Only by people who don’t know what “power” means, i.e. non-physicists. (Yes, there are a lot of them floating around) What do you think “power” means?
“I do think even Willis Eschenbach, true scientist and mathematical analysis whiz, knows that.”
He is not a “whiz” at anything except fishing, and he is the farthest thing from a “scientist”, but he did correctly tell us that “radiation is energy”, which is a good start. (Everything else he has written about radiation physics contradicts this statement of his, though, because although he can give the definition correctly, he has no idea how to use it in a sentence)
Now that’s funny! . . . I don’t have to think what “power” means. As defined in basic physics, power is the physical or theoretical transfer of energy per unit time. You can also find this basic definition in any good on-line dictionary (excluding alternative meanings, such as “power” in politics).
Please get back to me when you have a basic understanding of fundamental terms and units used in science.
Finally, there is no need for me to comment as to why Mr. Eschenbach chooses to ignore your posts . . . but please do carry on for the entertainment value your posts provide.
“power is the physical or theoretical transfer of energy per unit time”
More precisely, work per unit time. And under what circumstances do you think work will be done? And in the context of electromagnetic radiation, do you think objects can “emit work”?
Duhhh . . . in basic physics, “work” is defined as a force acting over a distance, being it linear distance or a rotational distance. The result is the creation, or consumption, depending on viewpoint, of a certain amount of energy. Hence, while it is true that work and energy can be expressed in the very same units (e.g., joules), it is NOT TRUE that work and energy are the same and thus it is also NOT TRUE that “power” is always the transfer of work per unit time, as you erroneously state.
Clear examples: (1) my cell phone consumes battery power, but it does zero work, and (2) my soldering iron get hot enough to melt tin using household electrical power, but it does zero work.
So I now have to go one step further since you ignored my previous advice: please don’t expect any further discourse since you don’t care to get even a basic understanding of the fundamental terms used in science.
“it is also NOT TRUE that “power” is always the transfer of work per unit time”
The Wikipedia definition says “Power is the rate with respect to time at which work is done”. Where did you get your fake definition from? Did you just hallucinate it? Even Willis knows better than that. He said “Power is work per unit time.” Are you disagreeing with him? He’s your “scientific hero”, isn’t he?
“my cell phone consumes battery power, but it does zero work”
What a dumb claim. I guess your 7th grade teacher hasn’t yet gotten around to explaining to you that there are multiple kinds of “work”, just as there are multiple kinds of “energy” to do work. Here are a few you can look up on Wikipedia when you have a moment to spare: “Work (physics)” (that’s the mechanical kind), “Work (thermodynamics)”, and “Work (electrical)” (that’s what your cell phone battery is providing). All of these involve the transfer or expenditure of energy, and the rate of each is, of course, naturally measured in Watts.
Maybe if you studied a bit more, you would sound less like an untutored buffoon, and make fewer ridiculous and obviously contradictory statements. Try it and see!
“don’t expect any further discourse”
Is that because you ran out of stupid and indefensible things to say? In that case, good riddance, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. And if you want to be more like your “mentor” Willis, don’t forget to yell “Pass!” a few times before you go. Who taught you to behave like this?
From the above article:
“The results show that atmospheric water has a small contribution to total irradiance but a significant contribution to the change in irradiance.”
Uhhhh . . . would that be “atmospheric water” only as a greenhouse gas (i.e., water vapor), or more properly as present in both vapor and condensed micro-droplet liquid phase, i.e. visible clouds?
In terms of radiation exchange and “balance” for Earth’s incoming and outgoing average power fluxes (W/m^2) there is a HUGE difference between the two. In fact clouds, through their induced processes of both reflection of incoming SW solar radiation and blockage of outgoing LW radiation off Earth’s surfaces and lower-altitude clear atmosphere layers, predominate as the prime variable in affecting the net power flux exchange, accounting on average for 67% of Earth’s total albedo.
“Cloud layers of various types cover about half the surface area of the earth. Depending upon their thickness and the angle of incidence of the sun, a local cloud layer may reflect anywhere from a negligible fraction to more than half of the incident solar radiation back to space before it is absorbed at the earth’s surface. Reflection by clouds accounts for about 2/3 of the solar radiation reflected back to space (i.e., 0.20 of the 0.30 planetary albedo).”
— https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/1998Q4/211/topics3.htm
So just imagine Earth’s power flux imbalances on those days/weeks when the Earth overall has minimal areal cloud coverage (can it approach 0%?) versus those days/weeks when the Earth has maximum areal cloud coverage (can it approach 100%?).
