Home/Blog
After working in this field for a few decades one thing that has been crystal-clear is the obvious bias of climate research funding toward anthropogenic effects and away from natural influences on climate.
So this news story about the Nebraska state legislature wanting to fund a (relatively small, $44,000) study of natural climate cycles might seem like a welcome (albeit small) step in the right direction.
The problem is…so far, no Nebraska researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have humans-to-blame as a theme. According to the article,
“For one thing, “cyclical” isn’t a scientific term, said Barbara Mayes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.”
Oh, really? Gee, that’s news to me. Maybe “oscillation” is used more, but “cycles” implies pretty much the same thing to scientists, engineers, and mathematicians alike.
I would guess today’s research funding lopsidedness is currently running at least 100 to 1, humans versus nature. Is that really how the public would like their tax dollars spent?
Here’s the news story:
Omaha.com: State climate change study may [sic] go begging for scientists
NOTE: If you are wondering why I dinged the journalist on grammar, I believe “may” is ambiguous…it could imply ‘permission’ was being sought, rather than what I believe was intended, which was just a ‘possibility’. “Might” would have been a better choice.
Ode to climate modelers-
Yesterday, up in the air
I modeled heat that wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today,
I wish, I wish it came to stay…
When I logged in last night at three,
The GCM heat greeted me.
But when the measurements were called,
I couldn’t see it there at all!
Go away, measurements, no warming’s such a bore!
Go away, measurements, I trust my models more…
Last night I claimed up in the sky,
Great heat that none identified,
It wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish heat came my way…
(adapted from Antigonish, or The Little Man who wasn’t There, an 1899 poem by Hughes Mearns, about a haunted house in Nova Scotia Canada)
not bad. 😉
I remember when conservatives were mocking Nate Silver for his 95% certainty that Obama would beat Romney based on his models.
The climate models will be about right in the long run too.
Well, that proves it! Are you making an actual argument? That is, do you think that the right conclusion from the Nate Silver story is, Models are always right?
Were they climate models?
Silver had an actual bases for his 95% prediction; real scientists understood that, and understand that most AGW models do not. Note too that Silver himself predicted that Romney may win (5% chance)… I say all this as a Black Liberal.
I get lots of research money. – It’s called “Old Age Pension money” and it gives me the opportunity to stay indoors and look at my computer-screen.
-Just like all the best scientists do. – – – – – – – I, just like they, do not venture very far away from my threshold
– its dangerous out there – but even so, I do get hold of all the right answers.
Scientists are so loath to admit things beyond their perception that they actually believe the cat is both alive or dead rather than the obvious either alive or dead because that would imply that they are not omniscient.
Dear Slayer of The Sky Dragon Slayers.
How come you sometimes, but not always of course, stress that IR radiation does not break any laws of thermodynamics, i. e.:
“No laws of thermodynamics are broken, because the net flow of radiation is still from the warmer object to the cooler object, despite the fact that the cooler object (the atmosphere) keeps the warmer object (the ground) warmer than if the atmosphere was not there. That’s the (so-called) greenhouse effect.”
And when are we (us mortals) going to get just one – and only one – explanation of what the “(so-called) greenhouse effect” is?
I know you are doing your darned best to describe it, but for me, as an old engineer (of yesteryears) radiation does never break any laws of thermodynamics. It cannot break them because radiation is an – energy emitted – thing.
Thermodynamics has to do with substances of differing temperatures and always – always – always involve at least three objects, i.e. the floor, the ceiling and the air in between. – To forget the air between is a fatal error.
Radiation however is a “Lone Ranger” who does not obey any laws. Yes, I know we (us humans) have made up some laws that seems to fit our calculations and other purposes, but once “IT” has been radiated “IT” has gone – at the speed of light – you just cannot catch “IT” nor mingle “IT” with the much slower “Conduction”,
The only LAW that I have ever needed to know about is the one that says that all objects which are in thermal contact with each other – and we all are, (here in the Throposphere) will/must seek thermal equilibrium.
Radiation, on the other hand, is emitted – and where it ends up – well, – take your pick
As another grizzled old engineer, I concur.
These dumbos fail to understand that bodies do not emit radiative energy at the rate specified by the S-B equation. Instead, the rate is set by the vector difference of the two Radiation Fields predicted by the S-B equation.
That means the atmospheric IR consisting of many overlapping black body level ghg bands mutually annihilates the same IR bands from the surface or clouds. The only net IR is the 23 W/m^2 in non self-absorbed water vapour bands, increasing rapidly with altitude, a key part of the atmospheric control system, and the 40 W/m^2 emitted in the ‘Atmospheric Window’.
As for clouds ‘warming the surface’, in reality because they are at a higher temperature than the cosmic microwave background, they reduce AW heat loss. They do not emit ‘back radiation’.
So, three cheers for someone else who understand this very simple concept and therefore knows that the Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget based on imaginary ‘back radiation’ is total and complete bunkum exaggerating surface warming by a factor of 3 then offsetting it by equally bad physics elsewhere.
Good to see a few people making sense in this whole debate 😉
Some observations:
– Earth is basically a planet consisting of molten stone, with a core of molten metal,covered with a very thin crust which is barely able to contain all that heat
– Our atmosphere has a heat storage capacity equal to that of ~3 meter of water
– The oceans have a heat storage capacity well over 1000 times that of the atmosphere
– Oceans cover over 70% of Earth’s surface
Considering the above, the atmosphere is not the most obvious place to look for an explanation why Earth’s surface is more than 90K warmer than the Moon’s.
The real GHE of the Earth is ~11 K; it is set by the sum of the warming and cooling processes in the atmosphere.
Warming processes are less AW IR to space from clouds blocking direct radiation, plus the reduction of operational emissivity causing surface temperature to rise to give constant convection plus radiation (the beach wind break effect demonstrates this).
Cooling processes are higher albedo from ice and clouds. These are controlled primarily by biofeedback, hence the 2 K the at the last glacial minimum.
There is virtually zero CO2-AGW. the expected temperature rise for the ‘methane catastrophe’ is well less than 0.1 K because the atmosphere self controls, a remarkably stable control system.
The IPCC ‘consensus’ can only be believed by the ignorant or fools.
The average surface temperature (~290K) of Earth can be simply explained by a combination of geothermal heat and solar warming.
Since a planet without atmosphere and an average surface temperature of 290K would radiate ~400 W/m^2 directly to space, and Earth is losing only ~240 W/m^2 to space, the GHE is the difference between the two. Just slowing the cooling of the surface towards space.
No warming of the surface by a cold atmosphere, backradiation or other “inventions” required.
No it is not. You have got the physics completely wrong.
The Earth receives ~160 W/m^2 SW energy and to that you add ~0.5 W/m^2 geothermal energy. It loses this to the atmosphere and Space by a combination of convection, evapo-transpiration and IR radiation. The latter are what we engineers call coupled.
You can prove this by the beach wind break; reduce convection and temperature rises to increase radiation, never near 400 W/m^2.
The reason for the latter is that Radiation Fields interact vectorially. So, at the surface the 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere down annihilates much of the upwards black body RF, giving 23 W/m^2 absorbed by gigs (non self-absorbed) and 40 W/m^2 to Space via the Atmospheric Window.
You would only get the ~400 W/m^2 from the ‘black body’ if there were no atmosphere.
As you increase CO2 there will be less IR emitted from the surface. In at the absence of any other effect, the surface temperature would increase to shift more heat loss to convection, a zero sum process. However, there is a mother process, active cooling of the lower atmosphere. This makes CO2-AGW new zero.
A paradigm shift is happening in climate alchemy. The Arrhenius idea you use is a dead as the Dodo.
To those who still don’t understand GHE, read this 3-part series on the amazing case of back radiation.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
AlecM 5:04am: “…Radiation Fields (RF) interact vectorially…at the surface the 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere down annihilates much of the upwards black body RF…”
W/m^2 is energy (joules) per sec. per m^2. AlecM doesn’t have the physical science written correctly. To get the physical science correct, AlecM needs to read up on the 1st law which so far has reliably proven out – 1st law provides that energy can neither be created nor annihilated. Billed as a grizzled engineer, AlecM should know the 1st law.
At the GHCN thermometer level there is a bath of radiative energy transfer in part comprising the measured temperature from the sky vectors, from the surface vectors (buildings of various colors and materials, trees, air, pavement of various materials and colors, grass, water, BBQ fire pits, A/C equipment, electrical equipment, passing cars, sand, et.al.) and no energy which is being annihilated.
AlecM provides no definition of ‘backradiation’ put up as a strawman then stabbed, but Dr. Strangelove 6:06pm provides a link that has the meteorologist definition laid out. AlecM has not stabbed that proper meteorologist definition AFAIK.
In answer to Ben and Ball4:
A pyrgeometer or the integrated output of an IR spectrometer measures the Radiation Field in its field of view. This is a potential, not a real energy flux. Therefore the annihilation by the 333 W/m^2 atmospheric RF of the same potential energy flux from the 396 W/m^2 Earth’s surface RF does not conflict with the 1st Law of thermodynamics.
The next stage of the argument is to understand that qdot = – Div Fv is a statement of conservation of energy in the material and EM domains. As for the ghe, this is partially determined by the reduction of the operational emissivity of the surface by that mutual annihilation of RFs. No IR energy flux in the self-absorbed ghg bands, water and CO2, means that the surface therefore the atmosphere warms up a bit, offset by convection and evapotranspiration.
However, there is another process which by a PID control system maintains OLR = SW energy at the surface. The main part of the ghe is determined by cloud and ice albedo, also the 85% reduction of atmospheric window IR heat loss by clouds. There is virtually no effect of CO2 concentration but H2O vapour can vary quite a bit.
In deserts, the T^4 Law for atmospheric window ITR to Space controls temperature.
AlecM 10:58am – Writing “..mutual annihilation of RFs…” is nonsense. A grizzled engineer should know that.
Any physics text shows us 1st law potential energy (PE) is not annihilated either; PE is just as conserved as kinetic energy in the total energy counted in a control volume. Energy can be transformed (e.g. PE to KE, to elastic energy, to friction et. al.), energy cannot be annihilated as you write. So far as experimental science shows us to date.
Ball4: “W/m^2 is energy (joules) per sec. per m^2. AlecM doesn’t have the physical science written correctly.”
AlecM has it exactly correct and it is you that doesn’t quite understand the physics involved (even down to the quantum statistical mechanics) of what is happening. Electromagnetic waves can cancel. The energy you are speaking of is an energy transfer and that transfer has a vector component attached and a phase. If the waves are geometrically opposed and out of phase then yes, the energy transfer destructively interferes and cancels to zero… there are no photons (disturbances in the electromagnetic field at a given frequency and polarization) at all when this happens.
Taking the collective sum (≈10^25) simultaneously of the electromagnetic waves in the 15 micron line and their polarizations into account and the geometric inverse of that exact frequency oppositely oriented vector-wise downward in all hemispheric directions, collectively, you will find that those transfers do in fact cancel to zero in the electromagnetic fields between, there are no ‘photons’ (disturbances in the electromagnetic field at a given frequency and polarization) travelling downward against the gradient.
See the ‘quantum double slit experiment’ but now instead of one source of the energy ending at a sensor or sheet of film (that case will show both positive and negative interference), reflect that same energy backwards upon itself. I know we do not have precise/perfect equipment to ever get the exact re-focusing of such reflection/re-emission perfectly backwards upon itself but Nature has no problem with that example. If that perfection could ever be reached then the energy feeding the source of the energy would feedback into and backwards through the circuits and the flow of electricity feeding the energy would cease to flow. We can never reach such perfection to totally cancel but a short radio tower (1 meter) encased a cylinder of the proper distance and material to destructively interfere backward upon the tower shows the small decrease in the amps being fed to the tower to move the electrons. The field is opposing the electrons flowing up and down the radio tower, draw drops. Photonic destructive interference from one single source of energy and that is what also happens in atmospheres at IR frequencies. Stop listening to most climate “scientists”, they know not what they are talking about.
Now those climate “scientists” bless their hearts, their views mathematically are not incorrect with all of this “backwards” radiation for the two cases do end up mathematically correct at the same figure. 396-333 is 63 and the reality is 63 W/m² upward for an instance but just don’t go “way-far-out-there” thinking that the 333 is 1) real, it is not 2) has some sort of power to do anything, no, it really doesn’t even exist according to modern physics.
Seems it is you that needs to “read up on the physics”, maybe take some more refresher courses.
wayne 2:18am – I am aware of interferometry. You are correct in that photons can be annihilated however their energy cannot be annihilated as AlecM writes. The measured avg. 333 W/m^2 is real, is composed of photonic quanta of energy per sec per m^2 which cannot be created nor annihilated only transformed. The 333 is part of the bath near the surface realizing Tmean for earth at ~288K. Yes, the 2nd law prevents extricating the 333 from the bath to do anything useful. However the lapse rate means it is possible but unprofitable to drive a heat engine, see OTEC.