Since somewhat-accurate measurements of Earth’s global cloud coverage only began with weather-observation satellites (starting with TIROS-1, circe 1960), and accurate satellite monitoring of global cloud coverage only began with the NASA Terra satellite carrying the CERES instrument in 1999, it is a futile exercise to attempt to “calculate the total energy of all the annual global sources of enthalpy since 1948” as is stated in the above article.
IOW, no one can possibly know how Earth’s average annual global cloud coverage has varied from 1948 to the present.
There are places on earth with 0% water vapor and clouds.
Thank you for pointing out that the author neglected the contribution of clouds (i.e., the water cycle) in the energy balance calculation. However, that does not seem to e his only error. His two graphs of energy vs temp for dry air vs water obscure the orders of magnitude difference in energy content over the range 220-320K. Moreover he makes the statement that precipitation returns to the surface all the energy that it carried aloft, when it is obvious that only the potential energy, and not that released by condensation and even freezing, is returned to the surface. This phase-change energy is available at altitude as thermal energy of air and vapor to be radiated as LWR. Therefore, the assumption that the radiation from a single column of water vapor is relevant is not accurate. The earth’s precipitation in one day is the same order of magnitude as the total CO2 content (10^12 tonnes) and the energy transported to cloud altitude daily is several orders of magnitude greater than that supplied by a few extra molecules of CO2.
I may be misunderstanding this, but what does this mean?
“The enthalpy, kJ/m^2 – yr, results”
Enthalpy is measured in Joules, not joules per area per time.
Also
“En(total) = En(1) + En(2) + En(3) + En(4) = H * En(total) = 240 W/m^2 = Irr(total) Eq(1)”
How can
En(total) = H * En(total)
unless H = 1?
You make a valid point.
The problem is we have been too long exposed to furious repetitions of bad science language.
One can have energy per meter squared as a subset of the total. But the “- yr” should have be (x yr) to give the total energy over that time interval.
The = sign (bolded/underlined) probably should be omitted.
If you read the article, the purpose is to convert En(total) from
kJ/m^2 – yr to
W/m^2 – yr.
“The = sign (bolded/underlined) probably should be omitted.”
He repeats the mistake in other equations. I suspect the equals sign was meant to be “=>”, but greater than sign was stripped out. It’s not the correct use of the implies symbol, but it would make more sense.
“If you read the article, the purpose is to convert En(total) from
kJ/m^2 – yr to
W/m^2 – yr.”
And those units seem all over the place. What he’s trying to do is convert enthalpy measured in J, into Watt-years per square meter, and then equates that to an Irradiance of 240 W /m^2. I’m really not sure where the year comes into this..
And then there’s another typo
should be
H = D / E / G
Bellman, you are right that this particular author simply hasn’t the first clue about his physics. That’s not too surprising – he signs himself as a chemical engineer by profession. And he doesn’t appear to be inclined to defend any of his nonsense, so I’ll go out on a bit of a limb and classify him as a drive-by Dunning-Kruger charlatan. Units all over the place, indeed. That’s being polite.
Read this page.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cooling-heating-equations-d_747.html#:~:text=The%20sensible%20heat%20in
Look at the fundamental unit of enthalpy – kW. That is NOT Joules, it is Joules per second. Radiation intensity is Joules/sec•m². You need to show that the dimensional analysis when converting between units is incorrect. Start with W/m² and convert it into an equivalent enthalpy.
“Read this page.”
Why don’t you?
“Look at the fundamental unit of enthalpy – kW.”
No. It gives the unit of enthalpy as kJ/kg, which is really the specific enthalpy. E.g.
What you are linking to is heat measured in kW.
“Start with W/m² and convert it into an equivalent enthalpy.”
I don’t think you can – that’s my main problem with this argument. Enthalpy is not a flow of energy, it’s stored energy. It makes no sense to convert the energy in the Earth into watts.
You failed to address the issue you are dancing around.
You need to show that the dimensional analysis when converting between units is incorrect. Start with W/m² and convert it into an equivalent enthalpy.
“You need to show that the dimensional analysis when converting between units is incorrect.”
Why? I’m not saying you cannot make the dimensional analysis work – it’s trivial. Just that the author never seems to know what units he’s actually working with. My point though, was just becasue the units are correct does not mean the equation is meaningful.
“Start with W/m² and convert it into an equivalent enthalpy.”
That’s the opposite of what the author is doing – but fine, multiply W/m² by area and time and you get a value in joules. But that doesn’t tell you what the enthalopy of the planet is. just how much energy has been added.
Conversely, this article starts by estimating the enthalpy of the earth and then converting that to W/m² which he equates to irradiance, except he’s actually talking about “outgoing irradiance” which seems odd given that irradiance means the radiation received by the surface.
But he also says that “Irradiance is radiation over time, W/m^2-yr.”, yet he claims the outgoing irradiance is 240 W/m². As I say, I think he’s being inconsistent with his terms.