Too, see the science summary posted by sky at 10/28 5:03pm and the link posted by Dr. Strangelove 10/26 6:06pm for further study that starts with a meteorologist defn. for the 333; if not, see the picture in the top post.
Ball4 says: “You are correct in that photons can be annihilated however their energy cannot be annihilated as AlecM writes.”
Photons ARE energy, Ball4. They are not ‘things’ carrying energy. They are electromagnetic energy wave packets defined by their wavelength/frequency and direction of propagation.
Kristian 6:35am: “(Photons) are not ‘things’ carrying energy.”
Welcome back Kristian. A photon striking the dirt surface of the earth is annihilated however the quanta of energy that photon carried is transformed and lives on in the dirt. Spot the difference in photon annihilation and energy transformation?
Photons ARE energy, Ball4. They are not ‘things’ carrying energy. They are electromagnetic energy wave packets defined by their wavelength/frequency and direction of propagation.
The photons are the EM energy. The EM energy is the photons. They are not two different things.
Regarding ‘back radiation’, no energy needs to be annihilated because no new/extra energy is created. There is just the energy originally coming in from the Sun. If you insist on conjuring up new/extra energy coming down toward the surface, then why shouldn’t we be allowed to annihilate it again before it ever gets that far?
Kristian 9:38am – Still not spotting the difference, eh?
Energy is mass equivalent, both are conserved; photons have no mass (though photons do have momentum) and photons are not conserved. Energy and photons are different. This confusion leads in part to your dilemmas understanding climate. Take the time to get the basic science correct, your climate postings will improve.
Kristian 9:47am: Conjures up a ridiculous strawman then stabs it. I have written energy is neither created nor annihilated. Energy is not conjured up Kristian. You can conjure up photons by turning on a flashlight. Mass w/Tmean .GT. 0K radiates in the iR. Far as your “we” knows, getting mass to 0K is very difficult; a few nanoK can be achieved but that 0.0K is out of range at the moment. Hence every mass “we” know radiates in IR be it gas, liquid, solid.
@AlecM
I’m not following your reasoning. Which of the following statements do you disagree with:
1) a planet with surface temperature ~290K WITHOUT atmosphere radiates ~400 W/m^2 directly to space
2) Earth’s average surface temperature is ~290K
3) Earth loses on average ~240 W/m^2 to space (at the top of the atmosphere)
Not disagreeing with any of these. However, the Earth’s surface with atmosphere radiates ~63 W/m^2 of which 23 is absorbed in the atmosphere, the rest going to Space via the Atmospheric Window.
Of the rest of the ~160.5m^2 incident SW and a bit of geothermal, 97.5 W/m^2 is transferred to the atmosphere by convection and evapo-transpiration.
The reason for this is basic radiative equilibrium physics which is that at an optical heterogeneity, the heat transfer is the negative of the vector sum of the opposing radiation fields.
The problem with Climate Alchemy is that it applies the two-stream approximation radiation transfer model which works in the atmosphere to an optical heterogeneity: you must not do that because it creates a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, the lower atmosphere using its own heat to cause itself to expand.
This is why no professional engineer accepts the IPCC ‘consensus, nor any properly trained physicist. Unfortunately Meteorologists and Climate Alchemists are taught incorrect ‘back radiation’ physics.
Incidentally, this myth arose because clouds cause higher temperature at night and it was thought to be because they radiate energy to the surface. This is not true: because they are a higher sink temperature, the surface radiates less energy (about 85% less) to Space.
Until these basic lessons are learnt, Climate Alchemy is no Science.
If you agree with the 3 statements I made, which are exactly the same as my prior post, then why is my physics completely wrong?
This is important to me, since as stated before, I can simply explain why the surface of Earth is on average ~290K, using solar heating and geothermal HEAT (not flux).
Your physics is wrong because the Earth’s surface in contact with the IR semi-transparent atmosphere cannot emit real IR energy in the same way as it would to the zero point energy of Space at 0 deg K, which is what the S-B equation predicts.
Instead, the principle of conservation of energy, as applied to the interaction of matter and the electromagnetic ether, must prevail.
You get this from standard textbooks on atmospheric physics (Houghton and Sagan got it wrong). I use Goody and Yung ‘Atmospheric Physics’, Ox. Ac. Press.
qdot = – Div Fv where qdot is the monochromatic rate of heat transfer to matter per unit volume, Div is the divergence operator and Fv is the monochromatic radiation flux density per unit volume. This when integrated over all wavelengths and the geometrical constraint at an optical discontinuity gives the difference between two S-B equations.
Thus for the Earth – atmosphere radiative equilibrium, the loss of heat energy from the surface at or just above the local air temperature is given by the integral of the net Radiation Field as a function of wavelength.
You get ~23 W/m^2 in non self absorbed water vapour bands and ~40 W/m^2 in the ‘Atmospheric Window’. The former is absorbed in the local atmosphere and thermalised at aerosols and Space; the latter is thermalised in Space. There is ~zero net ~15 micron IR emission, the main CO2 band. There is also a new bit of physics here, missed by climate alchemy but available from spectroscopy.
Thus the idea that the Earth emits as a black body and 157.5 W/m^2 is absorbed in the atmosphere with 238.5 W/m^2 OLR is completely wrong physics. it exaggerates IR warming by 6.85x. This plus the claim of 33 K ghe, 3x higher than reality, gives the imaginary positive feedback. To get the right temperature in hind casting, the models use double real low level cloud optical depth. In short, they cheat: a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.
Sorry, but what is taught in many of the atmospheric sciences is plain wrong. Professional physicists do not claim incorrect radiation theory
I’ll be more specific: the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface at all, not 33K, not 11K but 0K (zero).
The surface warms the atmosphere, and keeps the atmosphere “in the air”. It takes energy to keep the atmosphere up against gravity. There is a reason why the tropopause near the poles is at ~8 km, and around the equator at 15 km or even higher. The energy the atmosphere “consumes” is the difference between the mentioned 400 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2 actual loss to space, whatever the proces (conduction, evaporation, convection or radiation)
But we DO need an explanation why Earth’s average surface temperature is over 90K higher than the Moon’s average surface temperature, but the answer is NOT the atmosphere.
I think I have that explanation.
Ben Wouters says, October 27, 2013 at 2:59 AM:
“But we DO need an explanation why Earth’s average surface temperature is over 90K higher than the Moon’s average surface temperature, but the answer is NOT the atmosphere.
I think I have that explanation.”
Yes, we do indeed need to explain why Earth’s average surface temp is about 90K higher than the Moon’s average surface temp. The continuous incoming flux of energy from the Sun to the rotating surface of the Earth alone can not possibly account for our 288K mean global surface temperature. The Moon’s surface on average receives and absorbs around 80% more radiative heat from the Sun than the Earth’s surface does.
That is why we need something more. And that ‘more’ is the atmosphere. Its weight on the surface slows down convection and evaporation and hence the rate of heat loss for the surface compared to the rate of heat gain from the Sun, until an equilibrium temperature is reached.
Kristian says:
October 29, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Fascinating. All these years the GHE has been sold as being ~33K, and now measurements are showing that the sun is totally incapable of ever creating the infamous 255K Effective temperature, the atmosphere can just as easily warm the surface 90K. No explanation needed???
Is the Climate sensitivity no also ~3x higher than before?
Ben Wouters says, October 29, 2013 at 5:45 PM:
“No explanation needed???”
Well, you could read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-86915
plus the four succeeding comments.
Kristian says:
October 29, 2013 at 7:25 PM
Do you have a specific date on which the atmosphere switched from warming the surface ~33K to warming the surface well over 90K?
And you insist that the physics are the same whether the warming is ~33K or over 90K?
Not sure why you insist on replying in puerile fashion, Ben.
Where do you see me mentioning any 33K GHE?
Kristian says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:56 AM
“Not sure why you insist on replying in puerile fashion, Ben.” Because the whole idea that the atmosphere is warming the surface is fairy-tale like.
Actually the atmosphere needs to be heated just to stay “in the air”. Less warming from the surface and the atmosphere shrinks. See the tropopause height over the poles versus the equator.
The 33K GHE is used in many peer-reviewed papers.
If now all of a sudden the warming effect is 3 times as large, all climate models should be adjusted, with the climate sensitivity becoming about 3 times as high.
Not going to look very well with the ~20 year flatlining of the surface temperatures.
Ben Wouters says, October 30, 2013 at 4:07 AM:
“Because the whole idea that the atmosphere is warming the surface is fairy-tale like.”
Can you tell me where specifically I state that ‘the atmosphere is warming the surface’? Did you even read the comments I linked to?
Ben Wouters:
“Actually the atmosphere needs to be heated just to stay “in the air”. Less warming from the surface and the atmosphere shrinks. See the tropopause height over the poles versus the equator.”
Yes, and the heavier the atmosphere, the less the same amount of surface heating will manage to lift the tropopause off the ground. Because the upward buoyant acceleration of the surface-heated air will also be less.
Equal atmospheric weight -> more surface heating gives higher tropopause.
Equal surface heating -> less atmospheric weight gives higher tropopause.*
*Relative to the atmospheric mass. Venus’ tropopause is not 92 times higher above the ground than Earth’s, only about 4-5 times. Mars’ tropopause on the other hand is not situated close to that planet’s surface but rather 4 times higher than on Earth:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/EVMlayers.jpg
It’s all to do with their respective atmospheric weights.
“These dumbos fail to understand that bodies do not emit radiative energy at the rate specified by the S-B equation.”
Exactly. Well, not without proper operational emissivities and the difference of two temperatures to the fourth if you ever really know all those correct values simultaneously. Single stream and upward.
Two ‘old’ engineers here and I agree with what you both are saying. Maybe my roots have always been more in engineering “thinking” and not in the physics side of science “thinking”. :-)However, when proper used which cli.sci. does not, then they are the same.
The more I read from you two the more I realize you are the ones to follow. Sometimes I use slightly different words but the core thoughts are identical.
For the interest of all readers I have summarised my understanding of radiation physics:
I am an engineer so think from my practical experience measuring coupled convection and radiation. What Climate Alchemists claim is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, 160 W/m^2 in, 493 W/m^2 out (160 + 333) including the 17 W/m^2 convection and 80 W/m^2 evapo-transpiration.
They then wrongly claim Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation applies at ToA (meaning the atmospheric window emission from surface and cloud tops is supposed to emit bidirectionally from ToA) so reduce that 493 W/m^2 by 238.5 W/m^2 = 254.5 W/m^. Taking off the convection + evapo-transpiration leaves 157.5 W/m^2, the ‘Clear Sky Greenhouse Factor’. This it total bunkum.
You can easily prove Radiation Fields** add vectorially. Just set up two opposing in phase waves of the same amplitude and you get Poynting Vector = power = const. amplitude^2 for each wave. Add them vectorially and you get zero power transferred by the resultant standing wave. If the waves have different amplitude, only the net PV can do work. For thermally incoherent waves of the same amplitude you get net power cycling about zero from -4 const amplitude ^2 to +4 const amplitude ^2. Different amplitude waves have a zero offset, the net average PV.
The correct physics of the conservation of energy in the material and EM worlds is qdot = -Div Fv where qdot is the monochromatic rate of heat transfer per unit volume and Fv is the monochromatic radiation flux density. Integrate this over all wavelengths and for a finite volume in which the original Fv totally disappears, and you get the difference between two S-B equations. So net flux goes from hot to cold. Heat transfer from hot is its negative, which few realise. This means for the atmosphere – surface couple there is no energy creation, a breach of Maxwell’s equations and the Principle of Conservation of Energy.
How much longer do we have to tell these people that they cannot defeat the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?
**The Radiation Field is what you measure with an optical pyrometer. This detects the proportion of vibrationally (IR light) or electronically (visible light) activated sites relative to the black body source used for calibration. It is the potential energy flux from the emitter to a body at absolute zero. The problem with Climate Alchemisrts is that they do not realise that the vibrationally-activated site can transfer energy to the EM world or to an adsorbed molecule, kinetic energy. The mutual annihilation of PVs at the surface by the incoming RF from the atmosphere means less IR emission, more surface energy transferred to molecules. At all times, thermodynamic equilibrium is thermalised SW down = convection + IR up. I repeat: the pyrometer measures temperature not real heat transfer.
AlecM 4:25am: “..Radiation Fields** add vectorially. Just set up two opposing in phase waves of the same amplitude…”
This applies to interferometry. Applications in which light is coherent. Like certain laser light (IR or visible). The sun radiation, terrestrial radiation and sky radiation are all incoherent. They all contribute to the bath near earth’s surface. No fringes are observed in that bath.