Now, if we take his equation 1
H * En(total) = 240 W/m^2 = Irr(total)
And correct his mistake so that
H = D / E / G
we have units for D of W-hr/kJ. Both Whr and J are units of energy, so there is no actual dimension to D. It’s just a conversion factor. But this is wrong. He’s actually dividing joules by a number of seconds to get watts, not watt-hours. So the actual dimension is T^(-1).
E = 8760 hr/year. hr/year would imply no dimension, T / T.
G = 5.15/E+14 m^2 is the surface area of the earth, it’s dimension is L².
H = D / E / G therefore would be T^(-1)L^(-2)
and multiplying by enthalopy, which is energy, dimensions T^(-2)L^2M, so multiplying by H, gives T^(-3)M.
A watt is a unit of power, so has dimensions T^(-3)L^2M, hence we have a final dimension of PL^(-2), i.e. W/m^2.
But this is assuming, correctly, that enthalpy is a measure of energy in kJ, and not as the author claims kJ/m^2 – yr, and that irradiance is W/m^2, and not as the author claims W/m^2-yr.
If you don’t agree then show your own dimension analysis.
But as I said, this is still all nonsense as just converting enthalpy to W/m^2 does not mean you have calculated irradiance. All you are actually seeing is seeing the watts per square meter you squeezed out all the earths energy over the period of a year.
The page Jim linked was referring to sensible heat in relation to heat flow, so I’m not sure why he conflated it with enthalpy – https://www.britannica.com/science/enthalpy
The problem he was trying to solve is converting the incoming insolation in W/m² into a value that uses enthalpy for outgoing energy. The use of conversion factors he has calculated appear to do the job
It was purely a pedant point, because pedantry is vital in my field.
Enthalpy is specified in Joules. Joules per second is the rate of change.
Enthalpy is certainly a far better metric than temperature. It’s denominated in Joules, as is the change in enthalpy. It’s the rate of change which is denominated in Watts.
“The problem he was trying to solve is converting the incoming insolation in W/m² into a value that uses enthalpy for outgoing energy.”
You obviously understand what he was trying to better than he does. Cam you point to the specific equations / algorithm he used and what his conclusions were.
As far as I can see, it would be s futile exercise as enthalpy as such does not determine outgoing radiation. That depends on temperature. Nor is it possible to determine the planets enthalpy just by looking at the rate of incoming radiation. What would make far more sense would be to look at the change of enthalpy to estimate the net energy flow, or visa versa.
Jim can’t even define “power” correctly, so good luck trying to teach him any actual physics 🙂 Start with the fundamentals, that’s what I always recommend. I wonder if he has completed that basic physics course I assigned him yet?
I’m trying not to be too much of a curmudgeon here, because as several have already said there is some nice work here and I don’t want to be a jerk when you’ve done some nice work. But I frankly find it hard to read past the first few sentences. For starters. W/(m^2 year) is NOT irradiance. The units of irradiance are W/m^2. There is a related unit called radiant exposure which is J/m^2 – this is unit consistent with what you are calling irradiance but radiant exposure and your unit differ by a factor of the number of seconds in a year. You might find the following table highly useful…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance#SI_radiometry_units
Next – enthalpy is related to the total energy in a system – as such it’s units are Joules. There is no universe in which radiant exposure and enthalpy can be the same. Radiant exposure multiplied by the area of exposure has the right units, and that’s probably where you’re heading here, but like I said it’s hard for me to read. For instance, radiant exposure and total energy absorbed have to take in spectrum and spectral albedo. I’m sure you take those into account.
Like I said, I really appreciate the work you’ve done here, so I don’t want to be a jerk. Sorry if I’m coming off that way.
I couldn’t find any “nice work”, it’s buried under far too much nonsense. I think you are being too polite, myself. The author is obviously a Dunning-Kruger charlatan who wouldn’t know his Joules from his Watts if he tripped over them. (Nor does he seem to have any inclination to attempt to defend his baloney, which is not a good look.) To be fair to him, all the other engineers (and lawyers, and fishermen, and “climate scientists”) to whom I’ve tried to teach physics here over the years are in the same boat. None of them bat an eye at throwing fake Watts around like so much confetti. And every time they do, all the physicists in the crowd go “Watts up with that??”
What does it show about Climate Change ? absolutely nothing since you can’t measure Climate Change …
Yes an enthalpy calc has been done before. I’ll try find the source from the screengrab I took a while back. Note the infection point date is different.
Right-click on your graph and select “Search with Google Lens.” Looks like it is originally from:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
Right-click on your graph and select “Search with Google Lens.” Looks like it is originally from:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/