“For thermally incoherent waves of the same amplitude…get net power cycling about zero.”
Again, the sun radiation, terrestrial radiation, sky radiation are not made of incoherent waves of the same amplitude. The various amplitudes in the bath near the surface realize Tmean ~288K. If energy (joules) per sec per m^2 of sun, terrestrial and/or sky radiation is changed, the energy (1st law) balance realizing earth’s near surface Tmean ~288K is affected in compliance with 2nd law.
Once again I have to agree with AlecM, when he says “It is the potential energy flux from the emitter to a body at absolute zero.” I am nodding yes. Exactly, it is a potential, not always a flow. The flow depends on the the other local matter about the measurement point and its temperature. As Ball4 was speaking due to the incoherent nature, all frequencies are involved and all polarization, all directional vectors, there is nothing there to measure, you see no interference.
This all has its base in the principle of least action that I tend to adhere to closely in physics. In a way nature does nothing unless it has to.
I have asked before for different peoples views of a hypothetical situation. What if you have a sphere, in the void, full of a gas at a temperature, make it a ghg, so totally insulated and after a millennia has past, that it is then totally equalized. What do you tend to see of the the radiative field within this sphere?
Some see photons shooting in every direction, always at full power, constantly, every polarization, always in a state of either emitting or absorbing photons and always in a state of high energy froth at the ghg lines. Others, like myself, see near total quiet in the IR RF in that sphere, all waves cancel and there is very little fluctuations within and if there are any differences at all (those differences to me are photons) they are in the very far infrared akin to the cosmic background radiation we can measure and these maintain the tiny random local differences from perfect homogenous state, these are of course are only of a rotational nature.
Taking the second example of how to visualize this, the concept of 98+396 upward is of course impossible, there is also no 333 downward. At best there is a potential present in the atmosphere pressing downward on the surface and this potential prevents an equal amount upward from the gray surface, you can see this even if you take a line-by-line viewpoint.
I have set through a few classical statistical mechanics and quantum statistical mechanics courses. The math is tedious but not really too hard once you get the kets, bras and cojugates down but after watching some 300 blackboards of such equations and derivations you get the thrust of current physics. Certain terms within the equations disappear, why? Sometimes because they are so incredibly tiny you can just ignore but ususally because there are equal and opposite terms that appear and they do literally disappear through calcellations of the effect, least action again. Ball4, are you one of those that sees example one above, on the surface it seems so to me?
Please excuse my somewhat lack of the ability to fluidly write.
wayne 2:43pm: “Ball4, are you one of those that sees example one above…”
Here’s what I see reacting to these statements of wayne whilst standing on the shoulders of the Thermo GrandMasters.
“The flow depends on the the other local matter about the measurement point and its temperature.”
No. Maxwell, in Theory of Heat, reported on established theory of exchanges in which a body can radiate to and receive radiation from other bodies. The radiation from each body is emitted regardless of the presence or absence of other bodies. Says so again in Partington’s Fundamental Principles, Properties of Gases, p. 467.
“..there is nothing there to measure..”
No. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. There is something there to measure.
“This all has its base in the principle of least action that I tend to adhere to closely in physics.”
Yes. Good. Basic Hamiltonian mechanics. Very useful. In structural mechanics, applied mechanics, celestial orbits, ballistic trajectories, autopilots et. al.
“What if you have a sphere, in the void, full of a gas…”
Then go here: Observe Fig. 1.3 sketch to “see photons shooting in every direction…”
Read about the physics. Then Fig. 4, Planck function worthy of awe with no less than three fundamental constants.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=craig+bohren+photon+container&source=bl&ots=hS3KAhopQL&sig=OSAOauo-GvQNyHy_MGgAPLt4dSA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nnx0UpHCI9bLsQSN84D4Bg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=craig%20bohren%20photon%20container&f=false
“…there is also no 333 downward.”
Yes there is. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. Earth’s sky radiation incident on the surface comes from a well mixed gas with Tmean > 0K.
“..the concept of 98+396 upward is of course impossible…”
What? Thermals + Evapo-transpiration + terrestrial radiation is impossible? Grass, trees grow & transpirate. Remember for terrestrial radiation: All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. I see birds/gliders use thermals & feel skin evaporation quite regularly. They are not impossible.
I never said that nothing emits, I said opposing emissions geometrically opposed in frequency and phase can cancel. Back to the original question.
—
Photons are bosons as finally nailed down with this experiment at Berkeley:
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/06/24/boson_fermion/
and unlike fermion particles to me boson are not literal ‘particles’ but quantum/quantized waves or wave packets or trains.
—
“Light energy can be cancelled away, by other waves interfering with it …. ”
Also search out the word “cancel”.
“If one wave is an ‘up’ but the other wave is ‘down’ an equal amount, you get a canceling out and the point measures no wave motion at all. (Destructive interference .)”
“When the new two waves meet, there’s interference and this was proof of the wave nature of light and E-M waves.”
University: http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/PhysicalScience/Electromagnetic-radiation.html
—
“Destructive interference: (peaks align with valleys -cancel)”
“Interference was definitive test that light is a wave.”
University: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2170/phys2170_sp09/lectures/Lec12_emwave_blackbody.pdf
—
“Many experiments show that light interferes with itself, …”
“When the blue one is “out of phase”, they interfere destructively and cancel each other out; …”
Waves of e.m. energy originating the same source but in opposing directions always cancel, never interfere constructively in that case.
University: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/light.htm
—
Has much on wave phenomena per quantum mechanics, interference, etc.:
University: http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys214/fa2013/lectures/lecture1.pdf
—
I still say e/m energy, IR included, in proper configurations like equal amplitudes, equal frequencies, equal but opposite orientations cancel in their effect in all essence.
—
I see now how you feel of this subject Ball4, keep telling yourself you are standing on the shoulders of masters for so am I, most but not all on classic physics even including basic quantum effects spell out concepts or visualizations that you seem to adhere to, the equations can be formulated to be identical either way. I have no problem with what you are saying, there are various good souces some with different viewpoints, I have heard all of them umpteen times so probably best to let this discussing lie right here. We are moving way OT.
wayne 4:19am: “I still say e/m energy, IR included, in proper configurations like equal amplitudes, equal frequencies, equal but opposite orientations cancel in their effect in all essence.”
No. What happened to the energy essence the two waves contained? Just “poofed” or in AlecM term annihilated? No, this of course can’t happen. But b/c wayne mentions way OT I will let wayne do the investigation offline. I will give a hint: Click on wayne’s 1st link. Scroll down to “destructive” interference” Click on that and go to that topic. See a red and blue wave cancel to one black wave “From NASA” so it must be right (LOL, /sarc).
My hint for wayne is to look into the momentum vector of the black wave which is still propagating. Will red & blue momentum vectors cancel to 0 in black wave or be equal to the sum momentum contained in the red & blue waves or what (if polarized, angular momentum)? Further reading in fairly modern science:
See Sec. 8.5 p. 16:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/electromagnetic.pdf
and
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-27-11-2468
Ball4. Nimbus 4 data and modtran and others show a transmission above 0.3 through the atmospheric window. Doesn’t this accountable lack of absorptivity severely limit the emissivity of a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium?
Geoff 1:42pm: Your meaning is not clear enough for me to think of an answer. It is better to use steady state for sun/earth/atm. system instead of thermo. equilibrium. Meaning the near surface Tmean ~288K observed balance behavior likely will roughly continue into the reasonably foreseeable future (give or take). Measured emissivity looking up from earth surface varies from ~0.7 in arctic conditions to ~0.95 in the humid tropics. Cite Bohren 2006.
Ball4. Just Google “Nimbus 4 v modtran” the part of the spectrum that runs parallel to 300K is 295K with 0.95 E from the surface. Nothing else within the field is that warm. That is the surface. Visible from space through the atmospheric window. It’s around 0.35 of the total radiance. It is the transmission through cloudless sky.
Geoff 5:44pm – Still don’t get what you are pointing out or after. Nimbus 4 launched 1970 and deorbited 1980; it is not very interesting to me to spend time parsing/understanding such historical records when newer satellite data are available (ERBE, CERES).
Ball4, the atmospheric window between 8.5 and 13um (770 to 1176 cm-1) is significant in limiting the potential emissivity of the cloudless sky. If a medium transmits radiation then it does so because it lacks the physical processes that constitute opacity. The sum of opacity and transmission is 1. Opacity can be reflection, scattering or absorption. So the maximum absorption is (1- transmission). I use the term “thermodynamic equilibrium” because at eqm the link between absorption and emission is intuitive. The band from 8.5 to 13um is alone sufficient at 255K to limit the absorption/emissivity to E0.75 which then limits the radiation that the sky can produce to a maximum at that mean temperature of 180Wm-2 relative to 0K. However, the sky fails to totally absorb across many wavelengths throughout Earth’s emission spectrum. Each band pass indicating a lack of physical process available and limiting the integration of emissive radiations that constitute the total sky emissions. 330Wm-2 is physically impossible and can only be the result of assumptions made within the detector about the physical nature of the emission spectrum of clear sky. Clouds, however have the broad band emission associated with high emissivities of liquids and solids. As you know.
Geoff 8:16am: “The band from 8.5 to 13um is alone sufficient at 255K to limit the absorption/emissivity to E0.75..”
Effective atm. emissivity is shown well above 0.75 in certain conditions at 1013 mb (the surface). See Fig. 4:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Atm. emissivity ~0.95 has been measured in the tropics (Bohren 2006).
I have asked this question a few hundred time, no one has come up with a “credible experiment that proves that the GHGE exists” Maybe I should reward my question: “Where is a clinical study that shows with data that the GHGE exists?”
Most everyone of the “climatologists” concentrate on only one very small portion of the electromagnetic radiation that is delivered to the earth that is IR however it is well known that UV has an effect on O2 and people. UV reacts with O2 to form O3 ,this is an exothermic reaction. This reaction is used every day in laboratories and in industry to form O3 which is a great disinfectant and high energy oxidizer. Even after the inbound UV reacts to form the Ozone layer there is still plenty of UV ( a much higher energy form than IR)to sun burn everyone on earth.
Why are microwave ignored when evaluating what is happening in the atmospheres and in the water in all its forms on earth? Anyone that uses a microwave oven (a credible experiment and application of science)knows that microwave can melt frozen food in a few second to a few minutes then cook the food to 140 degrees F in just a few more minutes. What do microwaves do to heat the oceans and melt the glaciers?
Why do the “climatologists” ignore the fact that O2 and N2 have higher heat retention than CO2? Obviously the heat retention by O2 and N2 will have more effect on earth temperature than CO2 with only 400ppm concentration compared to O2 at 19.6 % (196,0000 ppm) and N2 at 70%(700,0000 ppm)simple understanding of thermodynamic tell anyone with an oz. of intelligence that CO2 can not control atmospheric temperature. Even John Tyndall in 1850-60’s recognized this. Look up the paper “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory”
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
There is an experiment that shows that the GHGE does not exist. Unfortunately Roy Spencer deletes the post with reference to it every time I post it.
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is concentrated in the visible and near infrared. There is comparatively very little in the microwave region. Thus microwaves are not significant in the context of global warming.
Heat ‘retention’, whether by O, N or CO2 has nothing to with it either.
The IR that is relevant is not that “small portion of the electromagnetic radiation that is delivered to the earth”. It is IR radiation emitted FROM the surface of the Earth that is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere (in particular radiation at 15 micron – 95% of this radiation is absorbed over a path length of about one metre). The CO2 then ‘shares’ the energy that it has absorbed with the other gases in the atmosphere, such as oxygen and nitrogen (via molecular collisions). Note that oxygen and nitrogen cannot absorb this radiation themselves. The warmed atmosphere of course emits its own radiation, some of which makes it down to the surface and represents an addition heating flux (i.e. it would not occur except for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).
Don’t read Alan Siddons for God’s sake, or any other Sky Dragon rubbish. It will only confuse you, as it has.
CO2 does absorb its IR in a few m. However, the Earth’s surface emits virtually zero 15 micron IR so there is none to be absorbed in the local atmosphere.
The only net IR emission is in non self-absorbed H2O bands. This however cannot be thermalised in the gas phase; that is forbidden because to do so would disrupt Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.
What happens is that it pseudo-diffuses to heterogeneities at the same or lower thermodynamic temperature. In Tyndall’s case it was the inside surface of the brass tube.
In the case of the atmosphere, it is mostly clouds and Space.
The idea of the Clear Sky Greenhouse Factor =157.5 W/m^2 is total and absolute bunkum invented by people with juvenile minds, defined as clearly unwilling to look at the physics’ textbooks.
In 1993, Will Happer warned of this mistake when he refused to lie for Gore.
Much confusion is created by failure to distinguish properly between physical heat transfer and directional radiation intensity. On climatic scales, there is no heat transfer from atmosphere down to the warmer surface. There is, however, “backradiation” from all atmospheric matter at a temperature above 0 Kelvin, which is heated largely by moist convection, conduction, and terrestrial LWIR absorbed by GHGs. The intensity of backradiation thus cannot exceed the upward flux. The heat transfer is always toward space.
The so-called authorities in this embarrassing story are really piling on the notion of fly over country. I can really only describe the response here as hubris. Perhaps the committee could have worded the proposal better; they ought to have known this sort of response would result. Nevertheless, if these smartalecs are so sure of their position, why not use this opportunity to show there is no rational basis for natural variations in the earth’s climate as a significant cause of climate change.. Chickens!
The blizzard that was coming, come down from the Rocky Mountains to South Dakota. It will be dangerous.
A shame for my home State. I think the good Doctor makes a really good point with this article in that science (search for truth using the scientific method as opposed to divine inpiration)is no longer looking for truth wherever it leads but only seeking to reinforce a pre existing belief. Why would it be bad science to investigate natural cycles?
If there is no evidence of such you have added to truth, why not investigate?
“…”cyclical” isn’t a scientific term, said Barbara Mayes…”
Are these people for real? I was recently in the Library, and
the word was there, in every dictionary, General or Technical,
as a scientific term. Most precisely, a cycle is a rhythm with a fixed frequency.
In a way, though, it is all good. You know that you do not have to engage in an intellectual way with such complete and utter, pathetic, fools.
Re “may” vs. “might.”
I’ll concede the (largely theoretical) ambiguity of the “may” usage above. According to one school of thought, though, “might” is strictly subjunctive and thus grammatically incorrect in that context.
Indicative:
“The study may go begging if scientists fear adverse career consequences.” (Implies that the condition is possible.)
Subjunctive:
“The study might go begging if scientists feared adverse career consequences.” (Implies that the condition is contrary to fact.)
Obviously, the rule is obscure and largely unobserved but in the breach. Still, it was known well enough that The Economist dedicated an article to it some time in the last decade, if memory serves. In any event, its existence serves as an example of why the safer course is usually to avoid criticizing another’s grammar.
By the simplest definition ‘might’ is simply the past tense of ‘may’, although ‘might’ is now increasingly used to express a possibility.
The subjunctive aspect is a new one on me, but very interesting.
However, as you say, criticising someone else’s grammar is somewhat precarious.
I stand corrected.
Since I said “exclusively,” I misstated the rule. As with almost all English verbs, the past indicative and present subjunctive take the same form. (Exception: the past indicative “I was” differs from the present subjunctive “I were.”)
(My fourth-grade teacher, Mrs. Hormel, would be so proud that I remembered this stuff for over half a century.)
If the warmista are right, very soon there will be plenty of scientists emigrated from the scorched southern States to take up all the balmy Nebraska grants.
If not, will see a lot more Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico studies. 😉
So when do we start charging all these people with the crimes their guilty of?
“…so when do we start charging…?”
One for the Court of History, I am afraid.
The original culprits get forgotten. Who now remembers the following monstrous piece of folly from the so-called “father of the computer”?
“As soon as we have(*) sufficiently large computers working the problems of meteorology will be solved. All processes that are stable we shall predict, and all processes that are unstable we shall control.”
J von Neumann, 1950*.
* subliminal text: “give me money for the project!”
Experts can’t predict.
That is not a joke. It is simply a fact, well-known to all practical people of a certain age.
Non-experts can predict a little, provided they don’t spoil their aim by over-thinking the question.
“The problem is…so far, no Nebraska researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have humans-to-blame as a theme. According to the article,”
The statement above should be corrected to read the following:
The problem is…so far, no researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have endorsement of the main-stream science.”
Meanwhile, the National Endowment For The Humanities awarded grants to study “the meaning of life ($25k),” “why are we interested in the past ($25k),” “what is the good life ($25k),” and “why are bad people bad ($24k).”
At the end of the day, it’s the fact that government funds far too much in absolute terms. If there was 1/100th the funding of AGW related research going on would we be better off, or worse? What, exactly, has all this research accomplished other than thwarting economic growth and engaging in overt indoctrination and attempted brainwashing of the citizenry?
“…grants to study…”
Assuming these are genuine…
The answers then are:
“the meaning of life” – there isn’t any.
“why are we interested in the past?” – it is a nice place to live.
“what is the good life?” – the one you can’t have.
“why are bad people bad?” – Somebody forgot to freeze them.
Can I have the 99K in cash pls?
bev,
I don’t frequent Fox News all that often, but I was sipping some coffee this morning and it was noted on one of their shows.. I checked their web portal and here is the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/24/list-neh-grants/
And here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/24/gop-senator-questions-neh-on-oking-grants-to-study-meaning-life/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
It seems the grants are for a different sort of nonsense.
Stil ridiculous. It is, apparently, a “big” task to find essay topics for students now. Hence the money – to develop student-engaging themes. In the day, a school teacher simply said “Two pages on Edmund Burke, by Monday” Or better, “Two pages on Burke and Hare, the body-snatchers.”
Roy (& Nabil)
With a few honourable exceptions
‘Climate’ is to ‘Scientist’ what ‘Witch’ is to ‘Doctor’
Dr. Spencer, I think that due to high solar activity will accelerate the jet stream.
Economics (econometrics)is probably not science, although I would take its methodology over climatology any day. Its full of cycles, business, inventory and others. But, more to the point, there is the field of time series/spectral analysis in statistics, surely a science. After all, there is the ‘Statistical Laboratory’ at Cambridge University! Spectral theory, based on Fourier theory,is dedicated to identifying cycles in time series (cf Scarfetta?). Statistical theory for circular data is also basically about cycles.
Sounds like a dubious excuse to me.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4382879&cid=45252723
Any comment?
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed) has 40 entries under “cyclic” and 9 columns from Cycle to Cyclotron wave. Google Scholar has 2.7 million hits for “cyclic” 0.5 million for “cyclical”. “”cyclical climate” has 97,000 hits under Google scholar.
Earth rotates on its axis, and around the sun, causing “cyclic” variations.
PS Technically, the McGraw-Hill dictionary defines “cyclic” not “cyclical”.
I have received a communication from a relative on the South Coast of England. They had been promised a “blow” over there, which was going to be “worse than the hurricane of 1987” ‘cos
of global warming. In THAT October storm he lost a dozen trees in his garden and half his roof. This time, he says, his hair was a little bit tousled and a plastic pole fell over. He is kind of disappointed, because he was looking forward to it. He asks me what good global warming is if you can’t have a nice disaster or two.
The quote from Barbara Mayes aside, it seems the problem is not that “cyclical” isn’t a scientific term, but just the opposite. If, for instance, scientists determined that a meteor (i.e. an impulse rather than a cyclic event) were going to hit Nebraska the Nebraska Climate Assessment Response Committee would not be chartered to bring that to the attention of the governor or other interested persons under a strict interpretation of the bill. It would seem self-evident that legislating what modes of climate change are relevant to Nebraska is absurd. Sticking one’s head in the topsoil indeed.
For reference, the bill is here: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Final/LB583.pdf and the amendment in question inserted the word “cyclical” in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10.
“…the problem…”
The problem is that $44,000 is too little for a modern careerist scientist to bother with.
“…the Nebraska Climate Assessment Committee would not be chartered..blah, blah..”
Nothing to stop them writing in an unofficial capacity about anything at all, to anybody in Nebraska, or in the whole world for that matter. They would just have to pay for the paper and stamps out of their own pockets.
Senator Haar wrote:
“It is my understanding that the University of Nebraska will not consider bidding on a study with such a limited scope…”
“…will not consider…”
That is the attitude which Dr Spencer is skewering.
Anyway, it is obvious to anyone who has been in politics what went on here. The money is trivial; the idea is to get an “official” endorsement of something.
The U of N wanted to do a bog-standard AGW rant. They got a sponsor in the Legislature to make it look like it would be an objective response to a Government request. Another Senator deliberately scuppered them by putting the word “cyclical” in the Bill.
Result: toys out of pram.
Could I trouble you to ponder over this,
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/training/tutorials/goes_39um/ir_bands.asp
Within this tutorial, we are shown an actual IR emission spectrum of a surface on Earth of around 295K as viewed from space through a cloudless sky. The emissivity 1, black body curve is included, so that with a real ‘Earth’ surface emissivity of ~0.95 we can appreciate the atmospheric window from 7.8um to 13.5um. Where this is close to the 300K plot, that IS the surface we can see there. Nothing else within that field is that warm due to the predominance of the lapse.
Although called an “absorption” spectrum, it is an “emission” spectrum within the field of view if the detector. We can only detect the emissions within the acceptance angle.
Spectral calc tells me that the band radiance from 7.8 to 13.5um is 0.36 of the total radiance from E0.95 300K. And we know that the total Earth emission at eqm has to equal the thermalised short wave (~240 Wm-2). Where is the supposedly dominant atmospheric radiance?
So here is evidence of a significant surface flux passing relatively unhindered through the outgoing atmospheric window with cloudless sky.
Note that this measurement includes a detect acceptance angle by intuition so cannot account for scattered emissions leaving at multiple exit angles. Nor does it account for emissions at entropically reduced wavelengths through multiple processing. They could exist beyond the detector lower sensitivity.
It is also clearly worded in the text that fractional absorption equals fraction emission due to local thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, how can 330Wm-2 downwelling be generated by an atmosphere with demonstrably low band absorption/ emissivity? With no evidence of such an upward flux. 330Wm-2 requires a higher temperature than the surface with blue sky absorption/emissivity (measured average with cloud 0.68, without cloud closer to 0.4).
Note also please the format convention. Wavelength and radiance per unit wavelength. Anyone who believes the Sun emits at 502nm (green in the visible) has chosen THAT convention. Wien distribution then gives the peak radiance in easily accountable manner.
As a point of confusion, MODTRAN and climatology uses wavenumber and radiance per unit wavenumber. This, rather amazingly aligns both the 300K black body radiance and therefore the Earth’s peak radiance with CO2 at 15um (rather than 10um for wavelength accountancy). “So what?”, you may think. Well wavenumber accountancy renders the Sun an infrared star with peak radiance at 882nm (not 502nm).Reducing the apparent dominance of visible light, and rendering the bulk of downwelling shortwave subject to active triatomics! Surely we need to view incoming and outgoing radiation by the same accepted convention?
Geoff wood,
Retract. Quickly. You brought “facts” into a climatological area!
Facts? Warmists don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
What you think you are seeing does not exist. Your nearest Warmist will arrange a reality readjustment for you. Flawed assumptions and poorly written computer programs trump reality.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Geoff Wood is only talking about a small part of the spectrum.
In Peta-Watts per year;
the Sun sends us 174 of which 52 is reflected by the Albedo.
That leaves 122.
For the atmosphere:
Through the top surface: absorbs 34 from sun and radiates 112 to space; net loss to space, 78
Through the bottom surface: absorbs 138 from IR from Earth’s solid/liquid surface (a “sliver”), receives 52 from surface through conduction/latent heat processes, radiates 112 to surface; net radiative gain from surface, 26 and total gain from surface 26 + 52 = 78.
Overall gain/loss – zero.
For the solid/liquid surface:
Through the top surface: absorbs 88 from sun and 112 from atmosphere’s IR, radiates 148 of which 10 escapes to space through “window” and 138 is absorbed by atmosphere through its lower surface, transfers 52 to atmosphere through conduction/latent heat processes; net gain zero.
(Another way of doing it is to say: gain from sun 88,net loss to atmosphere 78, direct loss to space 10.)
Through the bottom surface; usually assumed to be a barrier, therefore nothing.
Overall gain/loss – zero.
If any of these numbers change you will have a temporary imbalance in the budget.
The obvious point is that ALL radiation from the liquid/solid bit of the system is ALREADY as blocked and absorbed in the atmosphere as it ever can be.
“…reflected by the Albedo.”
“reflected by the Albedo phenomenon.”
“…in Peta-Watts per year…”
I mean, of course, simply Peta-Watts, averaged over a year.
Peta-Watts is a measure of power. Using such a measure of power makes it unecessary to get in a muddle about how often “an” energetic photon bounces back and forward.
I think this is among the most vital info for me. And i am happy studying your article. However should statement on some basic issues, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is in reality nice : D. Excellent activity, cheers
Caption for photo ..
‘That missing heat is here somewhere, I just know it!’
always a massive fan of linking to bloggers that I really like but do not get quite a bit of link appreciate from…
Thank you, I have just been searching for information about this subject for ages and yours is the greatest Ive came upon till now. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive in regards to the source?